HomeMy WebLinkAbout020215_cabs022014 Report to the
Legislature
Coastal Marine Resources
Committees Program
Acknowledgements
This report summarizes the hard work of the Marine Resources
Committees (MRCs) Program. We acknowledge the coordinators
of MRCs in each county for their organization, vision, dedication
and facilitation skills. Coordinators include: Tami Pokorny
(Jefferson County), Garrett Dalan (Grays Harbor County), Jeni
Maakad (Pacific and Grays Harbor County Conservation District),
and Carrie Backman and assistant coordinator Donna Westlind
(WSU Wahkiakum County Extension).
We acknowledge the continued support of the Washington State
Legislature and of the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW). WDFW Region Six Director Michele Culver
continues to provide guidance in the development of the Coastal
MRC Program. We would also like to recognize that sections of
this report were originally written by F. Brie Van Cleve and Jenna
Jewett in prior Reports to the Legislature.
2014 Report to the Legislature
Coastal Marine Resources Committees Program
December 2014
By Jessi Doerpinghaus and Heather Reed
Coastal MRC Program Coordinators
Director’s Office
Cover Photography by
Front Cover: Linda Smith
Back Cover: Linda Smith
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, Washington 98501
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Coastal Marine Resources Committees (MRC) Program
Program Overview
Program Actions
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Responsibilities and Actions
North Pacific MRC– Clallam and Jefferson Counties
Grays Harbor County MRC
Pacific County MRC
Wahkiakum County MRC
MRC Summit
Conclusion
Coastal MRC Program Priorities and Benchmarks
COASTAL MARINE RESOURCES
COMMITTEES PROGRAM
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
The goal of the Coastal Marine Resources Committees Program is to understand,
steward, and restore the marine and estuarine ecological processes of the Washington
coast in support of the ecosystem health, sustainable marine resource-based livelihoods,
cultural integrity, and coastal communities.
Washington’s coastal and ocean resources provide vital economic, recreational,
transportation, and cultural benefits to coastal and state residents. Identifying and
implementing realistic, effective, and efficient solutions to the unique conservation
and management issues of Washington’s outer coast requires utilizing the available
knowledge and creative approaches of coastal citizens and leaders. Citizen-based
Marine Resources Committees (MRCs) have proven to be an effective mechanism
to harness the dedication, innovation, and wisdom of coastal residents.
MRCs are county-based, volunteer committees that carry out local projects and
activities and advise the county on marine resource issues. MRCs are composed of
representatives from the scientific community, local and tribal governments, local
citizens, and economic, recreational, and conservation interests.
The Washington State Legislature endorsed and funded the MRC model in the
2007 and 2008 legislative sessions. As directed by RCW 36.125, the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) created the Coastal MRC program. The
program provides support for the development, administration, and coordination
of the coastal MRCs and their projects. All of the coastal counties (Clallam,
Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Pacific, and Wahkiakum) have created unique MRCs and
currently implement community-based projects.
Coastal MRC activities are guided by a set of interim program priorities,
benchmarks, and a program goal statement that were developed by the Coastal
MRC workgroup in 2009. These measurements were developed to ensure
coordination among MRCs, and to provide accountability to WDFW and the
Legislature. The program priorities are to: 1) establish and maintain coastal
MRCs, 2) complement existing efforts, 3) build participation, 4) utilize science,
and 5) promote healthy communities and resources. The program benchmarks
focus on the following broad categories: 1) marine habitats, 2) marine life, 3)
marine and fresh water quality, 4) sound science, 5) education, and 6) coastal
communities. The following pages summarize each of the MRC activities during
2014 with the respective benchmarks that their activities address.
PROGRAM ACTIONS
W
D
F
W
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
A
c
t
i
o
n
s
Allocate programmatic funding for MRC activities and projects
In 2014, WDFW awarded each county MRC $38, 500 for Operational and Project
activities, from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
Assist MRCs to measure their activities against regional performance benchmarks.
Performance benchmarks were developed by the Coastal MRC work group in 2009
to account for MRC activity.
At the conclusion of each state fiscal year, MRCs are required to report annual
activities and projects.
Support the coordination of MRC projects to complement regional priorities
WDFW reports monthly to the State Ocean Caucus, the group designated to oversee
implementation of the Washington Ocean Action Plan.
Program staff continues to build awareness within WDFW and with other natural
resource agencies regarding availability of MRC volunteers for marine resource
projects on the coast.
MRCs report regularly on their activities to the Washington Coastal Marine
Advisory Council to coordinate project actions.
Coordinate and promote interaction between Coastal MRCs and other similar
groups on issues of common interest
WDFW and MRC representatives continue to provide briefings to county and state
officials, the Northwest Straits Commission, the Washington Marine Debris Task
Force, and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council when
appropriate.
WDFW continues to maintain a website dedicated to the Coastal MRC program
providing updates and announcements for upcoming activities with links to current
individual MRC websites that contain contact information for county-based
coordinators.
