HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 Issue Paper - Habitat & Wetlands ProtectionISSUE PAPER
MDWErLMDS
ffluiECTION
JUNE 1986
PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY
217 Pine Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 464-7320 or 1- 800 -54 -SOUND
This is one of nine issue papers being prepared by the Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority on subjects that will be addressed in the first Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan. All of the papers will be released by mid -June 1986. These
papers are not the "final word" on the issues. We are using them to start
discussion of these subjects so that we are better able to draft an accurate and
appropriate Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
We invite your comments on this issue paper and others. Please submit them to the
Authority by June 30, 1986. Comments will be helpful if they focus on the accuracy
of the description of the issues discussed and on the feasibility and desirability of
the alternatives described in the paper. Written comments or participation in public
forums in late June are both ways of discussing the issue papers with us.
The papers will not be revised for future publication but will form the basis for
additional work leading to the draft plan, which will be released in early September.
Opportunities to comment on the draft plan will be provided during September and
October. A final plan will be adopted in December 1986.
Thus, while the deadline for comments on the issue papers is June 30, 1986, the
Authority welcomes continued discussion of and comment on the issues themselves
and options to address those issues through the fall.
Following is a complete list of issue papers:
1. Combined Sewer Overflows
2. Comprehensive Monitoring of Puget Sound
3. Industrial Pretreatment
4. Nonpoint Source Pollution
5. Industrial and Municipal Discharges
6. Contaminated Sediments and Dredging
7. Wetlands and Habitat Protection
8. Response to Oil Spills on Puget Sound
9. Public Involvement in Water Quality Policymaking
CONTENTS
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... iii
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
A. Historic Overview ...... 2
B. Geographic Scope ...... 3
C. Organization and Content ...... 3
II. WETLAND DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION ...... 4
III. PUGET SOUND WETLANDS ...... 5
IV. IMPORTANT HABITATS ...... 6
V. TRENDS AND LOSSES ...... 10
A. Nationwide ...... 10
B. Puget Sound Basin ...... 10
C. Case Studies...... 11
VI. NATURAL WETLAND VALUES ...... 18
A. Hydrology ...... 18
B. Water Quality Improvement ...... 21
C. Primary Production ...... 22
D. Fish and Wildlife Habitat...... 23
VII. SOCIOECONOMIC VALUES ...... 23
VIII. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ...... 24
A. Federal Legislation, Regulation, and Policy ...... 24
B. State Legislation, Regulation, and Policy ...... 31
C. Local Government ...... 40
D. Mitigation ...... 41
IX. CONCLUSIONS ...... 49
X. ALTERNATIVES ...... 50
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 62
GLOSSARY...... 64
TABLES Table 1. Portions of Puget Sound Counties Inventoried for Wetlands ...... 6
Table 2. Wetlands In Puget Sound Counties ...... 6
Table 3. Estimated Historical Changes in Natural Habitat of Principal
Estuaries of Washington State ...... 17
Table 4. Summary of Federal, State, and Local Regulatory Jurisdictions ...... 44
i
FIGURES
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Table 5. Examples of Estuarine Wetland Losses in the Late `70s and
Early `80s......46
Table 6. Section 404 Permits Issued, 1978 - 1985......47
Figure 1. Wetlands in the Conterminous U.S. in the Mid- 1970s......8
Figure 2. Net Losses and Gains in Wetlands of the Conterminous U.S.
Between the Mid -`50s and Mid- `70s ...... 9
Figure 3. Rate of Coastal Wetland Loss in the Conterminous U.S ....... 9
Figure 4. Loss of Vegetated Wetlands in the Snohomish Estuary ...... 12
Figure 5. Loss of Wetlands in Commencement Bay ...... 14
Figure 6. Loss of Lake Washington Wetlands...... 16
Figure 7. Relationship Between Wetland Processes and Values ...... 19
Figure 8. Wetland Values in Reducing Flood Peaks and Flow Rates ...... 20
Figure 9. Comparative Primary Productivity of Wetland and Non - Wetland
Ecosystems ...... 22
Figure 10. Some Important Salt Marshes of the Puget Sound Trough ...... 39
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Many wetlands and other habitats of Puget Sound and its tributaries are
critical to a wide variety of recreationally and commercially important species.
Among the most important of these habitats are: feeding habitat for migrating
juvenile salmon and steelhead, especially shallow subtidal areas near the
mouths of streams and rivers entering Puget Sound; herring spawning sites
which are often found in eelgrass beds or other vegetated intertidal or shallow
subtidal areas; smelt spawning sites found high in the intertidal zone on
gravelly beaches at many locations in the Sound; shellfish beds scattered
throughout the Sound; the salt marshes located high in the intertidal zone of
protected gently sloping bays; eelgrass beds in intertidal and subtidal areas
where many species including Dungeness crab find habitat; kelp beds; fresh-
water areas including the many marshes associated with lakes and streams; the
swamps of the river floodplains; and isolated bogs. These habitats (and many
others of Puget Sound) do not function as isolated ecosystems but interact
biologically, physically, and chemically with one another and with upland
habitats. Some of the best examples representing a complex of these habitats
are found in refuges and sanctuaries such as Nisqually and Dungeness wildlife
refuges and the Padilla Bay estuarine sanctuary.
Wetlands of Puget Sound, especially in freshwater areas, have not been
completely inventoried. This limits the ability to make knowledgable decisions
on wetland management. Neither has the specific habitat value or productivity
been assessed for many wetland types. For example, the specific importance of
many swamp areas in flood plains and associated with estuaries is not well
known and will only be determined through research.
Many wetlands perform important functions in addition to providing habitat.
These can include improvement of water quality, flood control, and ground
water exchange. Specific locations and instances where the wetlands are
important in performing these functions have not been well studied for most of
Puget Sound.
Large expanses of tidal estuarine wetlands were diked for agricultural purposes
early in this century. This is particularly evident in the Skagit and Snohomish
estuarine areas but is typical of many smaller estuaries as well. In the
urbanized centers of Tacoma and Seattle most of the estuarine and other
wetlands have been converted to industrial, commercial, or residential uses.
Isolated pockets remain such as Kellog Island in the Duwamish Waterway and
the small marshes of the Hylebos waterway in Tacoma. Data are not available
to even estimate the amount of inland freshwater wetlands that existed 50
years ago compared to today.
Several laws passed in the last 15 years have resulted in programs for
regulation of essentially all estuarine wetlands and some freshwater wetlands.
The rate of loss from conversion of wetlands to other uses has greatly
decreased since implementation of these laws. However, there continues to be
incremental loss of some estuarine wetlands from port industrial development
and to an unquantified extent from small projects such as bulkheading. These
losses, while small compared to early in the century, can represent significant
percentages of some habitat types in given areas. In freshwater wetlands,
iii
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
losses are due primarily to commercial and residential development in both
regulated and non - regulated areas. Although several laws and programs are
pertinent to habitat protection in Puget Sound, none is framed specifically for
managing wetlands and critical habitats. The Shoreline Management Act does
not mandate wetland preservation, the Hydraulic Project Rules are specifically
limited to protection of fish resources, and the Clean Water Act is focused
more specifically on traditional water quality management. In addition, a
significant percentage of wetlands are not covered by state or federal legisla-
tion. As a result, there is not a comprehensive program which provides a
framework for integrated management of Puget Sound habitats and wetlands.
Such a management program could have several important components: the
habitats of the Sound could be systematically inventoried and categorized as to
their relative importance; monitoring of quantitative changes in habitats of the
Sound could be initiated; fragmentation of mitigation policies and objectives
for wetlands and habitats of Puget Sound among different agencies at federal,
state, and local levels could be reduced; objectives for preservation of the
most critical habitats could be developed; and the effectiveness of public
participation in wetland and habitat programs could be improved. A wetland
and habitat management program could be implemented as part of a watershed
approach to nonpoint pollution source management.
From the analysis summarized above, several conclusions have been reached:
1. Large amounts of estuarine wetlands of Puget Sound were lost prior to
existence of current regulatory programs.
2. Some major estuarine wetland losses occurred in the 1970s and early 1980s
from port industrial and marine development.
3. Under current regulatory procedures, large projects involving wetland
impacts will require mitigation to compensate for losses.
4. Incremental wetland losses will continue from small permitted projects.
5. There is no Sound -wide wetland protection program which includes habitat
protection objectives to provide a consistent framework for implementation of
existing regulations.
6. Minor activities which are exempt from regulation may result in significant
long -term cumulative impacts.
7. A significant percentage of inland wetlands of the Puget Sound basin are
not subject to regulation.
8. A Sound -wide inventory of wetlands does not exist, and completed inven-
tories for local areas have not been consistent in their definition or classifica-
tion of wetlands.
9. No attempt has been made to systematically categorize Puget Sound basin
wetlands with respect to their relative values as a basis for development of
wetland protection objectives.
iv
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
10. The rate of loss of wetlands in the Puget Sound basin is not being
monitored.
11. Private organizations and the public could be more effectively involved in
wetland protection programs.
An array of alternatives have been developed to address these conclusions.
Some alternatives are comprehensive and provide the framework to address all
issues, while others would be intended to improve the effectiveness of specific
existing programs. Still other alternatives are oriented toward improving the
information base for habitat management within the existing institutional
framework.
COMPREHENSIVE ALTERNATIVES Options include: undertake a Sound -wide interagency habitat management
program under existing authorities of federal, state, and local agencies; amend
the Shoreline Management Act to require a state/local cooperative comprehen-
sive program; pass new legislation to require development of a comprehensive
program; or provide funding and technical assistance to local governments to
prepare comprehensive programs under consistent guidelines promulgated by the
state.
Alternatives to Increase Effectiveness of Existing Programs
Options include: amend the Shoreline Management Act to expand its geographic
coverage; develop a specific Puget Sound habitat protection policy; develop a
habitat protection policy under the State Environmental Policy Act; expand
state review of Clean Water Act section 404 permits during the water quality
certification process; incorporate the Puget Sound Water Quality Management
Plan into the state Coastal Zone Management Program; increase coordination of
the Hydraulic Project Approval program; publish construction design criteria
showing ways to minimize wetland impacts; actively pursue a program of
wetland easement or aquisition to preserve known critical or particularly rare
or unique sites; increase cooperation with the Corps of Engineers in their
enforcement and surveillance program; increase requirements for permits in
important wetlands subject to discretionary authority under the Clean Water
Act; increase public participation in the implementation of existing programs;
and improve interagency coordination among agencies having separate permit
review responsibilities
Alternatives to Improve the Information Base
Options include: encourage research into the functional values of wetlands;
conduct research on the feasibility of habitat creation and restoration; conduct
a complete inventory and categorization of Puget Sound wetlands; institute a
monitoring program of habitat losses and gains; and improve mechanisms of
information exchange between agencies conducting studies and research.
v
I. INTRODUCTION
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
The Puget Sound Water Quality Planning Act (RCV- 90.70_060) re "quires that
wetlands and habitats be addressed in the water quality plan in two specific
ways. The plan must include:
1. A resource assessment which identifies critically sensitive areas, key
characteristics, and other factors which lead to an understanding of Puget
Sound as an ecosystem.
2. Recommendations on protecting, preserving and, where possible, restoring
wetlands, wildlife habitat, and shellfish beds throughout Puget Sound.
Most of the other plan elements described in RCW 90.70.060 apply to wetlands
and habitats as well as to more traditional parameters of water quality. The
wetlands element of the plan is distinct in that the plan must address wetland
preservation irrespective of the specific relation of wetlands to marine water
quality. However, a major purpose of water quality management is to assure
that organisms living in Puget Sound waters are protected. This extends to the
quality and quantity of wetlands as well as the overlying waters.
The approach to accomplishing these requirements of the planning process is
set out in the preliminary goals approved by the PSWQA. The goals are:
To maintain and enhance the abundance and diversity of plant and animal
life in and around Puget Sound.
To identify, protect, and, where possible, restore the wetlands and marine
and wildlife habitats of Puget Sound.
To promote an awareness that the preservation of Puget Sound has value
beyond direct, short -term human benefits.
The analysis of habitat and wetlands protection in this issue paper addresses
the nature and extent of wetland and habitat losses, the causes and effects of
those losses, and the development of alternative solutions to protect wetlands
and habitats from future impacts. Major elements include:
Identification of important and critical wetlands and habitats.
Analysis of historical trends in habitat and wetland losses.
Review of functional attributes and values of Puget Sound habitats and
wetlands.
Review of laws and regulations affecting wetlands including analysis of
their adequacy.
Identification of alternative solutions to fill gaps or correct deficiencies
in existing programs.
Identification of opportunities to restore wetlands and wildlife habitat.
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
HISTORIC OVERVIEW Wetlands and saturated soils are not only unremunerative, but if the
area is considerable, they prove a source of enervation and disease
to the section in which they exist. Although individuals may neglect
swamplands, or find their reclamation and drainage too expensive,
the State cannot afford to be indifferent to their continuance,
because they check production, limit population, and reduce the
standard of vigor and health Their value, too, when reclaimed, in an
economic view will be greatly enhanced. (President of the American
Public Health Association, 1876).
Wetlands are areas of great natural productivity, hydrological utility,
and environmental diversity, providing natural flood control,
improved water quality, recharge of aquifers, flow stabilization of
streams and rivers, and habitat for fish and wildlife resources.
Wetlands contribute to the productivity of agricultural products and
timber, and provide recreational, scientific, and aesthetic resources
of national interest. This piecemeal alteration and destruction of
wetlands through draining, dredging, filling and other means has had
an adverse cumulative impact on our natural resources and on the
quality of human life. (President Carter, 1977).
The above quotes exemplify the evolution in understanding and appreciation of
wetlands that has occurred over a 100 -year time frame. The results of this
change in attitude have been strongly expressed at the federal level through
legislative amendments and judicial interpretation of existing laws in the early
to mid- 1970s. Prominent examples include the 1977 amendments to the Clean
Water Act which specifically address fish and shellfish habitats and wetlands
adjacent to navigable waters, and Presidential Executive Order 11990 on
Wetlands, their values and need for protection.
More recently, a similar response has occurred in some states. In several cases
this has resulted in specific "wetland protection" laws. Important habitats for
fish, shellfish, and wildlife as well as wetland habitats were identified as
deserving special consideration in the early 1970s when the state of Washing-
ton implemented the Shoreline Management Act. In recent years local govern-
ments have, in some cases, developed special ordinances for evaluation of
permit requests and land use actions in sensitive areas including wetlands and
critical habitats.
In Puget Sound there is no law specifically designed for wetland or habitat
protection. Protection, to the extent it is achieved, is through implementation
of several laws administered by federal, state, and local governments. Each of
these laws applies to a different geographic area and to a different set of
activities resulting in variable levels of protection for important wetlands and
habitats. For example, four or five laws may apply to an action in the
intertidal area of an estuary whereas a similar major development in an inland
wetland may require no approval other than local building permits.
The various laws and their implementing regulations form the framework within
which some important habitats are protected and some are unregulated. In
addition to regulatory issues, technical considerations related to our knowledge
of the extent of wetlands in the Puget Sound region and the functioning of
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
these wetlands is limited. It is also important to consider whether the public
has sufficient information and opportunity to be a participant in wetland and
habitat protection. A number of conclusions have been drawn regarding
habitat protection issues in Puget Sound, and alternative approaches for
addressing these issues are discussed. As such, this paper provides a framework
and point of departure for comment and further broad discussion of the issues
identified.
GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE The Puget Sound Water Quality Planning Act states, "Puget Sound means all
salt waters of the state of Washington inside the international boundary line
between the state of Washington and the province of British Columbia, lying
east of one hundred twenty-three degrees, twenty-four minutes west longitude."
It also states, "The plan shall address all the waters of Puget Sound, the
Strait of Juan de Fuca, and, to the extent that they affect water quality in
Puget Sound, all waters flowing into Puget Sound, and adjacent lands."
The waterward limit of habitats receiving detailed analysis in this paper
includes intertidal and subtidal areas to the lower limit of most algal and
eelgrass growth. While deeper areas are clearly within the scope of the plan,
they are not typically subject to the impacts focused on in this paper. Water
and sediment quality factors which would potentially affect subtidal habitats
are addressed in other issue papers. Water quality impacts on shellfish beds are
discussed in Chapter 7 of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Issue Paper. The
landward limit of detailed analysis includes habitats to the upper limit of tidal
inundation plus wetlands associated with and /or adjacent to tidal waters.
Habitats are discussed which occur upstream to the approximate limit of
saltwater intrusion within the sub - estuaries of Puget Sound. Inland wetlands
throughout the Puget Sound basin are generally assessed, especially where
known conflicts or problems exist since some of the same plant and animal
resources utilize both Puget Sound and inland wetlands as well as upland
habitats. While many of these upland habiatats are recognized as being
important to water related and terrrestial wildlife species, and could be
addressed, discussion of these habitats is beyond the scope of this report.
However, the condition of wetlands occurring in upstream areas can be of
vital importance to Puget Sound resources. Use of such habitats by anadromous
fish is particularly significant.
ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT The following section discusses wetland/habitat definitions and classifications
and reviews the values and attributes of wetlands in general and Puget Sound
wetlands in particular. Also included is an assessment of the trends and
current status of wetlands and an identification of those habitats considered to
be most critical to the resources of Puget Sound.
This is followed by a review of those laws and programs which are most
important in the protection and managing of wetlands in the Puget Sound
Basin. Programs of federal, state, and local governments are considered along
with the interaction and coordination among governments. This section
concludes with a discussion of the efficiency and effectiveness of existing
programs as well as the direction in which they are heading.
3
II. WETLANDS DEFINITION
AND CLASSIFICATION
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
For this paper wetlands include:
habitats where the influence of surface or ground water has resulted
in development of plant or animal communities adapted to such a
aquatic or intermittently wet conditions. Wetlands include tidal
flats, shallow subtidal areas, swamps, marshes, wet meadows, bogs
and similar areas.
This definition encompasses a wide range of habitats consistent with current
interpretations of wetlands by federal and state agencies. Included in addition
to marshes, swamps, and bogs are many habitats which until several years ago
were not generally thought of as wetlands. Among these are intertidal sand
and mud flats, kelp beds, or eelgrass beds, oyster and clam beds, and unvege-
tated riverbanks and lakeshores.
Various wetland classification systems have been used. The most commonly
accepted of these systems is that developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) for use in conducting a nationwide inventory of wetlands (Cowardin et
al., 1979). The major elements of this classification are summarized below to
assist in understanding the data presented in later sections of this paper.
Estuarine wetlands: These consist of all the tidal and shallow
subtidal habitats of Puget Sound as well as adjacent marshes that
are influenced by salt waters. Estuarine wetlands extend upstream in
and adjacent to rivers to the limit of saltwater influence. Estuarine
wetlands may be vegetated such as salt marshes, kelp beds or
eelgrass beds or unvegetated such as sand or mud flats.
Lacustrine wetlands: These are the shallow waters of lakes. The
vegetation consists of aquatic plants with either submerged or
floating leaves.
Palustrine wetlands: These are the freshwater habitats that have
traditionally been recognized as wetlands. They are the marshes, swamps,
bogs, and wet meadows occurring throughout the lowlands of the Puget
Sound Basin.
In addition to those wetland types described above, the Shoreline Management
Act defines as wetlands "...those areas extending landward for 200 feet in all
directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high -water
mark......"
III. PUGET SOUND WETLANDS
A complete inventory of wetlands in the Puget Sound Basin has not been
completed. Available information on the extent of wetlands in western Wash-
ington was synthesized and summarized by Bouleet al. (1983). This summary is
4
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
based on the FWS National Wetland Inventory, the Ecology Coastal Zone Atlas,
and published wetland studies and inventories completed at specific locations.
Wetland inventory data were obtained for variable portions of Puget Sound
counties. For example, data were available for only three percent of Clallam
County, while 100 percent of Island, Kitsap, San Juan, and Skagit counties has
been inventoried (Table 1). Total wetlands identified for all Puget Sound
counties was 166,803 acres with a low of 4,874 acres in Clallam County and a
high of 23,199 acres in Skagit County (Table 2). Of the total wetlands 104,248
acres (63 percent) were estuarine, 45,605 acres (27 percent) were palustrine,
and 16,950 acres (10 percent) were lacustrine. Acreages of wetland types, to
the extent they have been inventoried, are summarized in Table 2.
Estuarine wetlands are found along the shoreline of all Puget Sound counties.
The largest acreages are associated with the large rivers (e.g., the Skagit and
Snohomish) and irregular coastlines having many bays and inlets (e.g., Island
and San Juan counties). Estuarine wetlands are generally over 100 acres in
size.
Palustrine wetlands are associated with lakes, ponds, and streams. The acreages
tend to represent the extent of county inventories rather than the actual
amount of wetlands in the county. Palustrine wetland distribution is related to
occurrence of flat low elevation lands. They are nearly always less than 100
acres in size and frequently less than ten acres.
Lacustrine wetlands are the open water lakes with relatively small amounts of
vegetated wetlands adjacent to them. They are generally over 20 acres in size.
Both Skagit and Pierce counties have relatively large lakes and reservoirs.
IV. IMPORTANT PUGET SOUND
HABITATS
The comparative importance of specific wetlands in Puget Sound has not been
determined. To be credible such categorization would need to be based on a
carefully developed set of criteria which relate to the functional value of
individual wetlands. Presented here is a generic list of wetlands and habitat
areas which have generally been considered to be among the most important in
Puget Sound as habitat for fish and wildlife resources. These areas are being
mapped during preparation of the Puget Sound Atlas by the PSWQA, the
Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The listing assists in illustrating the diversity of Puget Sound wetlands
recognized as having high value.
a. Juvenile Salmonid Habitat. Many Puget Sound intertidal areas are
considered critical to the life history of salmonids especially as habitat
for juveniles. They provide foraging areas, relatively safe migratory
routes, rearing areas, and refuge from predators. They are also the
habitats used during the critical transition from a fresh to salt water
existence. The most important of these habitats are in the shallow areas
of the lower reaches of rivers and the intertidal shorelines near river and
stream mouths.
5
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
TABLE 1: PORTIONS OF PUGET SOUND COUNTIES INVENTORIED FOR
WETLANDS*
*Data from Boulb et al. (1983)
TABLE 2: WETLANDS IN PUGET SOUND COUNTIES **
Percent of
Total County
County
Coun
Area (Acres)
Inventoried
Clallam
1,121,600
3%
Island
135,400
100%
Jefferson
1,555,300
- ----30%
King
1,363,800
47%
Kitsap
251,300
100%
Mason
615,900
27%
Pierce
1,072,600
48%
San Juan
114,800
100%
Skagit
1,110,100
100%
Snohomish
1,342,800
43%
Thurston
456,900
31%
Whatcom*
1,360,800
25%
TOTALS
10,501,300
54.5%
*Data from Boulb et al. (1983)
TABLE 2: WETLANDS IN PUGET SOUND COUNTIES **
Total
County
Estuarine
Lacustrine
Palustrine
Wetlands
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
(acres)
Clallam
4,667
0
207
4,874
Island
15,607
86
2,026
17,719
Jefferson
9,541
- 411
- 1,851
-- 11,803
King
5,856
1,716
11,685
19,257
Kitsap
13,614
1,154
2,971
17,739
Mason
5,392
1,075
'1,630
9,097
Pierce
6,497
2,903
4,777
14,177
San Juan
6,655
112
807
7,574
Skagit
12,080
6,343
4,776
23,199
Snohomish
13,855
141
6,116
20,112
Thurston
4,077
1,236
1,191
6,504
Whatcom
5.407
1,773
7,568
14,748
TOTAL 104,248 16,950 45,605 166,803
* *Data from Boule et al. (1983).
6
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
b. Herring spawning beds. Herring usually spawn in intertidal and shallow
subtidal areas. Particularly important are eelgrass and some algal beds.
Many areas along the Strait of Georgia, Padilla Bay, Fidalgo Bay, and
elsewhere have been identified as particularly important to herring
spawning. The Washington Department of Fisheries has mapped most of
the important spawning areas in Puget Sound and has defined these areas
in their Hydraulic Project Approval Rules(WAC 220 -110)
c. Surf Smelt Spawning Beds. Surf smelt spawning occurs high in the
intertidal zone in many areas throughout Puget Sound. These important
habitats have been defined in the WDF Hydraulic Project Approval Rules
(WAC 220 -110)
d. Salt Marshes. Salt marshes occur in the high intertidal zones espe-
cially in areas of sediment build -up near the mouths of rivers and at the
end of shallow protected bays. These have always been considered among
the most important wetland types due to their high productivity and other
attributes. The DNR has identified 19 of the most pristine salt marshes in
Puget Sound as part of the Natural Heritage Program.
e. Eelgrass Beds. Eelgrass beds provide habitat for extremely diverse
plant and animal communities including such species as Dungeness crab.
They are also considered to be highly productive communities. Maps have
not been published to show locations of all Puget Sound eelgrass beds.
f. Kelp Beds. Kelp beds are referred to as the forests of the sea. The
floating leaves, the stipes, and the holdfasts each contribute to providing
a layered system of habitats attractive to a very wide variety of fish and
invertebrate species. These are also very productive communities.
g. Rocky Intertidal Areas. The rocky intertidal areas typified by the San
Juan islands but also occurring in southern and central Puget Sound are
very diverse and productive habitats. They are dominated by a wide
variety of algal and invertebrate species.
h. Bird Habitats. Many intertidal areas and shallow bays provide critical
habitat for shorebirds, waterfowl, and wading birds. The Washington
Department of Game (WDG) has documented many of these areas.
L Endangered Species Habitat. Wetlands of various types provide
important habitat to rare, endangered, and threatened species. Many of
these areas are documented in WDG files, but the potential importance of
many areas is not known.
j. Marine Mammal Habitat. Marine mammal haul -out areas, especially in
southern and north Sound areas, are particularly important.
k. Refuges and Sanctuaries. Several complex wetland systems having
particular value have been set aside as refuges or sanctuaries. These
include the Nisqually and Dungeness wildlife refuges, the Padilla Bay
estuarine sanctuary, portions of the Skagit delta and tide flats and
7
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
several other areas. Several large wetlands were identified as particularly
important in a study of the Snohomish Delta (Corps of Engineers, 1979).
1. Bogs. Bogs are particularly important due to their uniqueness and the
habitat they provide for unusual species. They are also irreplaceable. Bogs
have been identified by King County as among the most important of the
county's wetlands.
m. Swamps. Freshwater swamps have also been identified as important
because they are unique and irreplaceable.
The brief descriptions above represent some of those wetlands known to be
important in the Sound; however, virtually any wetland may have very high
value in a given situation. Many, if not most, wetlands of Puget Sound Basin,
especially in inland freshwater areas, have not been specifically evaluated.
ESTUARINE INTERTIDAL FLATS
ESTUARINE EMERGENT WETLANDS
ESTUARINE FORESTED AND
SCRUB —SHRUB WETLANDS
PALUSTRINE EMERGENT WETLANDS
PALUSTRINE SCRUB —
SHRUB WETLANDS
PALUSTRINE FORESTED WETLANDS
OTHER PALUSTRINE WETLANDS
MILLIONS OF ACRES
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Figure 1. Wetlands in the conterminous U.S. in the mid 1970s
Source: Tiner, 1984
8
+3
+2
+1
-0.5
N -1
W
Q
U
Q
LL
O
N -2
Z
O
J
J_
-3
-4
-5
-6
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
WETLANDS GAINS
.- VW�0&0
LEGEND
® PALUSTRINE OPEN WATER
■ PALUSTRINE FLAT
ESTUARINE WETLAND
PALUSTRINE EMERGENT WETLAND
PALUSTRINE SCRUB —SHRUB WETLAND
PALUSTRINE FORESTED WETLAND
Figure 2. Net losses and gains in wetlands of the conterminous
U.S. between the mid 1950s and mid 1970s
Source: Tiner, 1984
9
10
N
W
Q
V
Q
LL
O
CO)
2
O
J
J
a
COASTAL WETLAND LOSS IN U.S.
✓yr.
1922 1964 1974
YEARS
Figure 3. Rate of coastal wetland loss in the conterminous U.S.
Source: Tiner. 1984
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
V. TRENDS AND LOSSES
NATIONWIDE Tiner (1984) has summarized the status and trends of wetlands in the United
States. Within the conterminous 48 states an estimated 99 million acres of
wetlands existed in the mid- 1970s. This is an area equal to five percent of the
land surface, about the area of California, which compares to an estimated
original acreage of 215 million at the time of settlement (Roe and Ayres,
1954). Mid -1970s abundance by wetland type is shown in Figure 1, which
indicates that over 90 percent of the wetlands are palustrine and about five
percent are estuarine.
Nationwide gains and losses of wetlands from the mid -1950s to the mid -1970s
are shown in Figure 2. The gains were largely in open water, manmade lakes
and reservoirs, and ponds. The largest losses were in palustrine wetlands
(about 11 million acres); however, loss of over 300,000 acres of relatively rare
estuarine wetlands represents a significant loss. For example, the National
Marine Fisheries Service has estimated annual fisheries losses of $208 million
due to loss of estuarine marshes between 1954 and 1978. Nonetheless, estuarine
wetlands are still sought for development of port facilities, residential and
industrial sites, and resorts. The rate of estuarine loss is shown in Figure 3.
Overall, wetland losses in the U.S. between the mid -1950s and mid -1970s are
due to agriculture (87 percent), urban development (eight percent), and other
development (five percent).
PUGET SOUND BASIN In the Puget Sound basin, estuarine wetlands are primarily associated with
(1) the narrow band of intertidal land associated with the steep shorelines of
the many islands and channels, (2) river mouths where extensive intertidal
lands have formed, and (3) the tidally influenced low -lying floodplains adjacent
to the Sound's tributaries. Freshwater inland and isolated wetlands are also
common. Many are forested or shrub swamps in saturated (not inundated) soil,
and often are not recognized as wetlands by untrained observers. The most
well known of inland wetlands, however, are those found on the shores of the
innumerable lakes and streams of the Puget Sound basin]
Just as the types of wetland ecosystems in the region vary, the development
pressures also vary. In much of the Puget Sound region, early development of
estuarine wetlands was oriented toward creating agricultural lands. The rich
peaty soils were often the only flat ground available for tilling. In addition,
wetlands lacked the rocks and clay of adjacent upland areas. Furthermore,
their close proximity to waterways, the major travel corridors of the time,
made them prime areas for development. Early construction of dikes and
drainage ditches created vast acreages of farmland from the marshes and
swamps of the numerous estuaries. In much of the Puget Sound region, this
agricultural activity continues today.
In a few areas, early industrial and port development precluded major agricul-
tural activities. In Seattle and Tacoma, areas near river mouths were dredged
to provide navigation channels and filled to create locations for wharves,
warehouses, and industries. In these areas, early agriculture was established
farther upriver but still close to the urban centers which spawned the
industrial activities.
10
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
In contrast to tidal wetlands, lake shore wetlands of western Washington have
been developed almost exclusively for residential purposes. Initially, these were
summer homes, but, with urban growth, many of the lakes have been incorpor-
ated into nearby cities. As incorporation occurred summer home development
expanded to lakes further from urban centers. Residential development may
include: bulkhead construction and filling to establish a yard; clearing access;
or simply continual mowing to create a lawn. In each case the alterations may
be minor, but the cumulative effect is elimination of wetlands along most, if
not all, of the lake shore.
CASE STUDIES Case studies conducted for Ecology (Boulbet al., 1983) illustrate the mechanism
of wetland loss due to agriculture, industrial /commercial development, and
residential development. The first of these, the Snohomish Estuary, represents
an area in transition; the second, Commencement Bay, represents a heavily
developed area; and the third, Lake Washington, illustrates the process by
which inland freshwater wetlands are lost.
Snohomish Estuary The Snohomish is the third largest river entering the Puget Sound region
(behind the Fraser River in British Columbia and the Skagit River). The
estuary is located about 35 miles north of Seattle and consists of four
channels (or sloughs) separating six major islands. The city of Everett, at the
river's mouth, is the northern limit of western Washington's major urban area,
which includes Seattle, Tacoma, and Olympia to the south.
The 10,000 -acre estuarine system is a classic example of the agriculture -
dominated scenario discussed previously. Earliest settlement began around 1880
with the diking of small portions of wetlands on several islands. During the
next 60 years, diking activities slowly converted most of five islands -- almost
9,000 acres of wetlands- -into farmland. As is apparent from Figure 4, almost
all wetland conversion prior to World War II can be attributed to agricultural
expansion.
Prior to World War II the mills and port facilities at Everett were limited
mostly to upland areas where piers could be extended out to deep water.
Industrial and port expansion began just before the war and continues to the
present time. Much of this expansion has entailed the filling of intertidal flats
and marshes to provide the space required by modern manufacturing and
shipping facilities. Furthermore, as a result of the development of large -scale
earth - moving machinery, fill became much more cost - effective than piers and
piling as a means of constructing near -shore foundations. Figure 4 shows the
wetland loss associated with this slow but steady expansion of industrial
activity since 1940. Although the area involved is much smaller than that used
previously for agriculture, two aspects of the industrial development of
wetlands have major impacts. First, filling is a much more permanent elimina-
tion of wetland habitat; diking impacts can be readily reversed by breaching
the dike. Second, the result of industrial development was the filling of some
of the last wetlands of the estuary. Remaining wetlands adjacent to industrial
developments would also be affected by human disturbance and loss of buffer
zones.
11
100
CO
z 8000
a
J
H
W
LL
O 6000
Co
W
cc
U
Q
4000
2000
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
SNOHOMISH ESTUARY
Lnds
Industrial _ _ - - --
i880 1900 1920 1940 1960 I 1980
YEAR
Figure 4. Loss of vegetated wetlands in the Snohomish Estuary
Source: Boule at al., 1983
12
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Since about 1965 there has been a slow, steady filling of wetlands on one
island in the estuary with urban waste. The site was closed about 1979 after
almost 200 acres had been filled. This was the major fill activity within the
estuary at that time. During the same period, most industrial activities and the
associated fills occurred on the Everett waterfront and the shores of Port
Gardner. These fills included over 200 acres of unvegetated flats and a few
small vegetated wetland areas. Other than the solid waste disposal site,
wetland fill activities within the estuary between 1970 and 1980 were generally
small in scale, scattered, and infrequent. Less than 70 acres of vegetated
wetlands within the estuary were filled during the decade; two woodwaste and
dredge material disposal sites account for almost 50 acres.
One other interesting phenomenon is apparent in Figure 4. Wetland area
actually increased in the Snohomish estuary between 1947 and 1970. This was
caused by the breaching of several dikes during floods; the dikes were not
repaired. As a result, agricultural lands reverted to wetland habitats. This
suggests that agricultural use of the land at that time was not sufficiently
productive, economically, to justify repairing the dikes. This occurred at the
same time that industrial activities were beginning to fill other wetland areas.
Most of the wetland losses in the Snohomish area can be attributed to early
agricultural development in the region. The tidal freshwater conditions of the
region's estuaries meant that there were no concentrations of salt in the soils;
thus, diking and draining converted wetlands to farmlands. At the time, of
course, there were no regulations to limit development of wetland areas.
Furthermore, there was a strong ethic throughout the country to control and
develop the land. Clearly, the conversion of wetlands (wastelands) to produc-
tive agricultural lands fulfilled that ethic.
Commencement Bay The estuary at the mouth of the Puyallup River provides an example of early
industrial development in Puget Sound tidal wetlands. The Port of Tacoma on
Commencement Bay, like the Port of Seattle 30 miles to the north, developed
as a commercial center soon after settlement began. The deep waters of the
bay immediately adjacent to broad expanses of unvegetated tidal flats and
vegetated wetlands represented prime conditions for port facilities.