Mission: The North Pacific Coast Marine Resources Committee will actively promote ecosystem
resilience through understanding, conserving, and restoring our marine resources. This will be
accomplished through research, education, community engagement and advocacy for our shared
marine environment and the sustainability of its coastal communities.
North Pacific Coast
Marine Resources Committee
Member Organization Representation
John Richmond Jefferson County Citizen Economic/Scientific Groups
Jill Silver Jefferson County Citizen Conservation/Environmental Groups
Chiggers Stokes Jefferson County Citizen Recreational Groups
John Hunter Clallam County Citizen Clallam County
Roy Morris Clallam County Citizen Clallam County
Rich Osborne Clallam County Citizen Clallam County
Rod Fleck City of Forks Government
Steve Allison Hoh Tribe Government
Dana Sarff Makah Tribe Government
Katie Krueger Quileute Tribe Government
Ian Miller Washington Sea Grant Non-voting
Kathy Stiechen Olympic National Park Non-voting
Liam Antrim Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Non-voting
2014 North Pacific Coast MRC Members
Program Highlight: Engaging West End Natural Resources Options Student in
Shoreline Monitoring
The Natural Resources Options Program at the Quillayute Valley
School District connects high school students with natural
resources professionals to help students accomplish their
graduation requirements while providing them with real-world
technical training and experience. A partnership between
Washington Sea Grant, the Natural Resources Options Program
and the North Pacific Coast MRC was established to get students
working on the beach to help conduct surveys, collect
information about the shoreline, and work with relevant
equipment and scientific protocols. Since December 2013,
students have contributed to surveys at multiple beaches on the
west coast of the Olympic Peninsula.
Photo courtesy of Daniel Lieb erman
Coordinator: Tami Pokorny
Priority Actions for 2015
Continued MRC representation and
participation in the Washington Coastal
Marine Advisory Council
Continuing educational partnerships to
support the Essential Ocean Literacy
Principles and Essential Principles of
Climate Change
Survey the accumulation of micro debris
on North Pacific Coast
Assist in field trips with Forks High
School to survey marine debris
Provide funding for at least six projects
and interns with the North Olympic
Peninsula Skills Center
Continue to support annual cleanups of
North Coast beaches
Produce an issue of the West End Natural
Resources News
Host the 2015 RainFest
Project Name
MRC
Award
M
a
r
i
n
e
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
M
a
r
i
n
e
L
i
f
e
M
a
r
i
n
e
a
n
d
F
r
e
s
h
W
a
t
e
r
S
o
u
n
d
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
MRC Coordination and Operations $38,500.00
Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council Representation
Included in
Operations
Washington Coast Cleanup 2014: North Pacific Coast Area $16,160.00
Student Opportunities in Field Research: Engaging West End
Natural Resources Options Students in Shoreline Monitoring $6,475.00
Financial Assistance for Student Opportunities in Field Research
Intern(s) $1,650.00
West End Natural Resource News $4,500.00
Rainfest River & Ocean Days $1,626.00
Educational Video Connecting Youth to the Environment, Wildlife,
and Habitats of the North Coast $4,369.00
N
o
r
t
h
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
C
o
a
s
t
M
R
C
Table 1: 2014 North Pacific Coast MRC Project by Benchmark
2014 Project Partners
Feiro Marine Life Center
Seattle Aquarium
Olympia Coast National Marine Sanctuary
Olympic National Park
Washington CoastSavers
Washington Sea Grant
North Olympic Peninsula Skills Center
Jefferson County Environmental Health
Photo courtesy of Daniel Lieberman
Mission: The mission of the Grays Harbor County MRC is to understand, steward, and restore
the natural function and economic vitality of the marine resources in Grays Harbor County for all
citizens through research, action, and outreach and education.
Grays Harbor County
Marine Resources Committee
Member Organization Representation
Al Carter Ocean Companies Commercial Fishing
Al Smith Local Citizen Interests
Alan Rammer At-Large- Science and Education
Arthur “RD” Grunbaum Local Citizen Interests
Brady Engvall Brady’s Oysters Aquaculture
Casey Dennehy Surfrider Foundation Recreation
Eric Delvin The Nature Conservancy Conservation/Environmental
Greg Hinz Coast Seafoods Aquaculture
Hary Lillegard Olympia Master Builders Economic
Joe Schumacker Quinault Indian Nation Tribal Interests
Lorena Maurer Education
Mark Plackett City of Ocean Shores Local Citizen Interests
Robin Leraas Port of Grays Harbor Local Government
Shad Kearse Sport Fishing Interests
2014 Grays Harbor County MRC Members
Program Highlight: Watershed Festival
Grays Harbor County MRC provided funding and staff
assistance to support public education related to the Chehalis
Watershed Festival. The MRC was one of many “vendors” in
attendance with an outreach and education table and had a
fish printing (or Gyotaku) station for kids to make and take
home their own prints. One of the tools used for interacting
with children at local schools before and during the festival is
FIN, the giant salmon. (Seen pictured here)
Photo courtesy of Stephanie Klinger
Coordinator: Garrett Dalan
Grays Harbor County Citizen
Grays Harbor County Citizen
Grays Harbor County Citizen
Grays Harbor County Citizen
Grays Harbor County Citizen
Project Name
MRC
Award
M
a
r
i
n
e
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
M
a
r
i
n
e
L
i
f
e
M
a
r
i
n
e
a
n
d
F
r
e
s
h
W
a
t
e
r
S
o
u
n
d
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
MRC Coordination and Operations $20,000
Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council Representation $150
Watershed Festival $620
Ocean Acidification Curriculum Planning $1500
Our Outdoor Home $6000
Ocean Science: Trash Free Seas $11, 950
Washington Coastal Cleanup No Cost
General Education and School Transportation $2000
G
r
a
y
s
H
a
r
b
o
r
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
R
C
Table 2: 2014 Grays Harbor County MRC Project by Benchmark
Priority Actions for 2015
Continuing MRC representation and
participation in the Washington Coastal
Marine Advisory Council
Support the Chehalis Watershed Festival
Establish seabird monitoring sites along
Grays Harbor County coastline
Continue to cleanup local beaches
through the International Coastal
Cleanup and Washington Coast Cleanup
Assist in marine mammal stranding
response with Westport Aquarium
Continuing educational partnerships to
support the Essential Ocean Literacy
Principles and Essential Principles of
Climate Change
Continue field trips and outreach with
local students
P hoto courtesy of Linda Smith
2014 Project Partners
Pacific Education Institute
Aberdeen School District
Fiero Marine Life Center
Seattle Aquarium
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
Washington CoastSavers
Mission Statement: The Pacific County Marine Resources Committee serves as a steward for
the marine and estuarine resources in our county by facilitating science based policies, research,
and education that enhance the sustainability of the economy and ecology of our communities.
Pacific County
Marine Resources Committee
Member Organization Representation
Mike Nordin Pacific County Local Government
Doug Kess Pacific County Citizen Local Citizens
Michael Spencer Pacific County Anglers Recreational Groups
Paul Philpot Pacific County Economic Development Council Economic Groups
Tom Kollacsh The Nature Conservancy Conservation/Environmental
Kim Patten Washington State University Scientific Community
Ray Gardner Chinook Indian Nation Tribal Governments
Tim Morris Coast Seafood Aquaculture
Dale Beasley Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association Commercial Fishing
Mike Cassinelli Mayor of Ilwaco Cities
Jackie Ferrier U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State/Federal Government
Kathleen Sayce Principal Education
Warren Cowell Shellfish Growers Association Agriculture
Jim Neva Port of Ilwaco Ports
2014 Pacific County MRC Members
Program Highlight: Grass Roots Garbage Gang
The Grass Roots Garbage Gang held three individual beach
cleanup events: July 5, 2013; January 18, 2014; and April 19,
2014. In the three beach cleanup events, more than 25 tons of
garbage was collected from the Long Beach Peninsula, and
hundreds of people volunteered in the event. There were
approximately 662 volunteer hours used towards this
project. The Grass Roots Garbage Gang is funded again for this
upcoming year to continue this project.
Photo courtesy of Grass Root Garbage Gang
Coordinator: Jeni Maakad
Project Name
MRC
Award
M
a
r
i
n
e
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
M
a
r
i
n
e
L
i
f
e
M
a
r
i
n
e
a
n
d
F
r
e
s
h
W
a
t
e
r
S
o
u
n
d
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
MRC Coordination and Operations $20,000
Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council Representation $1,000
Grass Roots Garbage Gang– Beach Cleanup $4,000
Stewards of Our Peninsula– Field Trips $1.920
Annual Science Conference $2,500
Pacific County MRC Website Maintenance $177
Willapa Utilization and Renewal Innovation Partnership Zone $2,000
Ocean Park Elementary School Outdoor School Program $1,725
Willapa Bay Noxious Vegetation Survey $5,178
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
R
C
Table 3: 2014 Pacific County MRC Project by Benchmark
Priority Actions for 2015
Continuing MRC representation and
participation in the Washington Coastal
Marine Advisory Council
Work with Naselle Middle School through
hands-on field trips to teach students
about ocean acidification, nutrient cycles,
and the Willapa Bay ecosystem
Help Willapa Bay schools build salmon
boxes and learn about local salmon
hatcheries
Continue to support local beach cleanups
by educating local students
Fund the eradication and management of
two invasive species in Pacific County
Host the sixth annual Pacific County MRC
Science Conference
Maintain the Pacific County MRC’s
website
Photo courtesy of Grass Roots Garbage Gang
2014 Project Partners
Pacific Conservation District
Grass Roots Garbage Gang
South Bend High School
Shoalwater Bay Tribe
Ocean Park Elementary School
Pacific County Vegetation Management
Program
Mission: The Wahkiakum County Marine Resources Committee’s mission is to address local
marine issues; recommend remedial actions to local, state, tribal, and federal authorities; and
build local awareness of the issues and support for remedies consistent with the interim
“Benchmarks of Performance” as adopted by the Coastal MRC Work Group on January 7, 2009.