Pierce County, including the city of Tacoma, had a population of about 3,300
in 1880. The transcontinental railroad was completed to Tacoma in 1887; by
1890 the county population was over 50,000. Completion of the railroad to
Tacoma was a major impetus for the growth of the Port of Tacoma. Lumber,
coke, and fish were major commodities for export. Construction of a copper
smelter on the shore of Commencement Bay in the early 20th century was a
precursor of the numerous chemical processing plants present at the port
today. By World War I Tacoma was a major industrial community in western
Washington with a substantial port facility.
Waterways were dredged through the flats and marshes, and the dredged
material was discharged onto adjacent wetland areas, creating both protected
moorages and abundant flat upland areas from vegetated and unvegetated
wetlands. Dredge and fill activities began at the river mouth and expanded
upriver as more facilities were developed. Figure 5 shows the continual
13
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
COMMENCEMENT BAY
400
Vegetated
Wetlands
3000
0
z
Q
J
W
LL
O
U 20
W
Cr
U
Q
Dredged
Filled Wetlands
�"- Wetlands
Dredged Intertidal Flats
1000
Filled Intertidal Flats
Unvegetated
Intertidal
Flats
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1
YEAR
Figure 5. Loss of wetlands in Commencement Bay
Source: Boule et al., 1983
14
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
conversion of unvegetated flats and vegetated wetlands to port facilities from
1880 to the present. Of about 1,700 acres of intertidal flats in 1880, 1,500 had
been dredged or filled by 1920. Between 1880 and 1940, about 1,900 acres of
vegetated wetlands were filled. By 1980 only 216 acres of wetlands existed in
the estuary; 95 acres of these were isolated depressions in fill material which
were maintained by upland runoff and 97 acres were unvegetated flats. Only 14
of the original 1,900 acres of marsh in the estuary remain today.
Lake Washington Forming the eastern boundary of the city of Seattle, the 35- square mile Lake
Washington is the largest lake in the state. Urban development, primarily
residential, completely surrounds the lake, with only a few enclaves of park or
undeveloped land remaining. The recent history of urban development around
the lake parallels that of many lakes in western Washington.
Early non - Indian settlement of the lake began with homesteads and small farms
all along the shore. Often marshes and swamps were converted to orchards or
other agriculture. Coal mining in areas to the south and east in the 1870s led
to hopes for factories and industrial activities around the lake. Before this
could occur, the era of coal -fired boilers ended and with it the dreams for
industrial development. Establishment of regular ferry service across the lake
by 1913 was the impetus for urbanization of the eastern shore.
Approximately 2,300 acres of wetlands are depicted on a 1902 map of the lake.
In 1916 the lake was lowered approximately eight feet as part of a major
public works project which connected the lake to Puget Sound via the
Chittenden Locks. A 1936 map indicates there were about 1,400 acres of
wetlands around the lake, concentrated in about ten major areas. Since 1936
about 500 acres have been filled, primarily for urban residential or commercial
activities. Figure 6 shows the decline in wetlands around the lake since 1916.
While early development of wetland areas on the lake involved complete use of
the land, recent developments have been more limited. Since implementation of
the Shoreline Management Act, most development activities have included
permanent preservation of a portion of the wetlands.
A leading researcher of Pacific Northwest wetlands commented on the overall
loss of Puget Sound marshes in 1977:
While the outer Pacific Northwest coast represents a continuing, but
endangered, stronghold of marshlands, the marshes of the Puget
Sound and associated waterways have all but vanished. Originally,
expanses of saline wetlands covered extensive tracts at the deltas of
the major rivers: the Nisqually, the Skagit, the Snohomish, the
Puyallup, and the Nooksack. The Puget marsh scape has been
replaced today by pasture and housing development, by lumber mill
and sewage lagoon. The attractiveness of marsh for these land uses
is because it is level, easily manipulated and in an area of climatic
moderation (Frenkel 1977).
While this may overstate the loss with respect to the total system of Puget
Sound wetlands, it illustrates the trend that has been ongoing for many years.
15
V)
in
z
J
H
W
3
LL
O
w
m
U
Q
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
21000
18000
15000
r
0
m
1
0
2,
r
a�
m
r
0
fD
LAKE WASHINGTON
12000
Wetlands
9000
6000
Protected
3000 �—
Diked and Agriculture
1880 1900 1920 1940
YEAR
Figure 6. Loss of Lake Washington wetlands
Source: Boule et al., 1983
16
1960 1980
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Bortelson et al. (1980) have prepared maps and data which indicate the overall
changes in habitat for several Puget Sound estuaries (Table 3). These data
clearly illustrate the major losses in some areas during a time frame which
parallels an apparent decline in abundance of estuarine- dependent resources.
These resources include anadromous fish, some shellfish species, waterfowl,
shorebirds, marine mammals in the central Sound, and other wildlife. The
specific importance of these habitats to salmon for feeding, migration, and
refuge is detailed by Simenstad et al. (1982), and their importance to an
extremely wide variety of species has been clearly documented (examples of
summary documents include Simenstad et al., 1983; Seliskar and Gallagher, 1983;
and Phillips, 1984). While losses cannot be quantified and cause /effect relation-
ships are not easily proven, it is axiomatic that availability of sufficient high
quality habitat for all life stages is of paramount importance in maintaining
resource abundance.
TABLE 3: ESTIMATED HISTORICAL CHANGES IN NATURAL HABITAT OF
PRINCIPAL ESTUARIES OF WASHINGTON STATE*
Estimated (k2) subaerial wetland
Historical Present % Change
Nooksack
4.5
4.6
+0.2
Lummi
5.8
0.3
-89.7
Samish
11.0
0.4
-96.4
Skagit
29.0
12.0
-58.6
Stillaguamish
10.0
3.6
-64.0
Snohomish
39.0
10.0
-74.4
Duwamish
2.6
0.1
-99.2
Puyallup
10.0
0
100.0
Nisqually
5.7
4.1
-28.1
Skokomish
2.1
1.4
-33.3
Dungeness
0.5
0.5
0
*Data from Bortleson et al. (1980).
In addition to direct habitat loss, the absence of the broad expanses of flood
plain wetlands which previously existed along many major Puget Sound tribu-
taries has eliminated or impaired other wetland functions. Among the most
important of these are flood protection, recreational and aesthetic enjoyment,
and water quality improvement. Artificial and structural solutions have been
necessary to compensate for these lost functions.
17
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
VI. NATURAL WETLAND VALUES
A wide range of natural values has been attributed to wetlands and, in fact,
the highest quality wetlands often serve several valuable functions. These
values have been cited in federal, state, and local policies and regulations and
have been investigated by researchers to a greater or lesser degree depending
on the function. In recent years special methodologies have been developed to
attempt to determine the absolute or relative importance of individual wetlands
based on analysis of a broad range of wetland functions. The methodology
receiving most attention at this time is that developed by Adamas for the U.S.
Department of Transportation in 1983. This methodology is currently being
tested nationwide and regionally for its appropriateness, utility, and replicabil-
ity. The method has not been applied to wetlands of the Puget Sound basin.
During the time period in this century when the nation's understanding of
wetlands was changing, the most important value attributed to wetlands was
waterfowl habitat (Shaw and Fredine, 1956). Shortly thereafter, research,
primarily on East Coast salt marshes, showed that wetlands often exhibited
extremely high primary productivity and that a large portion of the production
was available for export to adjacent open -water ecosystems. This expanded the
perception of important wetland values to include their high primary produc-
tion and contribution to fish and wildlife support through the food chain.
Eventually, in the late `60s and early `70s, the potential value of wetlands for
water quality improvement, flood control, and other uses was recognized. The
first agency codification of the broad range of wetland values was by the
Corps of Engineers in its rules for implementing Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
While the number of recognized potential wetland values eventually increased
to ten or 15 items, wetlands importance for fish and wildlife habitat and their
high primary production must be considered as the preeminent values. The
diversity of types of wetlands which provide important habitat is reflected in
the previous discussion of important Puget Sound habitats.
A thorough discussion of the basis for each potential wetland value would be
voluminous and could not be included in this paper, but the attributes typically
considered important are listed with a definition and brief discussion. Figure 7
provides a graphic illustration of several of these attributes.
HYDROLOGY
Ground Water Recharge Only minimal information exists on water exchange relationships of wetlands,
and Discharge and the evidence is contradictory. Extensive literature reviews (Carter et al.,
1978; Adamas and Stockwell, 1983) have concluded that wetlands do not have
any inherent characteristics which would make them important for rechargeing
ground water. Wetlands are more likely to be ground water discharge areas.
They may augment low flows in streams or be important to municipal water
supplies. Such a role has been postulated for the wetlands of Whidbey Island.
18
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Periodic inundation Wetland processes Ecological services
Food and habitat
NEW Food chain support
Floodpeak reduction
Groundwater recharge
ater quality improvement
Shoreline erosion control
Figure 7 Relationship between wetland processes and values
Source: OTA, 1984
Flood Control The ability of wetlands to store and convey floodwater is primarily a function
of their topography. Many isolated freshwater and river wetlands are topo-
graphic depressions that retain runoff flowing into them, at least until they
are full. Also, during flooding, the river overflows its banks and spreads
laterally across the flood plain, increasing its cross - sectional area and convey-
ance capacity. By temporarily storing stormwater and providing capacity to
convey floodwater, wetlands can reduce flood peaks and the frequency of
flooding in downstream areas. Vegetation in flood plain wetlands further
reduces the velocity of the river, thereby reducing potential flood peaks in
downstream areas and riverbank erosion. If the soil in a wetland is unsatura-
ted, the soil itself will provide some storage capacity during periods of
flooding (Office of Technology Assessment, 1984).
19
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Figure 8. Wetland values in reducing flood peaks and flow rates
Source: Kusler, 1983
This phenomenon is illustrated by Figure 8. Clearly, wetlands most important
for flood control are those associated with river flood plains of the Puget
Sound basin. The wetlands of the Snohomish Delta have been specifically
identified as important in flood control (Kranz and Boulk 1985).
SHORELINE ANCHORING A number of authors have reviewed the literature on the relation of wetlands
AND EROSION CONTROL to shoreline erosion control. The summary provided here is from the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA, 1984).
Shoreline erosion is a natural process caused by river currents during flooding,
tidal currents in the coastal areas, and wind- generated waves along the shores
of large lakes, broad estuaries, and ocean - facing barrier islands. Boat wakes
also can cause considerable shoreline damage.
Four characteristics of vegetated wetlands are responsible for reducing erosion:
(1) the low - gradient shore that absorbs and dissipates wave energy; (2) the
20
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
dampening and absorption of wave energy by the plants themselves; (3) the
root structure and peat development in wetlands that bind and stabilize the
shore; and (4) the deposition of suspended sediment that is encouraged by
dense growth of wetland plants.
Vegetated freshwater or saltwater wetlands located adjacent to open but
usually sheltered bodies of water significantly reduce shoreline erosion caused
by large waves generated by occasional storms and boat traffic. Wetlands
adjacent to rivers may also reduce riverbank erosion caused by strong currents
during major flooding. Although it generally is agreed that wetland vegetation
does not naturally establish itself in areas having high waves where the
potential for erosion is greatest, wetland plants, once established, do help to
control erosion, stabilize the soil, encourage deposition of sediments, and
dampen wave energy. Isolated wetlands not associated with larger bodies of
water will not have significant value for erosion control.
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT Wetlands can serve to improve the quality of water passing through them in
several ways. These include the trapping of suspended sediments, removal of
toxic substances often attached to fine sediment particles, removal of nutri-
ents, and removal of pathogens.
Dissolved nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorous) may be taken up directly
by plants during the growing season and by chemical absorption and precipita-
tion at the wetland soil surface. Organic and inorganic suspended material also
tends to settle out and is trapped in the wetland. Some pollutants associated
with this trapped material may be converted by biochemical processes to less
harmful forms; some may remain buried. Others may be taken up by the plants
growing in the wetland and either recycled or transported from it.
While wetlands may, under natural circumstances, retain nutrients on a net
annual basis, the value of a particular wetland for water quality improvement
depends on the effect of the nutrient storage on an adjacent or connected
body of water. However, even if a wetland does not retain large amounts of
nutrients on a net annual basis, it may influence the timing of nutrient inputs
into adjacent waters. By retaining nutrients during the growing season, for
instance, and releasing them after the growing season, wetlands may have a
positive influence on water quality. Freshwater wetlands have been used
successfully for secondary treatment of sewage effluents.
The accumulation of toxic chemicals, such as heavy metals and petroleum and
chlorinated hydrocarbons, by wetlands may be only temporary (from days to
years). On the other hand, some toxic chemicals have accumulated in many
wetlands over a much longer time. This will serve to remove potentially toxic
substances from the waters flowing through or over the wetlands, so those
toxicants are stored in the plants and sediments of the wetlands. Remobiliza-
tion of toxicants can occur if they are ingested by snails, worms, or other
organisms. The toxicity may be deleterious to the organisms ingesting them,
or they may be stored in the tissues of these organisms and later ingested by
fish, birds, or mammals, including humans. Thus, while trapping of toxicants
within wetlands may reduce the amounts of these materials which enter
adjacent water bodies, potential for effects through aquatic and terrestial food
21
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
webs exists. Little quantitative information is available on the potential for
these effects. King County is presently developing a research project to
determine the fate and effects of toxic materials in stormwater which is
discharged to wetlands. Completion of this research would provide a better
basis for evaluation of these processes.
One of the major water quality functions of wetlands is the removal of
suspended sediment often containing chemical contaminants. By reducing wave
energy and the velocity of water flowing through the wetland, wetland plants
encourage the deposition of suspended sediment.
PRIMARY PRODUCTION Production of organic materials via photosynthesis (i.e., primary production) is
key to ecosystem functioning. Wetlands, particularly marshes, have been shown
to have very high rates of primary production (Figure 9). The organic materi-
als produced are the basis of estuarine and freshwater food chains. Although
Figure 9. Comparative primary productivity of wetland and non -
wetland ecosystems
Source: Tiner, 1984
22
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
primary production in Puget Sound marshes is known to be high, it is not
clearly evident what proportion of the Sound is dependent on marsh produc-
tion. Attached algae, eelgrass, and phytoplankton all contribute significantly to
the organic base within the Sound. The relative contribution from different
sources likely varies greatly for different locations.
Even without having quantitative information on the relative contribution from
wetlands, it is clear that a very large number of estuarine animal species
depend directly or indirectly on production from wetland sources. These include
fish, wildlife, birds and other important components of the Sound's biota.
FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT The importance of Puget Sound wetlands as fish and wildlife habitat has filled
volumes. These values derive from the vast diversity of species which utilize
wetland habitats as well as the recreational and /or commercial significance of
individual species. The type of diversity is manifested, for example, in eelgrass
beds where the documented biota associated with eelgrass included 16 epiphy-
tes,191 invertebrate species, 76 fish species, and 86 bird species (Phillips,
1984). Significance to recreational and commercial species is illustrated by the
importance of estuarine habitats to salmon species, particularly chum and
chinook (Simenstad et al., 1983).
The Washington Department of Game (WDG) non -game program lists over 175
wildlife species that use wetlands for primary feeding habitat and over 140
species using wetlands for primary breeding habitat. Many of these same
species are also dependant on non - wetland habitats during portions of their
life cycles. For example, numerous songbirds, water - related birds (herons,
egrets, shorebirds, etc.) and wildlife (beaver, raccoon, etc.) depend on both
wetland and non - wetland habitats. Similarly, many species using wetlands for
primary breeding habitat depend on other habitats for other life stages. Non -
wetland buffer zones adjacent to wetlands are also important as escape habitat
and to minimize disturbance to the wetlands themselves. Although specific
discussion of options for management and protection of these habitats is
beyond the scope of this paper, maintenance of existing populations of many
species will depend on maintenance of upland habitats as well as wetlands.
A discussion of wetland habitat importance could be expanded to volumes
detailing the wetland types and species associated with them. This importance
is reflected by the previous discussion of important Puget Sound habitats.
VII. SOCIOECONOMIC VALUES
Natural wetland values, individually and in combination, provide socioeconomic
benefits and values. These include recreational, educational, and research
opportunities; harvesting of fur- bearers, aesthetic values, commercial fishing,
and sanctuaries and refuges. Some wetland products are harvested while
others are not.
The combined economic value of these benefits has not been estimated, but it
clearly would be very high. Included would be a portion of all income from
23
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
fisheries, recreational pursuits including tourism, and a host of other items. In
addition, the social values of non - consumptive uses are not realistically subject
to economic analysis. These values have been expressed by a leading wetland
researcher as follows:
Socio - cultural values, then, are generally removed from the economic
plane and involve mankind's higher aspirations: philosophy, beauty,
learning, spiritual and humanitarian concerns - -those elusive elements
that make up the equally elusive thing known as `quality of life'
(Reimhold,1980).
VIII. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL LEGISLATION, There are at least eight federal laws and as many agencies which relate
REGULATION, AND POLICY directly or indirectly to regulation, conservation, protection, management, or
enhancement of important Puget Sound wetland habitats. Discussed in detail
are those laws which have real influence or potentially could have significant
influence on Puget Sound wetland habitats. Other legislation having minimal
impact is briefly mentioned. Deserving particular attention are the Clean Water
Act (especially Section 404), the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (especially
Section 10), and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZM).
Of course, all federal agencies have a mandate and opportunity to protect,
preserve, and enhance wetland habitats. Such protection is mandated by
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands which requires that all
agencies:
to the extent permitted by law, shall avoid undertaking or providing
assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the head
of the agency finds (1) that there is no practicable alternative to
such construction, and (2) that the proposed action includes all
practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result
from such use.
In addition, most federal agencies that have responsibility for resource
protection and /or development have internal policies which speak to wetland
values, conservation, and protection. Examples include the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA), the Corps of Engineers (COE), and many others. Ultimately
these policies must be implemented along with the development /conservation
policies of each agency and thus become, in practice, only as strong as the
will of the agency managers. Implementation is strongly influenced by the state
and local atmosphere in which agencies are carrying out their respective
missions. Thus, while the policies are valuable assets in wetland management,
their strength is only realized when in concert with a strong state and local
program.
Of a more general nature, the National Environmental Policy Act clearly
mandates consideration of impacts on important resources. It provides a forum
for public participation in the planning process for all projects of the federal
government, including federal permit and licensing programs. This can have a
24
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
major influence on selection of alternatives and, perhaps more frequently,
mitigating measures. As the NEPA is not regulatory in nature, the eventual
legal requirement for mitigation is usually implemented through applicable
regulatory programs.
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 of the CWA has come to be known as a federal "wetland protec-
tion act ". This has evolved through a series of court decisions and the 1977
amendments to the CWA. The 1977 amendments clarify that the act includes all
navigable waters of the United States and wetlands, adjacent thereto. Since
then, the waters covered by the act have been called "waters of the United
States."
Section 404(a)
Section 404(a) is the portion of the CWA most directly pertinent to wetland
habitats. It provides authority to the COE to issue permits for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. These waters
would include all the tidal waters of Puget Sound and its tributaries including
adjacent wetlands. In the absence of adjacent wetlands, the landward limit of
jurisdiction is considered to be mean higher high water (mhhw) in tidal areas
and ordinary high water in non -tidal areas. Section 404 jurisdiction extends to
all streams and adjacent wetlands. The COE can exert jurisdiction in isolated
waters and wetlands only if degradation of those waters will affect interstate
commerce. Not regulated are some wet meadows, wet pastures, and sand dune
areas which are not considered to be wetlands by COE definition.
Since Section 404 applies only to placement of dredged or fill material, there
are a number of activities which are not regulated. These include:
1. Drainage of wetlands which can ultimately eliminate a wetland's
existence.
2. Dredging and excavation.
3. Deposition of material other than dredged or fill material. This has
included household refuse and other solid wastes, construction
rubble, and wood wastes. This is a particular problem in that the
EPA has asserted that these activities should be regulated under
Section 404 and the COE has maintained that such activities are not
fill but rather wasting and should be regulated under Section 402 of
the CWA. An MOU signed in January 1986 between the COE and
EPA states that the agencies will cooperate in an interim program to
control the discharges of solid waste material into waters of the
United States. This MOU became effective in April 1986.
4. Removal and /or destruction of plants and /or animals.
5. Activities in non - wetland areas which may impact wetlands.
In addition, there are activities which are exempted by the CWA. These
include:
25
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
1. Maintenance of existing structures such as dams, levees, dikes, and
groins.
2. Normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities.
3. Farm ponds, irrigation ditches, and drainage ditches.
4. Construction of farm, forest, or temporary mining roads.
5. Federal construction is exempted if the placement of dredged or fill
material is fully evaluated in a federal EIS that has been reviewed
by Congress prior to Congressional authorization.
Administration and Policies
For Washington state the Section 404 permit program is administered by
Seattle District COE. The program is guided by formally published nationwide
regulations and policies (33 CFR Part 320 -330) but considerable flexibility is
exercised by each COE district. Permit applications are evaluated for an
extensive list of environmental and other factors using three general criteria:
the relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed
structure or work;
the desirability of using appropriate alternative locations and methods to
accomplish the objective of the proposed structure or work; and
the extent and permanence of the beneficial or detrimental effects that
the proposed structure or work may have on the public and private uses
to which the area is suited.
A specific wetland and water dependency policy is also applied which states in
part:
...the district engineer shall consider whether the proposed activity is
dependent on being located in or in close proximity to the aquatic
environment and whether practicable alternative sites are available. The
applicant must provide sufficient information on the need to locate the
proposed activity in the wetland and the availability of practicable
alternative sites (33CFRPart 320).
All applications are widely circulated for review by the public and all inter -
ested local, state, and federal agencies. All comments are considered in
evaluation of the application and the regulations state that "full consideration
will be given to the views of other agencies."
Probably the most rigorous review of permit applications is in evaluating their
consistency with the 404(b)(1) guidelines (33 CFR Part 230). These guidelines
are promulgated by the EPA in cooperation with the COE, and a permit cannot
be issued unless the proposed activity is in conformance with the guidelines.
The fundamental premise of the guidelines is that discharges will not be
26
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
allowed which will have "...an unacceptable adverse impact..." and " ...the
degradation or destruction of special aquatic sites, such as filling operations in
wetlands, is considered to be among the most severe environmental impacts
covered by these Guidelines..." (Note: Special aquatic sites include sanctuaries
and refuges, wetlands, mudflats, vegetated shallows, riffle and pool complexes,
and coral reefs). The guidelines' specific policy on special aquatic sites is that
discharges to special sites must be water dependent and that practicable
alternatives which do not involve special aquatic sites are presumed to be
available unless clearly demonstrated otherwise.
Agency Coordination
The CWA, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and COE regulations
mandate thorough coordination with resource agencies during the permit review
process. Principally involved are the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Views of these agencies must be
fully considered. In cases of serious disagreement, these agencies can ask that
permit decisions be appealed to successively higher levels and eventually to
Washington, D.C., for final resolution. Procedures for such appeals are formal-
ized in interagency MOUs as required by Section 404(q) of the CWA. Invoking
the Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) process can cause lengthy delays in
permit decisions. The EPA can also veto the permit by taking action under
Clean Water Act Section 404(c).
State and Local Role
Water Quality and Coastal Zone Certification
The Washington State Department of Ecology coordinates state review and
input on COE permit applications. The state, pursuant to Section 401 of the
CWA, must certify that proposed actions are consistent with state water
quality standards. In addition, the views of other state resource agencies are
provided to the COE through Ecology. Ecology also must certify that the
proposed actions are consistent with the state Coastal Zone Management
Program as required by Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Since local shoreline master programs are part and parcel of the state's CZM
plan, local government can effectively influence the 404 permit process. These
certifications essentially provide a veto power to the state and indirectly to
local governments. In addition, the COE will not, by policy, issue a permit for
any action that has been denied local permit and /or approval (33 CFR Part
320).
Pre- application Consultation
The Seattle District Office of the COE provides potential permit applicants
with an opportunity to meet informally with those agencies that would review
their permit application. This process is extremely helpful in fostering an
understanding by applicants of the acceptability of their plans to reviewing
agencies and represents an opportunity for exchange of information prior to
initiation of the formal permitting process.
27
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Enforcement
Two types of violations are (1) undertaking an action without a permit and (2)
not following the conditions of a permit. The COE has a very active enforce-
ment program consisting of on -site field inspection by compliance investigators,
annual aerial photographs, and surveillance conducted by contract. While all
violations cannot be detected, it is unlikely that large projects resulting in
major resource loss will occur without detection. The COE surveillance program
is often relied upon by state and local governments for detection of unauthor-
ized activities within their jurisdiction.
Both the COE and the EPA can issue administrative orders requesting compli-
ance in the case of violations. Non - compliance can result in a civil action,
injunctive action, and fines. COE policy is generally to request voluntary
compliance and /or to allow applicants to apply for an after- the -fact permit.
This approach is predicated on the fact that minor violations forwarded to the
U.S. Attorney do not receive attention. Removal and restoration could be
requested, but it assumes that a potential applicant would not have received a
permit.
Strengths of the 404 Permit Program
a. There is opportunity for input and influence by all levels of government.
b. There is opportunity for input by individuals and organized public groups.
C. Federal agencies have a strong voice- -EPA can effectively veto.
d. The state can effectively veto a permit.
e. Local government can effectively veto a permit.
f. Has stimulated major research by the Federal government on wetland
values and other technical aspects of wetlands.
g. Has stimulated cooperation among all levels of government
h. The EPA and FWS have developed strong policies for wetland protection.
Limitations of the 404 Permit Program
a. Policies are not unequivocal and their implementation requires significant
exercise of judgment.
b. Interpretation of "practicability" is difficult and judgmental but is often
key to permit decisions.
C. Some major activities affecting wetlands are exempted from the act (land
clearing, drainage, and excavations, for example).
Corps of Engineers Headquarters Office has not clearly expressed that
28
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
d. Corps of Engineers Headquarters Office has not clearly expressed that
protection under Section 404 extends to wetlands as well as traditional
water quality protection.
e. Many freshwater wetlands within the Puget Sound basin are not covered
by Section 404.
f. Mitigation through restoration, enhancement, creation, or rehabilitation
has been very difficult to implement.
g. The Corps permit process is often not initiated until after state and local
approvals have been received.
Summary Evaluation
At the federal level, regulatory protection of Puget Sound habitats is keyed to
the COE Section 404 permit process (and also Section 10 - -see next section of
paper). This process is buttressed by a stringent set of criteria, the 404(b)(1)
guidelines, which require documentation by applicants that alternatives to fill
in aquatic/wetland sites are not practicable. This permit process is also
supported by strong mitigation policies of EPA Region 10, and the FWS. The
FWS also has recently implemented a very protective regional wetland policy.
Where resources managed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are
potentially affected, NMFS is very protective of those resources in their
approach.
Typically, a COE permit will not be issued until all state and local approvals
have been received. On the other hand, it is very difficult and unusual to deny
a permit which has received all other needed approvals. In such cases a denial
must be based on the existence of 'overriding national factors of the public
interest" (33 CFR, 320.4) Thus in most cases the federal decision will reflect
the state/local process.
The Section 404 regulatory process is linked directly to several state programs.
A COE permit public notice acts as an application for an Hydraulic Project
approval from the state departments of Fisheries and Game, and it alerts the
Department of Natural Resources that an aquatic lands lease may be necessary.
Distributed with the public notice are a notice of application for Section 401
water quality certification and Section 307 coastal zone consistency certifica-
tion.
Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10
of 1899
Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, permits from the
COE are required for dredging, filling, and other construction activities in
navigable waterways. Such waterways include all tidal waters to the mean high
water level and upstream to the limit of navigability and also include navigable
lakes to ordinary high water. Unlike Section 404 there are few exempted
activities. Section 10 and Section 404 permits are processed concurrently but
the 404(b)(1) guidelines, regarding placement of dredged or fill material, are
not applicable for Section 10 permits. The geographic coverage of Section 404
is broader, thus all actions requiring a 404 permit will not require a Section 10
29
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
permit, and some actions require only a Section 10 permit. The COE maintains
that Section 401 Water Quality Certification is not required for Section 10
actions since the Clean Water Act is not involved. The Department of
Ecology, however, believes that water quality certification should be required
for Section 10 permits. Coastal zone certification is required for Section 10
permits.
Section 9
Section 9 of the River and Harbor Act requires congressional authorization and
a COE permit for construction of dams or dikes across navigable waters. This
same section also pertains to bridges and causeways, but this authority was
transferred to the Department of Transportation and is administered by the
Coast Guard. In practice, the implementation of these laws has had little
influence on important wetlands of Puget Sound.
Coastal Zone Management Act The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZM) of 1972 declares a "...national
interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protetion, and develop-
ment of the coastal zone..." The act provides for planning in the coastal zone
of the United States by requiring individual states to prepare Coastal Zone
Management Programs. The state of Washington submitted their Shoreline
Management Program (with some modifications) as their Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Program.
Thus, habitat protection aspects of the act are implemented by state and local
government through the State Coastal Zone Management Plan and the Shoreline
Management Program. Of particular importance is the authority of the state
to "certify" that federal actions are consistent with the state CZM program to
the maximum extent practicable. Habitat protection through the CZMA could
potentially be comparable to that under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA)
since the shoreline master programs are part and parcel of the state Coastal
Zone Management Program.
Food Security Act In December 1985, H.R. 2100, the Food Security Act was enacted. Under the
"swampbuster" provisions of the act, agricultural producers will become
ineligible for some federal assistance if they alter substantially or drain
wetlands to produce agricultural commodities. The Secretary of Agriculture
shall consult with the Secretary of Interior to issue regulations to carry out
wetland conservation actions. The ultimate impact of this legislation is
unknown.
Fish and Wildlife The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that wildlife conservation be
Coordination Act given consideration equal to other aspects of water resource development. The
act applies to all federal projects and federally permitted projects such as
hydroelectric power developments. Both the FWS and the NMFS utilize their
authority under the act during the permit review process to attempt to avoid
or mitigate adverse impacts of projects.
30
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Endangered Species Act Administered by the•FWS, the Endangered Species Act prohibits funding or
permitting of projects by the Federal government if such projects would
threaten the continued existence of an officially threatened or endangered
species. Endangered species habitat protection is clearly within the authority
of the act, although no proposed projects in Puget Sound have been found
unacceptable because of impacts to endangered species. Nevertheless, both the
peregrine falcon and bald eagle utilize Puget Sound habitats for foraging, and
destruction of these habitats could be a factor in some instances.
Marine Mammal Protection Act Like the ESA described above, the Marine Mammal Protection Act applies to a
subset of species, namely the marine mammals. To the extent that activities in
Puget Sound would affect these species' habitat, the act would offer some
protection. The focus of the act is on preventing harvesting and harassment.
Major loss of marine mammal habitat has occurred historically in Puget Sound,
especially in the central Sound.
The Estuary Protection Act The Estuary Protection Act administered by the FWA declares the value of
estuarine resources to the nation and provides a basis for a considering the
need to protect these resources. The act requires a report to Congress on
federal projects but provides no regulatory authority and has little potential as
a mechanism for habitat protection.
Tribal Fishing Rights Wetlands and habitat protection may also be affected by the existence of
( "Boldt II") Indian tribal fishing rights. Puget Sound Indian tribes claim that their treaty
right to take half of the fish resources, which was recognized in the "Boldt I"
lawsuit (United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash., 1974)),
implies a right to prevent degradation of the fish habitat. The court has
determined (in "Boldt II ", United States v. Washington, 759 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir.,
1985)) that the merits of this claim must be resolved on a case -by -case basis
in the context of particular actions by the state of Washington which may
impair the fish habitat. Therefore, many years will pass before the parameters
of the right are defined. Nonetheless, it is probably accurate to say that
wetlands and habitat management decisions, at least to the extent they pertain
to anadromous fish resources and tribal fishing rights, will entail consideration
of, if not deference to, a priority of protection for fish habitat.
STATE LEGISLATION, REGULATION, AND POLICY
Shoreline Management Act The best known state law which influences actions in Puget Sound habitats is
of 1971 (SMA) the SMA. Passed in 1971, this act provides for development of land use plans
for all Puget Sound shorelines, and institutes a permit program for construc-
tion activities in and on shorelines of the State of Washington. The basic
policy of the act is:
...the shorelines of the State are among the most valuable and fragile of
its natural resources and there is great concern throughout the state
relating to their utilization, protection, restoration, and preservation.
(RCW 90.58.020)
31
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Geographic Coverage
The lands covered by the act include all of Puget Sound and its tributaries.
Coverage extends landward to 200 feet inland from the ordinary high -water
mark, streams with average flows greater than 20 cubic feet per second (cfs),
and wetlands associated with Puget Sound, its tributaries, and lakes greater
than 20 acres.
Activities Regulated
Virtually all activities in and on shorelines are subject to the act. However,
many activities are exempted from the permit process. The exemptions of most
significance to planning for Puget Sound are:
(1) Developments having a fair market value less than $2500.00.
(2) Maintenance and repair of existing structures.
(3) Construction of single family bulkheads.
(4) Construction and practices necessary for farming, agricultural, and
ranching activities.
(5) Construction on wetlands of single family residences.
(6) Construction activities of federal agencies.
Administration
The SMA establishes a cooperative state/local administrative process. Lead
responsibility rests with local governments based on statewide guidelines and
review by the Department of Ecology. Thus, local governments developed
Shoreline Master Programs (land use plans) for all shorelines within their
jurisdiction. These programs are based on shoreline inventories and generally
classify shorelines based on appropriate uses. The product of this is a compre-
hensive plan and essentially a zoning of all shorelines. Guidelines for planning
'are oriented toward balancing of shoreline development with habitat protection
and other shoreline interests (e.g., public access).
The shoreline plans are largely implemented through a permit process for all
shoreline developments (except for those exempted). Local government has lead
administrative responsibility for processing these "shoreline substantial
development permits ". All permits are provided to Ecology for review. The
permit process has a public review component and public hearings can be held.
All permit actions are subject to appeal by citizens, citizen groups, and /or
government agencies (including Ecology). Such appeals are heard by the
Shorelines Hearings Board, a six- member quasi-judicial body appointed by the
governor.
Ecology has conducted studies to evaluate the Shoreline Master Programs (Fox
and Heikala,1983) and the effectiveness of the SMA for wetland protection
(Boultet al., 1983). The Shoreline Resources and Development Advisory
32
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Subcommittee of the PSWQA also considered the effectiveness of the SMA for
habitat protection. The following points summarize the conclusions of these
studies and discussions.
Strengths of the SMA
(1) The act is cooperatively administered by state and local government.
(2) Shoreline master programs are regulatory programs.
(3) The permit process is well established.
(4) The Shorelines Hearings Board provides a mechanism for an independent
review without court action.
(5) Wetland areas associated with shorelines are specifically included by the
act.
(6) Planning and regulatory processes are provided for by the act.
(7) The state has the authority to provide policy and technical guidance and
support to local governments.
Limitations of the SMA relating to wetlands and habitat.
(1) Shoreline master programs do not reflect current understanding of
wetland values.
(2) Some potentially significant actions are exempted from permit require-
ments.
(3) Shoreline master program amendments continue to allow development
beyond that envisioned in the original master program.
(4) The program has become focused on regulation of incremental develop-
ment rather than shoreline planning. Among other things, this has
resulted in a lack of cumulative impact analysis.
(5) Shoreline master program land use designations may conflict with existing
zoning of some property.
(6) The jurisdictional area of the act is limited and does not protect small
inland wetlands.
(7) The SMA, its implementing regulations, and most master programs do not
contain explicit policies stating wetland protection objectives.
(8) The SMA and its implementing regulations do not contain an explicit or
detailed policy or requirements for mitigating impacts to wetlands.