Wahkiakum County
Marine Resources Committee
Member Organization Representation
David Goodroe Town of Cathlamet Local Government
Bob Kizziar Wahkiakum Port District 1 Local Government
Kayrene Gilbertsen, Chairperson Wahkiakum Port District 2 Local Government
Carol Ervest, Vice-Chairperson Citizen Local Resident
Jim Culbertson Citizen Local Resident
George Exum Citizen Environmental and Conservation
Pat Frazier Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board Science
Vacant Science
Mike Backman Commercial Fisherman Chair, Economic
Mike Clark Commercial Fisherman Economic
Sol Mertz Business Owner Economic
Vacant Recreation
Jeff Rooklidge Wahkiakum School District Environmental and Conservation
2014 Wahkiakum County MRC Members
Program Highlight: Wahkiakum High School Marine Education Field Trips
Thirty-One Wahkiakum High School students kayaked the
same waters that Lewis and Clark explored in the Columbia
River during their expedition through Wahkiakum County.
With instruction from the high school’s biology/science
teacher, and former college professor of Aquatic Ecology and
kayak guide, they identified changes that have occurred in the
estuary since then and how those changes are presently
impacting wildlife and humans. Students identified and
studied numerous species of wildlife that rely upon healthy
habitat in the estuary. The students conducted two bird surveys
(Double-crested Cormorants and Caspian Terns) and their
effect on the environment. They learned the importance of
estuarine health for future generations.
Photo courtesy of Jeff Rooklidge
Coordinator: Carrie Backman Assistant Coordinator: Donna Westlind
Project Name
MRC
Award
M
a
r
i
n
e
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
M
a
r
i
n
e
L
i
f
e
M
a
r
i
n
e
a
n
d
F
r
e
s
h
W
a
t
e
r
S
o
u
n
d
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
MRC Coordination and Operations $20,000
Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council Representation $500
Fish Cleaning Stations $1,200
Wahkiakum High School Marine Education Field Trips $3,000
Fish Preservation Training $656
General Outreach and Education on Columbia River Estuary, MRC
Activities, and Marine Education $1,400
Columbia River Citizen Science Pinniped Project $984
Phase 3 Dredging Project $4,500
Fish Cleaning Station and Signage for County Line Park $1,250
W
a
h
k
i
a
k
u
m
C
o
u
n
t
y
M
R
C
Table 4: 2014 Wahkiakum County MRC Project by Benchmark
Priority Actions for 2015
Continuing MRC representation and
participation in the Washington Coastal
Marine Advisory Council
Restoration of 100-year-old gillnet fishing
vessel
Improving public safety at Elochoman
Marina
Provide hands-on training on fish
preservation to low income residents
Continue to monitor pinniped predation
on fish in the Lower Columbia River
Estuary
Provide funding for multiple marine
education trips for local schools
Assist in monitoring juvenile salmonid
migration
2014 Project Partners
Wahkiakum County Port District #2
Wahkiakum School District
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Wahkiakum County
Photo courtesy of Jeff Rooklidge
MRC Summit
Thanks to the generosity and hard work of the Surfrider Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, and
Grays Harbor MRC, members of the four coastal MRCs came together for their annual summit at
the Pacific Beach Resort and Conference Center on October 23-25.
The group met Thursday afternoon to learn about, and role play, effective communication with
elected officials. The rain dissipated just in time for a short trip north to Point Grenville for a
guided beach tour by Quinault Indian Nation biologist Joe Schumacker on geological features
and razor clam harvests.
Friday began with a welcome from event organizers, Casey Dennehy and Garrett Dalan, and
updates from each of the MRC coordinators. Summit attendees learned about important
upcoming legislation, especially related to the transport of crude oil through Washington State by
rail, the Marine Spatial Planning effort, and the Washington Coast Marine Advisory Council. Dale
Beasley of Pacific County MRC presented the concept of fishing reserves for potential inclusion in
the state’s Marine Spatial Plan to help ensure existing fisheries are not adversely affected by future
developments, especially large-scale ocean-based energy projects. Doug Kess, also of Pacific
County, presented an approach to MRC involvement in some of the sweeping environmental
changes Washington could face, including ocean acidification and crude by rail. One tool designed
to help build resiliency is the Washington Coast Restoration Initiative which seeks funding in the
2015 Legislative Session to restore habitat on par with programs in other regions of the state. A
new initiative, the Washington Coast Works Sustainable Business Competition, was also discussed
by Mike Skinner of Pinchot University. The program will provide seed money to selected
entrepreneurs to develop sustainable businesses through a local, competitive process that has been
used successfully in Southeast Alaska. In the afternoon, a session on “How to Make MRCs More
Effective,” stressed the importance of inter-MRC communications and adequate funding. That
evening, several participants took to the beach for some highly successful razor clamming and
later munching, thanks to the kitchen staff at the resort.
On the last day, Dan Ayres of WDFW gave a presentation on razor clam management in
Washington State and their relationship to low dissolved oxygen (hypoxia) events off our coast.
Brad Warren of Global Ocean Health Program and Kara Cardinal of The Nature Conservancy
described how Washington can use the Shoreline Master Program to incorporate sites for carbon
sequestration and to build resiliency for communities and wildlife habitat with regards to sea
level rise. Paul Dye, also of the Nature Conservancy, finished the event with final thoughts and
conclusions.
Photos courtesy of Tami Pokorny
CONCLUSION
The Coastal MRC Program is well established and enjoys strong support from coastal counties,
federal and state natural resource agencies, citizens, and industry and conservation groups.
These entities and the MRCs themselves are well aware that in tight budget times, relatively
small grants to local MRCs are a cost effective way to ensure that marine resources are well
managed, protected, and, where necessary, restored. Providing local groups with funding to
support their top priorities sends a powerful message of trust and value in local communities.
The carefully crafted parameters of the Coastal MRC Program provide assurance to WDFW and
the Legislature that MRCs will contribute to improved stewardship of coastal resources.
Through minimal funding for MRC coordinators, the Coastal MRC Program provides essential
support to local jurisdictions to continue promoting conservation of marine resources. MRCs
provide a positive outlet for citizens to contribute to making their communities a better place to
live and work in the ways they choose.
In conclusion, Coastal MRCs provide a non-regulatory mechanism to discuss and develop
solutions for issues facing coastal resources and communities, help promote healthy coastal
communities through improved infrastructure and sustainable practices relating to marine
resources, and complement and support ongoing efforts to improve scientific knowledge, public
understanding, conservation and restoration, and management of marine resources. Future
coastal MRC work is dependent on continued funding at or above the current level. MRCs are
providing a vehicle for community visioning and consensus building, supporting coastal
resource-based communities, improving access to marine resources, filling science gaps,
improving education, and preventing future resource degradation. MRCs also provide a direct
connection between coastal residents and state policy and management related to ocean
resources. WDFW is pleased to continue supporting the work of coastal counties and looks
forward to working with citizens and local entities to continue building the Coastal MRC
Program.
For additional supporting materials, reports, documents and links to individual MRC websites
mentioned in this report, visit the Coastal MRC Program Website:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/volunteer/mrc/
The following priority statements or operating principles, developed and
adopted by the Coastal MRC Program Work Group, are used to guide the
development of the Coastal MRC Program and focus the work of the coastal
MRCs.
Coastal MRC Program Priorities
and Benchmarks
Establish MRCs
Establish coastal MRCs in order to provide a non-regulatory mechanism to discuss and
develop solutions for issues facing coastal resources and communities
Ensure MRC and program accountability and alignment with regional priorities by
measuring performance against program benchmarks
Act in consult with tribal and state co-managers
Ensure that local residents are selected and participate in MRCs
Complement Existing Efforts
Complement and support ongoing efforts to improve scientific knowledge, public
understanding, conservation and restoration, and management of marine resources
Build Partnerships
Coordinate and communicate with MRCs, the Northwest Straits Commission, tribal
and state co-managers, local, regional, federal, and other stakeholders and
organizations about local and regional projects and issues
Expand partnerships with tribal governments and continue to foster respect for tribal
cultures and treaties.
Utilize Science
Conduct scientific investigations and monitoring efforts to fill key gaps in knowledge
about valuable coastal species and habitats (e.g. ecosystem-based management)
Monitor and assess impacts of coastal and marine development
Promote Healthy Communities and Resources
Promote healthy coastal communities through improved infrastructure and sustainable
practices relating to marine resources
Promote marine resources stewardship through community volunteer opportunities
and public education efforts
Promote coastal hazards awareness and community preparedness through education
and outreach programs
Support the conservation and restoration of coastal habitats and marine populations to
healthy and sustainable levels and prevent future state and federal species listings
Conduct and implement strategic planning to identify marine resource-related threats
to and opportunities for sustainability
Assess sources of and reduce marine and estuarine pollution and debris
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
Performance benchmarks are used by the Coastal MRC Program to account
for MRC activities and achievement in discrete but broad categories.