33
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
(9) Because permit policy and decisions are made at the local level, there is
no Sound -wide effort at consistency and, therefore, widely varying policy
and enforcement approaches exist.
(10) SMPs are frequently very general in their policies and requirements.
(11) Water dependency requirements for projects evaluated under the SMA
are not as strong as for Section 404 permits.
(12) The SMA does not specifically provide opportunity for citizen suits.
Enforcement
Enforcement is carried out by local governments on a complaint basis and
usually focuses on small violations. The most serious problems arise when
alleged violators continue unauthorized actions after issuance of a stop -work
order. New legislation providing authority to levy civil penalties may assist in
obtaining compliance. The state Enforcement Manual published by Ecology
(June 1985) places little emphasis on enforcement of the SMA but rather
focuses on water quality permit enforcement. The COE surveillance program is
of assistance to local jurisdictions in detecting violations.
Summary Evaluation
At the state level the SMA is widely considered to be the major regulatory
mechanism for habitat protection. It is limited geographically to streams with
flows greater than 20 cubic feet per second and lakes greater than 20 acres in
addition to marine waters and associated wetlands. Also, a number of activities
are exempt from the permit process. The effectiveness of the SMA for wetland
protection was evaluated by Boulbet al. (1983) for Ecology and the following
discussion is partially based on that report.
Resource and habitat protection is but one among several goals of the SMA
and has no greater priority than other goals such as public access to shore-
lines or designating shorelines for urban development. In essence, the act
requires land use planning, not habitat protection. This is evidenced by the
Shoreline Master Programs which attempt to accommodate a very broad range
of interests without specific guidance regarding the extent of habitat loss
which is acceptable. The result is rather generalized, non - specific policies
which can be flexibly interpreted.
Local decisions resulting in habitat loss have been permitted under local
shoreline programs and upheld by the Shoreline Hearings Board. For example,
in the case of Ouilcene Associates v. Clallam County and the Port of Port
Angeles SHB NO. 92-7, dredging and filling of habitats was upheld as permis-
sable under the act because they were consistent with an approved SMP.
Shoreline uses which depend on being located near water (e.g., marinas) are
considered preferred uses in the SMA. The board considered marina parking
and dredged material disposal to be water dependent uses. Habitats lost were
some of the most highly valued in Puget Sound. They included clam beds,
eelgrass beds, and transit /foraging/rearing habitat for anadromous fish. In
another case (Friends of the Earth v. City of Westport, Port of Grays Harbor,
34
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
and State of Washington, Department of Ecology, SHB NO. 84-63) the Shore-
lines Hearing Board held that "The SMA does not require that there be a
compensating public benefit to offset the private benefits from every develop-
ment permit which is issued. Neither does it require compensation for
environmental losses. It simply requires that the public interest be considered
in processing of permits for any shoreline develoment "
These limitations of the act have been recognized by Ecology in their analysis
of the program. For instance, the conclusions of an Ecology study to evaluate
the desirability of the state assuming portions of the 404 program was that:
current state environmental programs do not appear to meet federal
program guidelines governing transfer of permit programs to states.
Although existing state and local laws and regulations meet the
water quality objectives of the Clean Water Act, they do not protect
wetlands to the degree required by the 404(b)(1) guidelines (Sakri-
son, 1983).
On the other hand, some significant protection of important Puget Sound
habitats has occurred in areas covered by the act. These include many areas
designated "natural' or "conservancy /natural' in Shoreline Master Programs.
Hydraulic Project Approval Approval is required from the state departments of Fisheries and Game (WDF
and WDG) for virtually any activity in a state water if that water supports
fish life. This permit has been commonly termed a hydraulic project approval
(HPA) and is authorized by RCW 75.20.100. Approval is required for "...any
person or government agency desiring to construct any form of hydraulic
project or other work that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural
flow or bed of any river or stream or that will utilize any of the salt or fresh
waters of the state..."
The act is jointly administered by the WDG and WDF. Lead responsibility rests
with the WDF for activities occurring west of the Cascade crest and with the
WDG for activities east of the Cascade crest. These agencies have jointly
promulgated regulations (WAC 220 -110) which establish evaluation criteria for
HPA requests. The HPA program is linked to the COE Section 10/404 permit
process in that the COE public notice is accepted by the WDF/WDG as an
application for an HPA. Separate HPA application need only be made for those
activities not requiring a COE permit. The HPA program, while linked to the
federal section 10/404 program, does not include coordination with local
governments through any formal opportunity for their review. Neither is there
formal opportunity provided for public review and participation in the hydralic
project approval process.
HPA evaluation criteria are very specific for some habitats and resources. For
example, maximum slope of bulkheads is specified, appropriate seasons for
construction are specified, and it is clear that loss of certain habitats (e.g.,
herring spawning areas, smelt spawning areas, and juvenile salmonid rearing
areas) is unacceptable to the WDF. These design criteria and restrictions have
been staunchly supported by the state agencies and the office of the governor
when specific impacts to important resources are expected. State support of
35
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
the program was clearly evidenced in relation to the proposal to develop an oil
rig construction site at Cherry Point in northern Puget Sound. The project was
unacceptable to the WDF based on known losses of herring spawning habitat
and the untested approaches for replacing such habitat. Consequently, the HPA
was never granted.
The HPA program does not apply to resources other than fisheries (e.g.,
wildlife or birds). The result has been that habitats and wetlands considered to
be primarily important for wildlife habitat have not been protected by the HPA
program. This is partially due to a lack of information which would definitively
show the value to fishing resources of habitats, such as wetlands adjacent to
Puget Sound. This has weakened the case for protection of these wetland
areas under the HPA program.
As with other state and local programs, frequently the discovery of unauthor-
ized activities occurs through the COE Section 10/404 enforcement program.
Field surveillance is primarily by wardens and fishing regulation officers.
Detection of potential HPA violations is not a high priority of their jobs and
interpretation of whether an action requires a permit is not always straight-
forward.
State Environmental The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (RCW 43.21C) is similar to the
Policy Act National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in its requirements except that it
applies to all state and local agencies rather than federal agencies. Public and
agency review procedures typically focus attention on potential effects of
projects.
Amendments to SEPA in 1983 directed Ecology to prepare and adopt new
uniform rules for all governments to follow in implementing SEPA. These new
rules (WAC 197 -11) have been effective since 1984. Of particular importance is
the clear authority to require mitigative measures as a way to minimize
impacts. Mitigation is defined in the rules similarly to the definition utilized
by federal agencies (see the section on mitigation below), with the addition of
the phrase "Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures."
Mitigation measures can be required as conditions of approval for any actions
which are not exempt from the act. This authority, based on a very broad
definition of mitigation, represents a significant potential for habitat protec-
tion and restoration.
This authority is not buttressed by any specific guidance on appropriate types
of mitigation or the extent to which mitigation should be required for given
types of habitat impacts. Judgments as to the adequacy of mitigation are
largely at the discretion of local governments. Thus, while some impacts may
have been reduced or avoided through the mitigative conditions, there has been
little impetus for compensatory mitigation. As a result, permitted habitat losses
have rarely been compensated for.
Management of State -Owned The Department of Natural Resources, established in 1957, has statutory
Aquatic Lands responsibility for management of state -owned aquatic lands. Currently, this
includes approximately 11 square miles of harbor area, 140 square miles of
shorelands, and 205 square miles of tidelands. In addition, the state owns the
36
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
beds of all navigable lakes and rivers, the bedlands of all marine waters within
three miles of shore, and all the bedlands of Puget Sound.
Traditionally, DNR management has focused primarily on a land leasing
program; however, new management opportunities were added in 1984 by
amendments to RCW 79.90. These amendments state that fees from leases of
state -owned aquatic lands should be used to enhance opportunities for public
recreation, shoreline access, environmental protection, and other public
benefits. Public benefits to be considered include:
a. Encouraging direct public use and access
b. Fostering water dependent uses
C. Ensuring environmental protection
d. Utilizing renewable resources
e. Generating revenue consistent with a -d
DNRs management philosophy for state -owned aquatic lands is stated in WAC
332.30 -100. It explains that aquatic lands are managed to maximize their
benefits to all citizens of the state. Those benefits are realized when:
a. Navigational needs are met which are a benefit to the general public;
b. Space is provided for a variety of aquatic recreational and economic
activities;
C. Environmental standards required by enforcement agencies are adhered to;
d. The productivity and environmental quality of the aquatic lands are main-
tained while continuing to provide for the needs of the public; and
e. The public is compensated for withdrawal of lands by private and public
activities which reduce the opportunities for use by the general public.
Of particular importance for habitat protection is that
funds derived from monetary compensation to the public for uses
that withdraw the aquatic land base and impact natural biological
resources can be used to reduce the general tax burden, expand
public use facilities and improve the productivity and quality of
aquatic lands and waters. This approach requires a management plan
for the use of these funds that establishes priorities and schedules
for such programs as public beach marking, habitat improvement, and
inventory of and planning for the use of the lands.
Thus, as the manager of state -owned aquatic lands, DNR has clear authority to
protect wetlands if protection is in the public interest. Some ways in which
this could be accomplished include:
37
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
a. Inventory, evaluate, and rank aquatic resources, habitats, and wetlands.
b. Evaluate the aquatic lands leasing program against habitat protection
policies based on the results of a. above.
C. Actively participate in review of permits (Shoreline, HPA, COE) which
potentially affect habitats of state owned lands.
d. Actively participate with local government in land use planning which may
affect state -owned aquatic lands.
To date the DNR has not developed a comprehensive program to address the
above items.
Natural Heritage Program The Washington Legislature created the Natural Area Preserve Program in 1972
to identify outstanding natural areas through a statewide inventory. The
Natural Heritage Program was established in 1977 by the privately funded
Nature Conservancy in cooperation with five state agencies, including the DNR.
As part of this program, 19 of the best preserved salt marshes in the Puget
Sound basin have been identified (Figure 10) by DNR (Kunze,1984). The DNR
is currently seeking opportunities to purchase or otherwise gain permanent
control of these unique habitats. Currently, an inventory of high quality
freshwater wetlands is underway. This study will also identify degraded
wetlands which have high potential for restoration.
Clean Water Act - Section 401 Section 401 provides that no federal license or permit for discharges to
navigable waters shall be issued unless the state in which the discharge
originates certifies that such a discharge will comply with the CWA. COE
public notices for 404 permits include an application for 401 certification, and
permits are not issued until certification is received from Ecology. The public
notice does not contain specific information on the discharge as a basis for
reviewers to evaluate the relation of the proposed actions to state water
quality standards. Ecology uses this process to establish appropriate permit
conditions to minimize or avoid water quality impacts.
From a state standpoint, Section 401 could be an effective mechanism to
protect those habitats subject to COE permit requirements through the water
quality certification process. To date, however, state review under Section 401
has been limited to a narrow interpretation of water quality factors, not
including habitat protection considerations.
This is a narrower interpretation of the CWA than that used by the federal
agencies. For example, the 404(b)(1) guidelines provide strong guidance for
protection of important habitats. The guidelines prepared by Ecology for use in
evaluating certification requests do not provide any guidance on habitat
evaluation or protection.
38
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
13
�� 1 9Gslc
7%A=
14
12 r
17
1$
6 1$
10
15 �� q
$ 5 1 1
1. American Camp Lagoons
8. Kennedy Creek
14. Skagit River Delta
2. Dungeness Spit
9. Lake Hancock
15. Skookum Inlet
3. Foulweather Bluff Preserve
10. Lynch Cove
16. Stavis Bay
4. Foulweather Salt Marsh
11. Nisqually River Delta
17. Tarboo Bay
5. Gull Harbor
12. Perego's Lagoon
18. Thorndyke Bay
6. Hamma Hamma River Delta
13. Salt Creek
19. Westcott Bay
7. Henry Island
Figure 10. Some important salt marshes of the Puget trough region
Source: Kunze, 1984
39
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Coastal Zone Management Act The CZMA requires that all federal actions, including permit issuance, be
Section 307(c) consistent with the state CZM program to the maximum extent practicable. In
Washington, this section, in effect, requires that all COE-- permitted actions
must be certified as being consistent with the shoreline master programs of
local government.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT Many, if not most, local governments have, in recent years, given considera-
tion to the potential need for wetland management and protection measures in
conjunction with, or in addition to, their existing Shoreline Programs, compre-
hensive land use plans, and various ordinances. Specific actions taken have
varied greatly from locality to locality with respect to both attitude and
actions. Generally, local programs have contained one or more of the following:
(1) inventories of wetlands (often under a broader sensitive area inventory),
(2) development of special ordinances to protect important habitats or wet-
lands, (3) inclusion of special policies in their shoreline programs or compre-
hensive land use plans, and (4) ranking of wetlands based on their perceived
values.
The extent to which habitats are included in various local programs is
extremely variable. For example, recently enacted Island County ordinances
include virtually all wetlands and all activities which would alter them in any
way, whereas some other counties have not developed any special program.
Generally, the land use and shoreline planners are anxious to develop a
program to assure that wetlands under their jurisdiction are not inappropriately
altered or destroyed.
Although some jurisdictions, such as King County and the city of Bellevue,
have completed a detailed inventory of wetlands, most counties are constrained
by budget limitations and /or technical expertise from conducting such an
inventory. Instead, existing information is used as it becomes available. The
major needs expressed by local planners include:
a. Information on how to recognize and delineate wetlands
b. Field inventory information
C. Functional value information for various wetland types
d. Methods of ranking wetlands
e. Wetland impact information, e.g., stormwater effects and effects of
other nonpoint sources of pollution.
f. Feasibility of creating, enhancing, or rehabilitating wetlands which
have been lost or degraded.
Adoption of habitat/wetland protection ordinances or policies by local govern-
ments has been relatively recent, and the long -term effectiveness cannot be
evaluated. The approach is also extremely variable between governments and
will undoubtedly result in significant differences between adjacent political
entities. For example, annexation of land by municipalities within King Count
40
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
can avoid application of the county ordinance. This has occurred for large
developments on North Creek, a tributary to the Sammamish River. Local
governments also vary greatly in their interpretation of the extent of import-
ant habitats under their jurisdiction and their understanding of the functional
values of these habitats.
MITIGATION The mitigation definition developed by the Council on Environmental Quality
(40 CFR 1508.20) has been adopted by most federal agencies and has (with
minor changes) been utilized in the state SEPA rules. This definition includes:
a. avoiding adverse impacts
b. minimizing adverse impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of a
project
C. rectifying the impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment
d. reducing or eliminating the impact by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the project, and
e. compensating by replacing or providing substitute resources or
environments.
Thus, there is a trend toward consistency in the concept of mitigation. Most
of the mitigative approaches defined by parts a -d of the definition have long
been accepted as part of the regulatory process, but in recent years Federal
agencies have increasingly focused on part e, which deals with compensation
for habitat losses.
Interpretation of suitable compensation for wetland losses has evolved at the
federal resource agency level to the position that any net loss of habitat value
is unacceptable. This objective is particularly sought in coastal and estuarine
areas. This leaves creation of new aquatic/wetland habitats or enhancement of
degraded habitats as the only viable mitigative options for projects which
would affect existing wetlands.
These mitigative approaches have been adopted by the FWS (Federal Register,
January 23, 1981) and by the EPA as a specific Region 10 policy. The COE has
also recently issued a policy statement for its regulatory program (Regulatory
Guidance Letter 85 -8, 8 November 1985). This policy states that full considera-
tion will be given to resource agency mitigation recommendations and that if
such mitigation is necessary in the public interest but is not implementable or
enforceable, the permit will be denied. The policy also states that less or
different mitigation may be required after giving "full consideration to resource
agency views."
While compensatory mitigation is theoretically allowable under Section 404 and
the 404(b)(1) guidelines, the COE has been reluctant to encourage it. The basis
for such mitigation would be to compensate or ameliorate in situations where
unacceptable adverse impacts would occur and an applicant has no practicable
41
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
alternative. In general, COE policy is that mitigation is only appropriate when
impacts of a project exceed the benefits to the public interest in that project
and then mitigation should only be sufficient to "tip the scales" toward permit
issuance. This is unacceptable to resource agencies because it implies an
acceptability of some resource loss and because it is a purely judgmental
decision. As a consequence, most mitigation for COE permitted actions is
required by separate agreement between the applicant and another agency or
entity.
The trend toward compensatory mitigation at the federal level has resulted in
a need for defensible evaluation methodologies to determine relative habitat
values. The most prevalent and promising at this time are variations of the
FWS Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) and the method for wetland functional
evaluation developed by the Federal Highway Administration (Adamas and
Stockwell, 1983). Both of these methods are receiving extensive testing, and
training is being offered. Both have been used successfully in some instances.
For the reasons stated above, compensatory mitigation has not been widely
implemented in Puget Sound. Resource agencies have been very conservative in
their evaluation of the appropriateness of such mitigation proposals. This is
caused by a perceived high risk of failure in habitat creation or enhancement,
combined with significant gaps in the state of the art. In addition, acceptable
proposals have tended to be extremely costly to construct and long -term
monitoring is often required.
In Puget Sound estuarine areas, the best example of constructing complex/di-
verse habitats is underway adjacent to the Puyallup River upstream from
Commencement Bay in Tacoma. This complex of habitats was "created" from
the uplands adjacent to the river and will include brackish marshes, intertidal
flats, and channels dissecting the flats. Cost for the project, which includes
six acres of wetlands and five acres of uplands, is $1.5 million.
The Seattle District COE, as part of the Duwamish navigation improvement
project, has proposed construction of two acres of intertidal land from uplands
as compensation for dredging which would convert shallow aquatic habitats into
deeper habitats. Estimated costs of this mitigation are in excess of $500,000
per acre of habitat created.
These high costs (especially in urbanized areas where land is extremely
expensive) and relatively low acceptability to regulatory agencies combine to
make habitat creation for compensation a limited choice in many cases.
Enhancement of existing habitats offers greater potential. For example,
eelgrass has been transplanted adjacent to the John Wayne marina in Sequim
Bay to compensate for eelgrass lost during marina construction. This is a
relatively inexpensive enhancement procedure but as yet unproven.