Coastal MRC Program Priorities
and Benchmarks
Marine Habitats: Understand, steward, and restore marine, estuarine, coastal, and
nearshore habitats, prevent loss, and achieve a net gain of healthy habitat areas by
Enhancing ecosystem and community resilience by protecting and restoring marine
and coastal habitats
Designing and implementing local and regional projects that restore natural processes
Surveying and mapping marine and estuarine resources to better define physical and
biological characteristics of marine habitats
Making scientifically-based recommendations about management tools to protect
marine and estuarine habitats
Understanding and evaluating erosion and promoting sound sediment management
practices
Marine Life: Understand, steward, and restore marine and estuarine populations to
healthy, sustainable levels by:
Maintaining the health of marine and estuarine species and preventing further ESA
listings while increasing access to marine resource enjoyment and harvest where
feasible
Balancing protection focus on ecosystem versus target species
Identifying and carrying out actions to protect and restore species of interest and
concern
Designing and implementing projects to prevent the introduction and spread of
invasive species
Making scientifically-based recommendations about management tools for species
recovery
Marine and Fresh Water Quality: Understand, steward, and restore marine and estuarine
water quality of Washington’s coast and coastal embayments by:
Conducting or supporting science to fill critical data gaps
Working to reduce the input of pollutants
Promoting management actions that would restore degraded water quality and
contaminated sediment
Working with and training students and citizens to conduct water quality monitoring
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
s
Performance benchmarks are used by the Coastal MRC Program to account
for MRC activities and achievement in discrete but broad categories.
Coastal MRC Program Priorities
and Benchmarks
Sound Science: Collect high quality data and promote its transparent presentation,
acceptance, and timely dissemination by:
Utilizing established scientific protocols for the collection, analysis, and use of data
that support the Coastal MRC Program goal
Identifying gaps in data and working to fill those gaps by promoting the development
of comprehensive, accessible marine resource databases
Promoting peer reviewed science
Education and Outreach: Promote stewardship and understanding of coastal estuarine
and marine resources through science-based education and outreach by:
Informing the public about threats to living resources and coastal communities and
presenting them with practical measures they can take to prevent further harm,
especially regarding land use, erosion control, and individual homeowner decisions
Informing citizens and governmental agencies about ocean energy activities and
associated effects on coastal communities
Coordinating outreach and education programs with other organizations, including
local community colleges, and evaluating their effectiveness
Engaging the public in active stewardship opportunities through community
workshops, restoration projects, and educational programming
Translating and disseminating scientific information about the status of Washington’s
coastal habitats, resources, and communities to regional policy makers, resource
managers, and the public in a timely manner
Expanding partnerships with tribal governments and continuing to foster respect for
tribal cultures and treaties
Striving to maintain and improve coordination and communication among
stakeholders and all managers
Coastal Communities: Promote sustainable and resilient coastal communities by:
Supporting sustainable marine resource-based industries
Supporting cultural and economic integrity of coastal communities
Encouraging citizen participation in local and governmental decisions regarding
marine resources
Engaging in activities aimed at hazard prevention and preparedness, e.g. education
Increasing sustainable access to marine resource enjoyment and harvest
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
s
MSP Potential New Use Literature Summary :
Marine Product Extraction
What is Marine Product Extraction?
Marine product extraction (also sometimes called bioextraction) is the practice of harvesting marine
plants and animals to develop non-food related goods. Examples include anti-viral, anti-cancer, and anti-
tumor agents used in medical treatments, anti-inflammatories in cosmetics, chemicals used in
biomedical and cell biology research, and fatty amino acids in nutritional supplements. New genome
sequences have also been discovered within marine organisms.
Researchers, universities, government agencies, and private companies use marine bioprospecting to
search for novel chemicals for human health products. SCUBA diving, manned submersible vehicles, and
remotely operated vehicles are current methods for marine bioprospecting.
Several phases occur between initial discovery and commercial sales of a developed product. Initial
chemical discovery and genome sequencing often
require small amounts of the target organism. Testing,
clinical trials, and commercial sales will require greater
amounts of availability.
The required quantities of the marine organism and
target chemical can be obtained by a few different
methods:
Wild harvest has been used to collect the
required amounts of chemical for product
development and sales. Harvest sustainability is
dependent upon the organism, method of harvest, and desired quantities.
Aquaculture of marine organisms to produce desired chemicals can be land-based or in-the-sea.
The success of aquaculture for product supply depends on the husbandry needs for the
organism, as well as specific environmental controls that stimulate the organism to produce the
desired chemical.
Biotechnology is used within laboratories to synthetically replicate chemicals. There are
examples of this, but the methods are often too complex and costly to be effective at creating
the desired quantities.
Why Marine Product Extraction?
Marine organisms represent a vast pool of potential new discoveries that can advance human health
products. For example, anti-viral compounds to treat HIV were discovered in marine sponges. The
potential for discovery is also quite large, and is predicted to be about 300 to 500 times larger than
terrestrial sources. Marine biotechnology is currently a multi-billion dollar industry.
NOAA
Potential Benefits and Use Compatibilities
Marine protected areas may be a way to protect marine genetic reserves and be sources of
future discoveries.
No information was found related to other existing use compatibilities.
Environmental Concerns
Over-harvest and habitat degradation remain a key concern for marine product extraction.
Impacts strongly depend upon the intensity and frequency of harvest, organism life history, and
quantities required.
Sustainable harvest may be achieved through conservation measures such as harvest feasibility
studies, sustainable collection methods, and harvest limitations.
Potential Use Conflicts
No information was found on conflicting uses.
Spatial conflicts are difficult to forecast because they are dependent upon the organism
harvested, the method, intensity, and frequency of harvest, and other factors.
Future Trends and Factors in Washington
Based on the literature, it does not seem likely that the Washington coast is a primary target for marine
bioprospecting and marine product extraction. However, the Plan’s study area has some high
biodiversity and extreme environments including seamounts, deep sea corals, and hydrothermal vents.
Organisms within these habitats are predicted have the greatest potential to contain undiscovered
genome sequences and chemicals. Therefore, as technology continues to expand the depths of the
ocean to be explored, it is possible that novel chemicals and DNA sequences could be discovered within
Plan waters.
MSP Potential New Use Literature Summary :
Offshore Aquaculture
What is Offshore Aquaculture?
Aquaculture, the culture or growing of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic plants and animals, is an active
industry in Washington. All of Washington’s marine aquaculture currently occurs close to shore, within
bays, estuaries, and Puget Sound-there is no offshore aquaculture in the state.
There is no standard definition for offshore aquaculture. Offshore aquaculture typically occurs in deep
water and is generally exposed to one or several of the following: strong waves, storms, swells, and
currents. Given the physical exposure of Washington’s Pacific coast, offshore aquaculture is currently
defined within the Marine Spatial Plan as any new aquaculture operation outside of the coastal
estuaries.
Current and Emerging Offshore Technologies
Finfish aquaculture uses two general types of cage designs:
Surface cages: This type sits at the surface of the water.
Surface cages are often referred to as net pens, which are
currently used in offshore aquaculture in Norway and
Chile.
Submersible cages: This type can partially or fully
submerge underwater to avoid rough seas. Some have
nets, while other designs have a rigid outer cage.
Shellfish aquaculture uses longlines moored to the seafloor. The
shellfish are either directly attached to the lines or grown in net
bags attached to the lines. Mussels and scallops are currently cultured offshore in many countries using
this technique. Challenges for this technique include detachment of the shellfish from the lines in rough
seas.
Marine plant aquaculture methods are similar to shellfish. Growing plants requires more sunlight and
surface space compared to shellfish and finfish.
Why Offshore Aquaculture?
International food organizations have identified seafood as a promising option to provide a growing
world population with high-quality protein. Coastal aquaculture is limited in space and site suitability,
and wild capture fisheries will not be able to meet future seafood demand. Currently, all U.S. domestic
aquaculture supplies only about 1.5% of American seafood demand. Several countries, including the
U.S., are interested in increasing supplies of seafood protein to keep up with rising demand, and
offshore aquaculture has been identified as a promising alternative.
NOAA
Potential Benefits and Use Compatibilities
Offshore aquaculture can minimize environmental impacts, improve seafood health, and reduce
risk of disease when sited in clean, well-flushed ocean waters versus contaminated nearshore
waters.
Domestic aquaculture expansion can increase seafood security and decrease reliance on
aquaculture products from other counties.
Offshore aquaculture can build off of existing aquaculture knowledge and infrastructure and
increase jobs in husbandry, cage supply, transportation, seafood processing, etc.
Offshore sites can decrease visual impacts compared to coastal aquaculture.
Shellfish culture could potentially be co-located with marine renewable energy.
Environmental Concerns
Food particles and feces accumulating on the seafloor can change benthic chemistry and
community composition. Well-flushed sites and avoidance of sensitive habitats is expected to
minimize this impact.
Interactions between cages and wild fish, sharks, and mammals have been discussed in the
literature as a concern. Cages act as fish aggregation devices. Management practices are used to
prevent injury and avoid interactions with mammals.
Chemical contaminants such as antibiotics and anti-foulants are a concern, although their use
has declined.
Water quality is a low concern in deep, well-flushed sites.
Several state and federal regulations are in place to prevent and minimize disease transmission.
Potential Use Conflicts
Use conflicts listed in the literature include commercial and recreational fisheries, recreational
activities, shipping, military uses, cable installation, mining, and dredge disposal. In particular,
cages, longlines, and moorings create space and safety conflicts with navigation, fishing
equipment, and SCUBA diving.
Other Concerns
Competition with commercial fisheries may cause seafood prices to decline. The literature
predicts that market competition between commercial fisheries and aquaculture will be a global
phenomenon as aquaculture expands.
Future Trends and Factors in Washington
Washington has a strong foundation in aquaculture for offshore operations to build upon, and some
have indicated offshore potential in the Pacific Northwest. The growing demand for seafood and the
limited number of suitable nearshore sites are key drivers for exploring offshore aquaculture. However,
the physical conditions off the Washington coast restrict the technology and cost feasibility of offshore
aquaculture. Safe and consistent access to offshore sites and space conflicts are also currently key
limitations.
MSP Potential Expanded Use Literature Summary :
Dredge Disposal in New Locations
What is Dredge Disposal?
Navigation channels in Grays Harbor, the Mouth of the Columbia River, and other locations within the
Plan area require frequent dredging to maintain vessel access to critical port infrastructure and services.