Washington state agencies are guided by the SEPA rules for mitigation (WAC
197 -11). These rules provide general guidance on the extent to which mitiga-
tion can be required but provide no specific objectives (e.g., no decrease in
water quality, no net loss of habitat) comparable to federal mitigation policies
and no specific guidance on evaluation of alternatives to avoid impacts. In
other words, the policy does not define how the definition of mitigation, also
42
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
provided in the SEPA rules, should be interpreted or implemented. As a result,
the requirements for mitigation can vary widely depending on the judgment of
the lead SEPA agency.
Mitigation objectives of the Washington Departments of Fisheries and Game
become apparent in implementation of the Hydraulic Project Approval process.
Clearly the WDG/WDF HPA rules (WAC 220 -110) require that impacts to known
important fisheries habitat be avoided. In fact, the WDF, in cases of habitats
considered critical to recreationally or commercially important species (e.g.,
salmonids, herring, smelt) have considered direct habitat losses to be unmiti-
gatable unless known, risk -free mitigation is possible. Specific habitat protec-
tion objectives have not been expressed by Ecology for any of the programs
they administer.
DISCUSSION
Preceding portions of this paper introduce the issue of habitat /wetland
protection in Puget Sound and provide a summary of habitat classification,
functional values, ranking, status and trends in wetland loss. Also generally
described is the legal, regulatory, and policy framework within which these
wetlands are managed in the Puget Sound basin.
Particularly instructive is just how these programs are functioning today and
expected to function in the future rather than how they were working two,
five, or ten years ago. Obviously, the status of important habitats in the Puget
Sound Basin today reflects the history of development, management, and
regulation within the context of all applicable laws working either in concert
or in conflict with one another. Of particular importance is how these
important habitats are faring and what can be expected in the future. Table 4
provides a summary of the extent to which these wetland and aquatic areas
are being regulated. Note that none of the programs listed in these tables are
specifically intended as wetland management programs, with the exception of
some of the local ordinances. These programs also apply to different wetlands
(e.g., estuarine, inland freshwaters) and therefore different degrees of protec-
tion are provided. Effectiveness of these programs for various wetlands is
discussed below.
Estuarine Wetlands In several areas a very large percentage of wetlands were lost in the early
part of the 20th century due to diking for agriculture and later for commercial
and industrial development. The majority of these losses occurred prior to the
existence of significant regulatory or land use management authority by
governing agencies. Since the advent of the Shoreline Management Act, the
State Environmental Policy Act, the requirement for Hydraulic Project Ap-
proval, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, essentially all large coastal
development projects have received review by local, state, and federal regula-
tory agencies. These projects, in the 1970s and early 1980s, were primarily for
port industrial development and marinas. Table 5 shows some examples of the
types of developments which have been permitted in this time frame, their
purpose, and habitat type lost. These projects were permitted under essentially
the same laws which are currently in effect, and none required any specific
compensation for habitat lost.
43
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATORY JURISDICTIONS
COE, Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act:
Geographic Coverage: navigable waters
• To Mean High Water
• To upstream limit of navigability
• Navigable lakes up to Ordinary High Water
Actions Covered
* All construction
COE, Section 404, Clean Water Act:
Geographic Coverage: waters of the U.S.
• To Mean Higher High Water in tidal waters and to ordinary high water in streams and
rivers.
• To five cfs
• Lakes to Ordinary High Water
• Adjacent wetlands
• Additional discretionary authority if interstate
commerce is affected.
Actions Covered
* Discharge of dredged or fill material
WDG/WDF Hydraulic Project Code
Geographic Coverage: all waters which have fish life
Actions Covered:
* All actions which could affect fish life
Ecolo$y/L.ocal Government: Shoreline Management Act
Geographic Coverage:
• To Ordinary High Water and 200 feet inland (this 200 foot area is termed "wetlands" in the
SMA)
*To 20cfs
• Lakes greater than 20 acres
• Associated wetlands
Actions Covered
* Developments over $2500 in value
Local government ordinances
Geographic Coverage: All wetlands
Actions Covered: Variable
44
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATORY
JURISDICTIONS (continued)
Not covered by, the CWA, Section 404 or River and Harbor Act, Section 10:
Geographically
• Isolated wetlands and lakes less than ten acres
• Fills less than one acre in lakes less than ten acres and wetlands adjacent to streams less
than five cubic feet per second.
Actions Not Covered
• Drainage
• Clearing
• Agricultural practices
• Silvicultural practices
• Ranching practices
• Maintenance
• Excavation
• Flooding
• Lowering ground water
• Temporary roads (farm, forestry, mining)
Not covered by Shoreline Management Act (or permit not required)
Geographically
• Isolated wetlands
• Wetlands associated with streams less than 20 cfs
• Lakes less than 20 acres
Actions Not Covered
• Less than $2500 in value
• Single family residences
• Clearing
• Drainage
• Maintenance
• Single family bulkheads
• Farming, agriculture, and ranching
• Federal construction
45
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
TABLE 5: EXAMPLES OF ESTUARINE WETLAND LOSSES IN THE LATE '70s AND EARLY'80s.
(SINCE SMA AND CWA, SECTION 404)
Proiect
Acres Lost
Habitat Tyne
Present Land Use
Anacortes Barge
31
Mud flat/eelgrass
Vacant /port industrial
Canal
Squalicum Marina
52
Mud flats/salt
Uplands/moorage
(Bellingham, WA)
marsh
Sequim Marina
18.5
Mudflats/eelgrass /
Parking/marina /park
clam beds
Norton Avenue
125
Mudflats
Vacant/port industrial
Terminal
(Everett, WA)
Trident
5
Clam beds /mud
Military base
(Bangor, WA)
flats
East Bay Marina
53
Mud flats
Vacant /sewage treatment/
(Ol)mpia, WA)
port industrial
Port of Everett
+100
Mud flats
Parking/boat launch
Boat Launch
Capsante Marina
+10
Mud flats
Moorage
(Anacortes, WA)
More recently, development proposals continue to be primarily for port
industrial development and marinas. However, virtually all proposals which
would result in wetland loss have required compensation through replacement
or rehabilitation of wetlands. Examples include construction of an intertidal
marsh/mudflat/ channel system by the Port of Tacoma as mitigation for a
wetland fill project; enhancement of shallow subtidal wetlands for juvenile
salmonid feeding and rearing by the Port of Seattle as compensation for a
waterfront fill; proposed construction of high; - quality juvenile salmonid feeding
habitat on the Elliott Bay waterfront to compensate for habitat losses related
to the proposed construction of the Elliott Bay Marina. Recent requirements
for habitat replacement result from evolving approaches to implementing
existing legislation rather than from passage of new laws. It also demonstrates
that, in estuarine areas, existing regulatory authority can successfully protect
important habitats. However, these protective measures are not based on
clearly defined state objectives for wetland protection but rather on individual
agency interpretations of their authorities and on well - defined federal wetland
and mitigation policies.
Cumulative effects of small projects are often cited as leading to significant
long -term impacts. This is extremely difficult to gauge or analyze, but
estimates can be made of the number of permits for fills which have been
46
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
issued. For example, COE records indicate that between 1978 and 1985, 1101
permits for fill were issued in Puget Sound counties (Table 6 ). Records have
not been maintained of the amount of area affected by lack of these permits.
Additional wetland impacts result from minor activities exempt from regula-
tion under local, state, or federal laws. These activities include the construc-
tion of single- family residences along the shoreline, stock grazing in marshes
and other wetlands, and clearing and grading. The cumulative effect of these
activities has not been evaluated and is difficult to monitor, but may be
significant for certain types of wetlands.
TABLE 6: SECTION 404 PERMITS ISSUED, 1978 -1985*
County Number of Permits
Clallam
28
Island
27
Jefferson
85
King
288
Kitsap
153
Mason
89
Pierce
135
San Juan
28
Skagit
45
Snohomish
69
Thurston
135
Whatcom
39
TOTAL 1101
Freshwater Wetlands Associated With Large Streams and Lakes
*Data from COE database.
Freshwater wetlands associated with rivers and streams having flows greater
than 20 cfs and lakes greater than 20 acres are regulated by essentially the
same laws as estuarine wetlands. Development proposals are most typically for
commercial, light industrial, or residential development. As with estuarine
wetlands, ample authority exists to regulate wetlands and large projects have
required compensation for lost habitat. The Koll Company development on
North Creek north of Lake Washington provides an example. Compensation for
wetland impacts entailed construction of various wetland types within the
confines of the developers' property and relocation and rehabilitation of the
previously degraded North Creek.
These types of approaches provide quantitative (acre for acre and sometimes
more) compensation for lost habitat and qualitative compensation (often more
wetland types than previously existed can be provided). However, they also
involve new construction of buildings, roads, and other facilities, and result in
an influx of people to what was previously a relatively undisturbed setting.
47
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
The result is a dramatic change in types and quantities of wildlife which will
use the site. Habitat for deer, birds of prey, and many other species would be
reduced, while habitat for certain waterfowl would be increased. Long -term
evaluation of these tradeoffs and the eventual mix of habitats which results as
development proceeds has not been attempted.
Freshwater Wetlands Associated With Streams
With Flows Less Than 20 cfs. and Lakes Less Than 20 Acres
Wetlands associated with these medium -sized streams and lakes are not
included in the Shoreline Management Act but are considered waters of the
United States pursuant to the Clean Water Act, Ssection 404. Local ordinances
also provide regulation in some instances. The state does have opportunity to
review proposals requiring Section 404 permits under the Section 401 water
quality certification process.
Freshwater Unregulated Based on data from Boule' et al. (1983), it is estimated that over 20 percent of
Wetlands wetlands in Puget Sound counties are unregulated by the state or federal
government. These include wetlands isolated from streams or lakes. Local
ordinances of varying nature have been enacted in a few areas. These wetlands
are typically developed for individual residences, large residential subdivisions,
and commercial buildings. Agriculture, forestry, excavation, drainage, and a
wide range of other activities are occurring in these wetlands. Local ordin-
ances are also too recent to provide insight into their effectiveness, and
complete inventories do not exist as a baseline to monitor future losses of
these wetlands. Losses will vary greatly from county to county.
Buffer Zones None of the federal or state regulatory programs for wetlands provide rules or
guidance on the value or need for buffer zones adjacent to protected, created,
or rehabilitated wetlands. Buffer zones are considered in local programs such
as those of King County and Island County. Without buffers, some of the
habitat value specifically intended for protection may be lost. A particularly
important example exists with respect to the SMA. Where a wetland habitat
occurs adjacent to a water body covered by the Shoreline Management Act,
jurisdiction terminates at the edge of the wetland rather than extending 200
feet as is the case with other shorelines. Similarly, jurisdiction under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act has not been interpreted to include non - wetland
areas adjacent to wetlands.
Wildlife Habitat There is no definitive basis for judging the extent to which wildlife will be
affected in the future if no changes are made to existing programs. Clearly,
some incremental loss of wetlands, especially in unregulated areas, will occur.
This will result in reduced populations of some species and, perhaps, increases
in others. There will also be major changes in availability and quality of non -
wetland wildlife habitats in the Puget Sound basin. Disturbance will be related
to population growth and attendant development.
These effects, although unquantifiable, will be correlated with habitat quality
and quantity. Avoiding these effects will require minimization of habitat loss
48
IX. CONCLUSIONS
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
through existing and appropriate new programs. This is comparable to source
control for water quality management, where the goal is to minimize input of
potentially harmful substances even though the precise relation of each
substance to effects on organisms in Puget Sound is not known. In the same
sense, habitat protection is appropriate even without knowing the precise
amount of habitat of every type necessary to support a given mix of animal
species.
It is also logical to begin by protecting those habitats which seem most
critical to the most species, including critical wetland and non - wetland
habitats.
1. Large amounts of estuarine wetlands of Puget Sound were lost prior to
existence of current regulatory programs.
2. Some major estuarine wetland losses occurred in the late '70s and early
'80s from port industrial and marina development.
3. Under current regulatory procedures, large projects involving wetland
impacts will require mitigation to compensate for losses.
4. Incremental wetland losses will continue from small permitted and
unregulated projects.
5. There is no Sound -wide wetland protection program which includes habitat
protection objectives to provide a consistent framework for implementa-
tion of existing regulations.
6. Minor activities which are exempt from regulation may result in signifi-
cant long -term cumulative impacts
7. A significant percentage of inland wetlands of the Puget Sound basin are
not subject to regulation.
8. A Sound -wide inventory of wetlands does not exist, and completed
inventories for local areas have not been consistent in their definition or
classification of wetlands.
9. No attempt has been made to systematically categorize Puget Sound basin
wetlands with respect to their relative values as a basis for development
of wetland protection objectives.
10. Rate of loss of wetlands in the Puget Sound Basin is not being monitored.
11. Private organizations and the public could be more effectively involved in
wetland protection programs.
12. There is no program at any governmental level for the restoration and /or
rehabilitation of lost or degraded wetlands.
49
X. ALTERNATIVES
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Presented in this section are an array of alternative actions which would
increase protection of important habitats and wetlands within the Puget Sound
basin and provide predictability to the development community, environmental
groups, and others who have an interest in habitat protection. The principal
issues which these alternatives are designed to address derive from the
conclusions above.
Some of the alternatives are very broad and would encompass, or provide a
means to implement, some of the more narrow and specific alternatives.
Nevertheless, each alternative, although not mutually exclusive, is complete and
can be implemented individually.
A number of alternatives are already being initiated or contemplated by
Ecology and other agencies. For example, a large number of recommendations
were developed in the Ecology- sponsored studies by Boulbet al. (1983) and Fox
and Heikala (1983). Where possible, administrative action has been taken by
Ecology to respond to many of these recommendations. Others have either not
been implemented, require a change in the SMA, or are the prerogative of
local governments.
In addition, a wetlands section has been established within Ecology. The
program of this section has three main areas of focus: (1) technical assistance
to local governments and other agencies; (2) public education and outreach;
and (3) research to fill gaps in knowledge about wetlands. The detailed
program developed to address these three major areas embodies many of the
alternatives stated in this issue paper. Implementation of the proposed
program is proceeding at a rate commensurate with staff and funding limita-
tions. Some parts of the program document are essentially alternatives for
consideration, e.g., new legislation to expand SMA jurisdiction, enacting
wetland protection legislation, and many other suggestions. These suggestions
are also encompassed by the alternatives in this issue paper.
1. TAILORED HABITAT A comprehensive regional wetland protection program could be undertaken to
Section 307(c) coordinate and add consistency to existing regulatory programs which protect
wetlands.
DISCUSSION
Currently, wetlands management, regulation, and protection in Puget Sound
derive from a number of separate programs - -each with its own authorities and
objectives. These include, among others, the CWA, the Hydraulic Project Rules,
the SMA, and in some cases, local government ordinances. These programs are
not coordinated by any underlying broad -based management policy or objec-
tives.
One approach to an overall program is to tailor a regional Puget Sound -wide
program based on regionally established priorities for wetland protection.
Existing programs could be adjusted or revised based on relative habitat values.
This is the concept outlined by Barnard et al. (1985) based on their national
50
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
review of wetland management in the United States. This approach assumes
that some wetlands are inherently more valuable than others and is intended to
focus on protection of the highest value wetlands, shifting development
pressure away from them.
The four -step process described by Barnard et al. (1985) is modified here for
application to Puget Sound basin wetlands:
a. Complete an inventory of the wetlands in the region. This should be based
on the ongoing National Wetland Inventory with field checking and additional
in -field inventorying to assure that significant habitats have not been excluded.
b. Categorize wetlands as to their relative values based on priorities developed
for Puget Sound. This would necessitate interaction among all levels of
government and with wetland scientists.
c. Existing programs would be reviewed, changed, and /or adjusted to emphasize
protection of high value habitats. Land use development would not be dictated
by a plan, and specific types of allowed development would not be designated.
Instead, habitat values to be protected would be identified along with mitiga-
tion guidelines. Barnard offers the Snohomish Estuary Wetland Study (COE,
1979) as a model for the first three steps of this process.
d. All levels of government would participate in a coordinated effort to
develop a strategy whereby each of their respective authorities could be
brought to bear on the results of steps a -c. This would necessitate analysis of
opportunities for acquisition, regulation, and all other approaches to meet the
overall objectives of the total program. This effort would be coordinated by
the state, possibly as part of the Coastal Zone Management program, possibly
under some other mechanism tailored to implement the overall Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan. It could be implemented as part of a
nonpoint source watershed management plan.
This alternative would require a considerable commitment of effort by several
agencies, including local government. Specific criteria would be needed to be
developed as a basis for categorizing Puget Sound habitats. Completion of a
program of this nature would require three to five years. However, important
components could be completed within one year. For example, good quantitative
inventory information would have immediate value in the implementation of
existing programs. Wetland valuation criteria could also be developed early in
the program. The program could also be implemented for one or more river
basins at the start, possibly in association with a nonpoint source pollution
control program.
If not carefully coordinated, this program could result in effort that would be
redundant with other current programs. The object would be to include such
ongoing programs, to the extent they are applicabale, in the overall habitat
management program. Thus, success of the program would require careful
coordination of existing programs of federal, state, and local governments.
51
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
2. PUGET SOUND HABITAT The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority could adopt a clear policy on
POLICY wetland protection and mitigation which all state and local agencies would
adhere to.
DISCUSSION
The policy would include explicit objectives for habitat and wetland protection
and mitigation. Possible items that could be included are: (1) require evalua-
tion or alternatives which avoid wetland impacts; (2) require no net loss of
wetland habitat or functional habitat value; (3) support in -kind habitat
replacement; (4) promote use of state -of- the -art wetland evaluation procedures;
(5) support for restoration of lost or degraded habitats; (6) support for pilot
studies of habitat creation or rehabilitation; (7) specify wetlands or wetland
types which, because of their nature, should not be damaged or should be
protected in perpetuity; (8) encourage research on the ecology of wetland
communities; (9) encourage acceptance of voluntary easements or donations
which would protect or preserve wetland values, and (10) provide technical
expertise on wetlands to citizens, private groups, and other agencies on
wetlands.
This alternative would add consistency and predictability to agency actions
involving wetlands. It could be implemented immediately without significant
expenditures.
3. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT The SMA could be evaluated with respect to its workability and consistency
ACT with current understanding of wetland values. Items to consider for statutory
or regulatory amendment would be:
a. Expansion of jurisdiction to all waters and wetlands of the Puget Sound
basin;
b. Incorporation of a habitat/wetland policy /objectives into the Act;
C. Changing the definition of wetlands to be consistent with the currently
accepted technical definition and classification of wetlands;
d. Revision of Shoreline Master Programs to include habitat /wetland policies;
and
e. Revision of permit exemptions to address potential project impacts, not
just economic values.
DISCUSSION
Ecology has initiated administrative efforts to implement some aspects of this
alternative. For example, the proposed revisions to the SMA regulations clarify
(to the extent possible within the constraints of the SMA) the extent of
jurisdiction and definition of associated wetlands. It may require relatively
lengthy periods to enact new legislation and to develop implementing regula-
tions. Most of the items for consideration could be done through local
government ordinances or through existing authorities within the Act.
52
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
However, increased attention to protection of wetlands is not currently
required. New legislation would focus greater attention on perceived limitations
of the Act.
4. NEW WETLAND AND HABITAT New legislation would be developed specifically for protection of critical
LEGISLATION habitats and wetlands of the Puget Sound basin.
DISCUSSION
Existing regulatory authorities of federal and state agencies were not specifi-
cally developed for the protection of wetlands or critical habitats. Some are
aimed at specific resources such as fisheries (Hydraulic Project Approval) or
water quality (Clean Water Act). Others, such as the Shoreline Management
Act, had several objectives to be achieved within the context of shoreline
planning. New legislation could provide policy and regulatory authority for all
actions which affect coastal or inland wetlands. Such legislation exists in
several states.
In Oregon the state regulates both excavation and filling actions in coastal and
inland wetlands. For estuarine areas, a detailed mitigation process is described
in a 60 -page publication. Specific habitat mitigation procedures are described
for the habitat types which occur in Oregon estuaries. In Maryland, under the
state Tidal Wetlands Law, permits are required for actions affecting vegetated
tidal wetlands. Virginia has similar legislation. The Connecticut Inland Wetland
Protection Act authorizes a permit program for inland wetlands. Similar
legislation in Massachusetts applies to both tidal and inland wetlands. In most
cases these laws are administered cooperatively by state and local government.
Careful review of these laws of other states could provide a basis for develop-
ment of legislation which would complement existing Washington state laws.
This alternative could provide the strongest and most comprehensive approach
to wetland and habitat management. It would need to be carefully developed to
avoid redundancy with existing laws.
5. LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local governments could be encouraged and assisted technically and financial-
PROGRAMS ly in the development of ordinances appropriate to the areas under their
jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
Local jurisdictions could develop the policy, standards, and criteria for wetland
protection based on local conditions. State funding and technical assistance
could encourage participation and cooperation. Model ordinances such as those
published by Kusler (1983) could be evaluated and adapted as necessary for
regional differences.
Such assistance could extend to Public Utility Districts, conservation districts,
diking districts, and other entities. Ecology is currently assisting local
governments as part of the Black Lake/Percival Creek corridor planning effort
in Thurston County. Such efforts could be expanded.
53
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
This alternative would not require new legislation or new state programs. The
state role would consist of technical assistance, provided through the existing
wetland section of the Department of Ecology or possibly through a more
comprehensive technnical assistance program to implement the overall Puget
Sound plan. Local governments may face increased staffing needs, but the
program could be phased in to accommodate staffing limitations. Effectiveness
of this alternative would be increased if it were implemented in conjunction
with alternative 2.
6. WETLAND PRESERVATION Specific actions could be taken to acquire or otherwise insure long -term
preservation of high value wetlands.
DISCUSSION
Some wetlands, not now preserved in refuges or sanctuaries, have been
identified as particularly important for one or more reasons. The salt marshes
identified through the Natural Heritage Program are an example. Some of the
wetlands of the Snohomish Delta are another example. The Department of
Natural Resources, with the support of Ecology, administers Coastal Zone
Management funds and has initiated a program to identify high quality
freshwater wetlands in the Puget Trough. Local governments have also
identified some wetlands as particularly valuable. These are some of the
wetlands which could be considered for acquisition, easement, or other
protective status. Many of these wetlands would need to be purchased to
insure proper management so that they would retain their high value in years
to come. For example, invading non - native species of plants or animals may
need to be controlled and public access may need to be limited. Several
options exist for preserving these wetlands:
Tax incentives. A variety of tax incentives for habitat protection can be
promoted. For example, the conveyance of development rights or complete
ownership of property to government or qualifying private organizations
constitutes a charitable contribution for purposes of federal income taxation.
Property tax incentives can also aid preservation. Under Washington's existing
"open space" law, RCW 84.34, a landowner can have land valued (and taxed)
according to its "current" use (i.e., undeveloped) value, which is significantly
lower than the standard "highest and best" use (i.e., development potential)
value. The existing law does not require local governments to grant the tax
reduction to wetlands or designated habitats nor does it prevent an owner
from removing the land from open space classification and developing the land.
However, the law can act as an incentive to preserve habitat, and it satisfies
an expectation of fairness when development is severely limited by regulation.
The open space law could be amended in several ways to enhance its habitat
protection value. First, the law could require local governments to grant the
tax reduction to qualifying wetlands (presently that decision is at the discre-
tion of local governments). Furthermore, the law could be amended to require
that the landowner agree to convey a permanent conservation easement (i.e.,
development right) for the habitat as a condition of receiving the tax reduc-
tion. That would assure permanent protection of the habitat.
54
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Acquisition. One of the most effective ways of preventing habitat modification
or loss is simply for government or an appropriate private entity to acquire
the requisite ownership interest in the habitat. While that interest might
constitute the full fee ownership, adequate protection is generally afforded by
acquisition of only the right to develop (i.e., a conservation easement).
Although the cost of acquisition may generally be the same (as between full
ownership and the easement), in specific cases the acquisition of the more
limited interest may be economical.
There are three principal ways in which habitat can be acquired: donation,
purchase, or condemnation. The landowner who gives (i.e., donates) land or a
legal interest generally does so for tax or altruistic reasons (qualifying
donations have income tax benefits). Most governments and several private
organizations (e.g., the Nature Conservancy) are currently able to receive
donations and assure permanent habitat protection. The utility of donation is
severely limited, of course, by the need for congruity between the existence of
a priority habitat and a willing owner. Nonetheless, there exist several
examples in Washington in which donation resulted in permanent protection of
important habitat.
Acquisition of habitat by purchase is the optimum kind of acquisition means
because of its flexibility. The primary limitation, of course, is availability of
money for purchase. Generally, state and local governments (and, of course,
private nonprofit organizations) now have authority to purchase habitats and
wetlands, and enabling legislation is unnecessary. To the extent that develop-
ment threatens critical habitats, interested governments should consider
acquisition as the definitive means of preservation.
Condemnation is a third method of acquiring habitats. Governments generally
have condemnation authority for wetland purposes, but private entities do not.
However, condemnation is limited as a preferred option not only because of a
lack of funds, but also because of the perceived unfairness of the condemna-
tion process.
Regulation. While several existing laws provide authority to deny or condition
development proposals which may adversely affect wetlands, in general these
laws do not mandate wetland preservation. State or local laws, such as
Shoreline Master Programs, could be enacted or amended to expressly prohibit
certain kinds of activity or development in or adjacent to specified habitats or
wetlands. Such restrictions would be a legal exercise of the police power and
generally would not constitute a taking of private property. (See discussion of
the taking issue below.)
Some wetland types are not really amenable to options other than regulatory
protection- -for example, intertidal estuarine habitats such as eelgrass beds,
clam beds, herring spawning areas, smelt spawning areas, and marine mammal
habitat. However, Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act may be applicable.
This section authorizes the EPA to prohibit placement of dredged or fill
material in areas where such discharges would have an unacceptable adverse
effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including
spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas. Some critical
55
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Puget Sound habitats would meet the criteria for protective action under
section 404(c).
Any regulatory approach to preservation needs to consider the issue of taking.
To the extent protection of privately owned, specific wetlands entails prohibi-
tions on any reasonable economic use, the constitutional taking issue may come
into play. Both the United States and Washington constitutions prohibit the
taking of property by government without payment of just compensation.
Governmental regulations which deprive a person of all reasonable economic
use of property may constitute an unconstitutional taking. However, because
the entirety of a landowner's property is considered in determining whether an
economic use is available, and because most wetlands are owned in conjunction
with uplands for which a reasonable economic use is possible, most wetland use
restrictions will not be a taking. Even when the entire ownership consists of
wetlands, the prospect of a successful taking claim may be diminished to the
extent that the property's value reflects the condition of the land rather than
the existence of the regulation.
Although it is likely that most wetland protection regulations would not be
found to be a taking by a court, this fact does not necessarily prevent
landowners from raising the spectre of taking claims. State and local agencies
which contemplate adopting wetland protection regulations should be aware of
this possibility.
7. MONITORING 7.1 A data base on permits could be developed.
DISCUSSION
Ecology could continue its effort (including support to local government) to
develop a data base which includes wetland impact information. Information
could include habitat type and areal extent affected. Data on development
activities which are exempted from the Shoreline Management Act could also
be included to the extent that information is available. This data base could
provide some basis for evaluating cumulative habitat losses over time and a
basis for judging the need for administrative adjustments. As part of the
program, a separate record could be kept of all shoreline permits and 401
certifications which involve wetland alteration.
7.2 Wetland losses could be monitored.
DISCUSSION
Currently, some wetlands are regulated under several laws and some are
unregulated; some local governments have strong wetland protection ordinances
and some have no such ordinances. Monitoring, based on examination of aerial
photographs with field checks, could provide an index of the effectiveness of
existing programs. Over a period of several years, rates of wetland loss could
be estimated. Such a monitoring program could be implemented for one or two
river basins, possibly including one predominantly rural basin and one urban-
56
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
ized basin. This program could be incorporated into a comprehensive Puget
Sound monitoring program.
8. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan could include a policy for
POLICY ACT wetland and habitat protection that state and local agencies could use in
implementing SEPA.
DISCUSSION
In order to exercise SEPA authority, state and local government agencies need
to develop environmental policies as a basis for decision making. Currently
these agencies are not expressly required to have a wetland or habitat
protection policy, or any other specific policy for a given aspect of the
environment.
The habitat protection function of SEPA could be enhanced if each agency
formally adopted a wetland and habitat policy. That policy could include
identification, classification, and ranking of wetlands or a protection mandate
for certain designated habitats. Mitigation guidelines or requirements could
also be included. The Puget Sound Water Quality Management plan could
provide for adoption of such a policy by state and local agencies and identify
minimum elements to be addressed the policy.
9. COASTAL ZONE The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan could be incorporated into
MANAGEMENT the state Coastal Zone Management Program.
DISCUSSION
The effect of this alternative would be that activities of federal agencies
would need to be consistent with the PSWQA plan to the maximum extent
practicable as required by the Coastal Zone Management Act. This would
apply to wetland and habitat aspects but also to the entire water quality plan.
10. CWA, SECTION 401 The scope of state review of proposals under Section 401 could be expanded to
include the same consideration of habitat issues as is required under federal
guidelines for 404 permit review.
DISCUSSION
Implementation of this alternative could provide an effective wetland regula-
tory mechanism for the state whenever a CWA Section 404 permit is required.
This could include filling or dredged material disposal actions in all tidal and
inland waters of streams with flows greater than five cfs and in lakes greater
than ten acres and wetlands associated with these waters.
Criteria of the federal 404(b)(1) guidelines focus strongly on wetland protec-
tion. Comparable criteria could be applied during the 401 certification process
since both are based on the objectives and authorities of the CWA. This would
require development of specific criteria and adoption as rules into the Wash-
57
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
ington Administrative Code. The state of Wisconsin is currently developing
such rules for considering wetland impacts as part of its state water quality
certification process.
11. PRE - APPLICATION Regular interagency meetings could be scheduled where applicants for Shoreline
PLANNING Permits, Section 404 Permits, hydraulic project approval, and local permits can
exchange information with regulatory agency staff.
DISCUSSION
Both the COE and many local jurisdictions provide opportunities for permit
applicants to participate in pre - application planning via formal or semi -formal
discussions with agency staff. These efforts could be more fully coordinated at
federal, state, and local levels and made available to all applicants. Such
meetings could provide an early opportunity to discuss constraints, issues, and
rules for all permits and would help to clarify the roles of various agencies.
This alternative could also foster communication and coordination among levels
of government, exchange of technical information, and improvement of
intergovernmental working relationships.
12. CWA, SECTION 404 12.1 Enforcement should be coordinated.
DISCUSSION
The COE has an excellent enforcement surveillance program for discovery of
potentially unauthorized /illegal actions. This program could be encouraged and
supported by state and local governments. Cooperation could include assistance
with funding and /or exchange of information. Also, the COE and EPA could
cooperatively develop procedures for enforcement that reflect their respective
agency's authorities. These actions could improve efficiency of enforcement
actions at all levels of government.
12.2 The COE could exercise greater discretionary authority regarding wetlands
where permits are not now required.
DISCUSSION
The PSWQA, another state agency, or local agencies could request that COE
exercise discretionary jurisdiction (requiring individual permits) in those
wetland areas which the state or local government have found to have high
value but do not now require 404 permits. For example, King County has
inventoried and ranked its wetlands which could provide a basis for such a
request to the COE. This would increase the regulatory coverage in some areas
where no regulation exists.
123 The COE could identify and publicize the streams and lakes under their
Section 404 jurisdiction in the Puget Sound basin.
58
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
DISCUSSION
Limits of jurisdiction are often difficult to determine for wetlands adjacent to
streams and lakes. This can result in unauthorized actions by those who do
not realize a permit is required. Widely publicized maps or descriptions of
streams under COE jurisdiction would reduce this problem. This would be
comparable to the shoreline management rules (WAC 173 -18) which define
waters included under the act.
13. HYDRAULIC PROJECT Coordination of the HPA program with local government administration of the
CODE SMA and SEPA could be revised and improved.
DISCUSSION
This could assist local jurisdictions in incorporating state fisheries and game
concerns and provide an avenue for these to be addressed early in the local
process. The HPA regulations have recently been revised, and there is now an
opportunity for the Departments of Fisheries and Game to make a substantial
effort to coordinate with local governments on the content and intent of these
regulations.
14. INVENTORIES A Puget Sound Basin -Wide Wetland Inventory could be conducted.
DISCUSSION
In order to knowledgeably assess the wetland resource, including status, trends,
and losses, an inventory based on consistent definitions, classification, and
methodologies is necessary. This can be accomplished through adaptation of the
National Wetland Inventory Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats
of the United States (Cowardin et al., 1979). The updated maps currently under
preparation would need to be field checked and revised as necessary. Informa-
tion from these maps would then be incorporated into the Puget Sound Atlas
currently being prepared by the PSWQA, EPA, and the COE. The inventory
could provide a baseline from which to monitor gains and losses of wetlands
over time.
The inventory effort could be conducted under the auspices of the DNR
aquatic land management program for state -owned lands and by local jurisdic-
tions with technical guidance from Ecology and DNR for other areas. Methodo-
logical and definitional consistency between all participating parties would be
of paramount importance. Some portion of an inventory effort is underway or
completed in various parts of the Puget Sound Basin.
Incorporated into the inventory process could be a categorization of the
wetlands with respect to functional values currently recognized, potential
values, and other specific characteristics which could assist in providing a
basis for judging the importance of a specific habitat. Of particular importance
would be a recognition wherever appropriate of the potential for rehabilitation
of diked or otherwise altered wetlands. The efforts of state or local agencies
59
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
would be continued and adapted to be consistent with the Sound -wide inven-
tory effort.
Ecology has already increased its technical assistance to local governments for
the identification and inventorying of wetlands. The department also will be
adding an additional staff person to this technical assistance program. The
proposed revised regulations will also assist in attaining consistency in wetland
identification. Creation of the wetlands section in the agency provides an
organizational framework for a continuation and expansion of these efforts.
The DNR already has an organizational framework within its Aquatic Land
Management program.
15. WETLAND REHABILITATION A long -term experimental enhancement project for several habitat types could
OR CREATION be initiated.
DISCUSSION
Due to the increasing emphasis on compensatory mitigation by federal and
state regulatory agencies and the poor understanding of the technical problems
associated with creating or enhancing wetlands, a long -term experimental
enhancement project for several habitat types could be initiated. This could
have two purposes. First, it could provide a basis for understanding what types
of enhancement can be successfully constructed over what time frame and at
what cost. This could assist in evaluating permit requests which propose
incorporation of mitigation into their project plans. Second, it could provide a
basis for evaluating the cost - effectiveness of enhancing or rehabilitating
wetlands previously lost.
16. RESEARCH ON HABITAT Research which would provide specific information on the important functional
AND WETLAND VALUES values of Puget Sound wetlands could be encouraged and supported. For
example, there are opportunities to participate in development of COE, EPA,
and FWS wetland research programs. These opportunities could be used to
insure that, whenever possible, research pertinent to Puget Sound is conducted.
Similarly, programs at the University of Washington and other institutions
could be encouraged to focus specifically on Puget Sound habitats. This could
be accomplished through cooperation with a coordinating organization such as
the Puget Sound Institute. As part of the research effort, an annual update of
the state of the art, based on input from the wetland science community,
fisheries biologists, wildlife biologists and other appropriate disciplines could be
prepared by Ecology.
17. DESIGN CRITERIA MANUAL A manual on construction design criteria could be prepared.
DISCUSSION
Several agencies and authors have developed criteria to minimize the impacts
of construction in wetlands. This information could be reviewed and a design
criteria handbook published for broad distribution to local governments and all
60
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
interested parties. The handbook could focus specifically on Puget Sound
habitats.
18. INFORMATION EXCHANGE Information on wetlands could be made more easily accessible.
DISCUSSION
Currently much information which is produced is available only to those
agencies or organizations directly involved in obtaining it. This can result in
redundant efforts. All research, inventory, design, and other information could
be put into a form and format where it could be used by local governments
and interested members of the public. It must be both easily accessible and
understandable. This would necessitate an additional step for most government
research and study efforts - -to develop mechanisms to assure that the informa-
tion obtained is provided to all parties who could benefit from it. Taking this
extra step would be the responsibility of each agency which conducts research
on or manages wetlands in Puget Sound.
19. PUBLIC EDUCATION Public education could be the keystone of a wetland management program.
DISCUSSION
The need for wetland management and protection does not have the history of
public involvement that more traditional water quality issues have had. Thus,
public education is potentially the most effective long -term approach to
accomplishing wetland protection goals. The opportunities for public education
are limitless but must incorporate some face -to -face contact to be effective.
The narrative and slide series prepared by King County is an example which
could be expanded to be applicable to all of Puget Sound. The film, America's
Wetlands, prepared cooperatively by the FWS and EPA, has been widely viewed
and effective. Such a film, specific to the Northwest, would be a beneficial
educational tool.
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Adamas, P.R. and Stockwell, L.T. 1983. A method for wetland functional
assessment. South Gardiner, Maine: Center for Natural Areas.
Barnard, W.D.; Ansell, C.K; Harn, J.G.; and Kevin, D. 1985. Establishing
Priority for wetland management. Water Resources Bulletin,American
Water Resources Association.
Bortleson, G.C.; Chrzastowski, MJ.; and Helgerson, A.K. 1980. Historical
changes of shoreline and wetland at eleven maior deltas in the Puget
Sound region. Washington. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA -617. U.
S. Geological Survey.
Boulb, M.E.; N. Olmsted; and T. Miller. 1983. Inventory of wetland resources
and evaluation of wetland management in western Washington Washing-
ton State Department of Ecology. Seattle, Washington.
Carter, V.; M.S. Bedinger; R.P. Novitzki; and W.O. Wilen. 1979.
Water resources and wetlands. p. 344 -376 In: P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark,
and J.E. Clark (eds.). Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our
Understanding. Am. Water Resources Assoc. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Cowardin, L.M.; V. Carter; F.C. Golet; and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater hatitats of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service. U.S. Dept. Interior. Washington, D.C.
Ecology, Department of (State of Washington). Undated. Guidelines for
issuing water auality certifications for dredging and discharge of dredged
material. WDOE 82 -13.
Fox, N.; and S. Heikkala; with K. Dearborn; M. Hershman; and J.Sorensen.1983.
Shoreline master program study: analysis report Prepared for Washington
State Department of Ecology.
Frenkel, R.E. 1977. Pacific Northwest coastal marsh systems: characteristics
use and abuse. Oregon College of Education, Monmouth, Oregon.
Prepared for Northwest Science Symposium on Northwestern Coastal
Environment.
Kranz, R.D. and M.E. Boulb 1985. Snohomish river wetland units preservation
management Plan. Prepared for Snohomish County Dept. of Planning and
Community Development, aided by grant from the Washington State
Department of Ecology.
Kunze, L.M. 1984. Puget Sound trough coastal wetlands. Washington Natural
Heritage Program and Department of Natural Resources for Washington
State Department of Ecology.
Kusler, J.A.; C.C. Harwood; and R.B. Newton. 1983. Our national wetland
heritage a protection guidebook. An Environmental Law Institution
Publication.
62
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Liebesman, L.R. 1984. The role of EPA's guidelines in the Clean Water Act
404 permit program- iudicial interpretation and administrative application.
From The Environmental Law Reporter, News and Analysis.
Phillips, R. C. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific North-
west: a community profile. Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, Washing-
ton.
Reimold, RJ.; J.H. Phillips; and M.A. Hardisky. 1980. Socio - cultural values of
wetlands. Pages 79 -89 in U. S. Kennedy (ed). Estuarine Perspectives.
Academic Press, New York, N.Y.
Sakrison, R.G. 1983 Feasibility Study of State assumption of Section 404
Program. State of Washington, Department of Ecology.
Sather, J.H. and R.D. Smith. 1984. An overview of maior wetland functions
and values. Performed for Western Energy and Land Use Team Division
of Biological Services Research and Development Fish and Wildlife
Service, U. S. Department of Interior, Washington, D. C.
Seliskar, D.M. and J.L. Gallagher. 1983. The ecology of tidal marshes of the
Pacific Northwest coast: a community profile. Performed for National
Coastal Ecosystems Team, Division of Biological Services, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior at University of
Delaware, Lewes, Deleware.
Shapiro & Associates, Inc. by A.L. Driscoll. 1978. Snohomish estuary wetlands
study. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Shaw, S.P. and C.G. Fredine. 1956. Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Circular 39.
Simenstad, C. A. 1983. The ecology of estuarine channels of the Pacific
Northwest coast:a community profile. University of Washington, Seattle,
WA prepared for National Coastal Ecosystems Team.
Simenstad, C. A.; K.L. Fresh; and E.O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound
and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an
unappreciated function. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
U. S. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Wetlands
of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. Newton Corner,
Massachusetts.
U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA -0- 206,1984. Wetlands:
Their Use And Regulation.
63
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
GLOSSARY
This glossary is being developed as part of the Puget Sound Water Quality Plan. It includes terms
associated with all aspects of water quality planning. Additional terms are added frequently. The
current version of the glossary is included with each major document issued by the Authority as an aid
to readers. Thus there are terms defined here that you may not find in this specific document.
ALGAE
Aquatic, nonflowering plants that lack roots and use light energy to convert inorganic nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorous into organic matter by photosynthesis. Common algae include single celled
dinoflagellates, diatoms, seaweeds, and kelp. An algal bloom can occur when excessive nutrient levels and
other water conditions enable the algae to reproduce rapidly.
AMPHIPODS
Small shrimp -like crustaceans, for example, sand fleas and related forms. Many live on the bottom
(benthic) and feed on algae and detritus.
ANADROMOUS FISH
Species, such as salmon, which are born in fresh water, spend a large part of their lives in the sea, and
return to fresh water rivers and streams to procreate.
BENTHIC ORGANISM
Organisms that live in or on the bottom of a body of water.
BIOACCUMULATION
The process by which a contaminant accumulates in the tissues of an individual organism. For example,
certain chemicals in food eaten by a fish tend to accumulate in its liver and other tissues.
BIOMAGNIFICATION
The process by which concentrations of contaminants increase (magnify) as they pass up the food chain
so that each animal in the chain has higher tissue concentrations than did its food. For example,
concentrations of certain contaminants can increase as they are passed from plankton to herring to
salmon to seals.
BIOTA
The animals and plants that live in a particular location or region.
BOG
A wetland with poor drainage generally characterized by extensive peat deposits and acidic waters.
Vegetation includes sedges, sphagnum moss, shrubs, and trees.
BOTTOMFISH
Fish that live on or near the bottom of the water, for example, English sole.
CERTIFIED SHELLFISH BED
An area where commercial shellfish harvesting is approved by DSHS based on measurements of fecal
coliform bacteria. Fecal coliform bacteria are used as a predictor of human health risk.
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations, the compilation of federal regulations adopted by federal agencies through a
rule making process. For example, pretreatment regulations are found in 40 CFR Part 403.
Cv
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
CONTAMINANT
A substance that is not naturally present in the environment or is present in unnatural concentrations or
amounts and which can, in sufficient concentration, adversely alter an environment.
CRUSTACEANS
A large class of arthropods which have a stiff or hard exoskeleton and are often segmented. Shrimp,
crabs, and barnacles are all crustaceans.
CUMULAUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The combined environmental impacts that accrue over time and space from a series of similar or related
individual actions, contaminants or projects. Although each action may seem to have an negligible
impact, the combined effect can be severe.
CWA
The federal Clean Water Act, previously known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
DISPOSAL
A method by which unwanted materials are gotten rid of. Unfortunately, unless contaminants are
converted to less harmful substances or removed from the material before disposal, they may be again
released into the environment. In these cases the waste has only been relocated.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Oxygen which is present (dissolved) in water and therefore available for fish and other aquatic animals
to use. If the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water is too low, then the marine animals suffer the
same effects as people do when suffocating. Wastewaters often contain oxygen demanding substances
which can consume dissolved oxygen if discharged into the environment without treatment.
DREDGING
Any physical digging into the bottom of a water body. Dredging can be done with mechanical or
hydraulic machines, and it changes the shape and form of the bottom. Dredging is routinely done in
many parts of Puget Sound in order to maintain navigation channels that would otherwise fill with
sediment and block ship passage.
ECOLOGY (DOE)
The Washington Department of Ecology, which is responsible for implementing many environmental
protection laws including the state Clean Water Act and the Shoreline Management Act. Note that the
abbreviation DOE is confusing because the federal Department of Energy uses the same term. Ecology is
the preferred term for referring to the Department of Ecology.
ECOSYSTEM
A community of living things interacting with one another and with their physical environment, such as
a rain forest, pond, or estuary. An ecosystem, such as Puget Sound, can be thought of as a single
complex system. Damage to any part may affect the whole. A system such as Puget Sound can also be
thought of as the sum of many interconnected ecosystems such as the rivers, wetlands, and bays.
Ecosystem is thus a concept applied to various scales of living communities and signifying the
interrelationships that must be considered.
65
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement, a document that discusses the likely significant impacts of a proposal,
ways to lessen the impacts, and alternatives to the proposal. EISs are required by the national and state
environmental policy acts.
EPA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which administers many federal environmentalylaws. Region
10, which includes Puget Sound, is headquartered in Seattle.
ESTUARY
A confined coastal water body where fresh and salt waters meet and tides are experienced.
FAUNA
A collective term for the animal life in an ecosystem.
FLORA
A collective term for the plant life in an ecosystem.
FOOD WEB
A community of organisms which are connected by dependence upon one another for food.
FROND
The leaf -like part of a seaweed, especially kelp.
GROUND WATER
Underground water supplies, also called aquifers. Aquifers are created by rain which soaks into the
ground and flows down until it is collected at a point where the ground is not permeable. Ground water
then usually flows laterally toward a river or lake or the ocean. Wells tap the ground water for our
use.
HABITAT
The specific area or environment in which a particular type of plant or animal lives. An organism's
habitat must provide all of the basic requirements for life and should be free of harmful contaminants.
Typical Puget Sound habitats include beaches, marshes, rocky shores, the bottom sediments, mudflats, and
the water itself.
HOLDFAST
The root -like base of a seaweed which attaches the plant to the sea bottom. A holdfast provides
attachment but does not take up nutrients from the bottom like a true root.
HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE
The continual cycling of water between the land, the sea, and the atmosphere through evaporation,
condensation, precipitation, absorption into the soil, and stream runoff.
INFAUNA
The benthic invertebrates that live beneath the sediment.
INTERTIDAL AREA
The area between high and low tide levels. The alternate wetting and drying of this area makes it a
transition between land and water organisms and creates special environmental conditions.
M 21
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
LAND USE
The way land is developed and used in terms of the types of activities allowed (agriculture, residences,
industries, etc.) and the size of buildings and structures permitted. Certain types of pollution problems
are often associated with particular land use practices, such as sedimentation from construction
activities.
MARSH
A wetland where the dominant vegetation is non -woody plants such as grasses and sedges, as opposed to
a swamp where the dominant vegetation is woody plants like trees.
MEAN ANNUAL FLOW
The average amount of water that flows past a given point in one year.
MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER (MHHW)
The average height (over many years) reached by the higher of two high tides each day. Puget Sound
has two high tides and two low tides each day.
MEAN HIGH WATER (MHW)
The average height (over many years) reached by the high tides.
MICROMICRO LAYER
An extremely thin layer of organic substances that is part of the top layer of water. It is of concern
because contaminants such as oil, grease, toxicants, and pathogens may be present at much higher
concentrations in the microlayer than they are in the water column and may therefore pose a danger to
fish eggs and other organisms that live at the surface.
MONITOR
To systematically and repeatedly measure something in order to track changes. For example, dissolved
oxygen in a bay might be monitored over a period of several years in order to identify any trends in its
concentration.
NUTRIENTS
Essential chemicals needed by plants or animals for growth. Excessive amounts of nutrients can lead to
degradation of water quality and the growth of excessive numbers of algae. Some nutrients can be toxic
at high concentrations.
PARAMETER
A quantifiable or measurable characteristic of something. For example, height, weight, sex, and hair
color are all parameters that can be determined for humans. Water quality parameters include
temperature, pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen concentration, and many others.
PCBs
Polychlorinated biphenyls, a group of man -made chemicals, including about 70 different but closely
related compounds made up of carbon, hydrogen, and chlorine. If released to the environment, they
persist for long periods of time and can biomagnify in food chains because they are not water - soluble.
PCBs are suspected to cause cancer in humans. PCBs are an example of an organic toxicant.
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
The process by which green plants use light energy to make carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and
water.
67
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
PLANKTON
Small plants and animals that are suspended in the water and either drift with the currents or swim
weakly. Phytoplankton are plants that use light to make food. Zooplankton are animals that eat
phytoplankton and each other.
POLLUTANT
A contaminant that adversely alters the physical, chemical, or biological properties of the environment.
The term includes pathogens, toxic metals, carcinogens, oxygen- demanding materials, and all other
harmful substances. Particularly with reference to nonpoint sources, the term is sometimes used to apply
to contaminants arising in low concentrations from many activities which collectively degrade water
quality.
PRIMARY PRODUCTION
The rate of production of plant matter through photosynthesis.
RCW
Revised Code of Washington, the compilation of the laws of the state of Washington published by the
Statute Law Committee. For example, the law that created the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority is
incorporated in the Code as Chapter 90.70 RCW.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
A particular set of laws, rules, procedures and agencies designed to govern a particular type of activity
or solve a particular problem.
RIPARIAN
Pertaining to the banks of streams, lakes, or tidewater.
SALINITY
A measure of the quantity of dissolved salts such as in seawater.
SALMONID
A fish of the family Salmoniidae (as distinct from a salmonoid which is merely a fish that resembles a
salmon). Fish in this family include salmon and trout. Many Puget Sound salmonids are anadromous.
SEDIMENT
Material suspended in or settling to the bottom of a liquid, such as the sand and mud that make up
much of the shorelines and bottom of Puget Sound. Sediment input to Puget Sound comes from natural
sources, such as erosion of soils and weathering of rock, or anthropogenic sources, such as forest or
agricultural practices or construction activities. Certain contaminants tend to collect on and adhere to
sediment particles. The sediments of several areas around Puget Sound contain elevated levels of toxic
contaminants.
SEPA
The State Environmental Policy Act, a state law intended to minimize environmental damage. SEPA
requires that state
agencies and local governments consider environmental factors when making decisions on activities, such
as development proposals over a certain size and comprehensive plans. As part of this process,
environmental documents are prepared and opportunities for public comment are provided.
SHELLFISH
An aquatic animal, such as a mollusc or crustacean, having a shell or shell -like exoskeleton.
68
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
SHELLFISH CONTAMINATION
The contamination of certain bivalves (clams, mussels, oysters) which filter water to feed and tend to
collect or concentrate waterborne contaminants in their tissues.
SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT
As regulated by the Shoreline Management Act, the construction over water or within a shoreline zone
(generally 200 feet landward of the water) of structures such as buildings, piers, bulkheads, and
breakwaters, including environmental alterations such as dredging and filling, or any project which
interferes with public navigational rights on the surface waters.
SILTATION
The process by which a river, lake, or other water body becomes clogged with fine sediments. Silt can
clog gravel beds and prevent successful salmon spawning.
SINK
The component of the environment and the location where a contaminant ultimately resides. Bottom
sediments are the sink for many contaminants in Puget Sound.
SMELT
A family of small fishes, some of which spawn on beaches, burying their eggs in the sand, and some of
which are anadromous.
SMOLT
A salmon or anadromous trout that is making its first descent to the sea from the fresh waters where it
was born.
STIPE
The stem -like structure of a kelp plant which is attached to the holdfast and to which the fronds are
attached.
SUBTIDAL
The marine environment below low tide.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Organic or inorganic particles that are suspended in and carried by the water. The term includes sand,
mud, and clay particles as well as solids in wastewater.
SWAMP
A wetland where the dominant vegetation is composed of woody plants like trees, as opposed to a marsh
where the dominant vegetation is non -woody plants like grasses.
TOXIC
Poisonous, carcinogenic, or otherwise directly harmful to life.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND TOXICANTS
Chemical substances, such as pesticides, plastics, detergents, chlorine, and industrial wastes that are
poisonous, carcinogenic, or otherwise directly harmful to life.
TURBIDITY
A measure of the amount of material suspended in the water. Increasing the turbidity of the water
decreases the amount of light that penetrates the water column. High levels of turbidity are harmful to
aquatic life.
69
iCiM
Habitat and Wetlands Protection
Washington Administrative Code, which contains all state regulations adopted by state agencies through a
rule- making process. For example, Chapter 173 -201 WAC contains water quality standards.
WATERS OF PUGET SOUND
As defined in RCW 90.70.005, all salt waters of the state of Washington inside the International Boundary
line between Washington and British Columbia, and lying east of 1230 24' west longitude (east of Port
Angeles).
WATERSHED
The geographic region within which water drains into a particular river or body of water.
WATER TABLE
The upper surface of ground water or the level below which the soil is saturated with water.
WETLANDS
Habitats where the influence of surface or ground water has resulted in development of plant or animal
communities adapted to such aquatic or intermittently wet conditions. Wetlands include tidal flats,
shallow subtidal areas, swamps, marshes, wet meadows, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands as defined by
the Shoreline Management Act include all land within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark,
floodways, and floodplain areas.
ZONING
To designate, by ordinances, areas of land reserved and regulated for different land uses.
70