In some locations, millions of cubic yards are dredged annually to keep navigation channels safe and
accessible.
The majority of the dredged material is disposed of in-water at specific disposal sites. Current disposal
types include:
Nearshore and on-shore beneficial use sites keep sediment within the nearshore system, which
can minimize erosion. These sites have boundaries, and sediment can accumulate on the
seafloor. These sites are designed for the sediment to disperse over time.
Flow lane sites are generally used for relatively small volumes of material. The material is placed
in scour channels, and does not accumulate on the seafloor.
Deep water sites are located offshore in federal waters. Sediment disposed at deep water sites
is effectively removed from the nearshore system.
Current Dredge Disposal in
Washington
Grays Harbor: 5 active disposal locations
(nearshore and onshore use)
Mouth of the Columbia River (MCR): 4 active
disposal locations (nearshore use and
deepwater)
Willapa Bay: Flow lanes
La Push: 2 beneficial use sites
Why New Disposal Locations?
There are a few different reasons why new disposal
sites may be created. At the MCR, current nearshore
sites have limited capacity and accessibility, so the MCR regional sediment management team has
recommended expanding the network of nearshore disposal sites to limit the use of existing disposal
sites and increase beneficial use of sediment in the nearshore. In Willapa Bay, some ports are
considering new flow lanes in locations where small dredges and volumes of material make the use of
flow lanes more cost effective than established disposal sites. In other areas, agencies are
recommending shifting some disposal locations in order to accommodate natural changes within scour
channels.
Current
disposal sites
Potential Benefits and Use Compatibilities
Maximizing beneficial use of sediment can minimize erosion and provide benefits for:
o Recreation and tourism
o Coastal hazard protection
Environmental Concerns
Dungeness crab are at risk of direct burial from dredge disposal. Current research is studying the
mortality and behavior of crab at disposal sites to assess the extent of the risk. Mitigation
measures may include thin-layer dispersal to minimize mortality.
Razor clams and other benthic invertebrates are also at risk for direct burial. Studies suggest
100% razor clam survival in 12 cm or less of dredge disposal. Studies have indicated that benthic
invertebrates such as polycheates and echinoderms will be impacted, but are expected to
recover rapidly.
Marine fish, birds and mammals are anticipated to have low impacts from dredge disposal. Not
much information is known about these impacts.
Potential Use Conflicts
The Dungeness crab fishery has concerns about disposal in shallow areas used heavily by
fishermen. Conflicts include possible reductions of Dungeness crab catch, as well as loss of crab
pots. Current mitigation measures include monitoring for crab “hot spots” and crab pots, and
communicating with crab fishermen before disposal.
Navigational safety can be put at risk if mounding of the disposal material is significant enough
to amplify waves at the surface. The Mouth of the Columbia River Regional Sediment
Management Plan recommends no more than 10% wave amplification above baseline
conditions. The Army Corps of Engineers regularly monitors their sites for wave amplification
from mounding.
Future Trends and Factors in Washington
The Mouth of the Columbia River Regional Sediment Management Plan identified two potential
new locations for dredge disposal. An onshore site at Benson Beach has been a demonstration
project, but there are concerns about the safety and cost effectiveness of this site. A proposed
North Head nearshore site is currently under consideration.
Two sites at Grays Harbor may undergo small shifts in locations. The South Jetty site may be
shifted slightly northward to accommodate the shifting scour channel. The Point Chehalis open
water site may undergo a one-time northwestern shift in order to accommodate the additional
material from the Grays Harbor channel deepening.
Additional flow lanes in Willapa Bay may be established in the future for small port dredging.
MSP Potential New Use Literature Summary :
Mining Gas Hydrates
What are Gas Hydrates?
Gas hydrates are a mixture of gas and water which, under low temperature and high pressures, forms a
solid ice-like structure in marine sediments. Methane is the main type of gas in hydrates. When
methane hydrates are exposed to warmer temperatures or lower pressures, the hydrates “dissociate”
and release methane gas. Preliminary research suggests traditional oil and gas equipment and
infrastructure can be successfully adapted to mine gas hydrates. Globally, no commercial methane
mining activities currently exist, and no projects are proposed for offshore Washington.
Why Mine for Gas Hydrates?
Methane is a natural gas that can be used for energy production. Methane hydrates are estimated to be
the world’s largest source of organic carbon. The United States Congress identifed the potential for
methane hydrates to help alleviate the projected shortfall of natural gas
supplies, and has contributed substantial funding for researching gas hydrates.
Potential Benefits and Use Compatibilities
Recreational fisheries could benefit from fish aggregations around platforms.
Environmental Concerns
We expect many of the main environmental concerns to be similar to offshore oil and gas activities
including: noise from seismic surveys, platform construction, and vessel operations; water quality
impacts from hydrocarbons and chemicals; air quality impacts; benthic habitat disturbance; impacts to
marine mammals, birds, fish, and sea turtles; and hazards from leaks, spills, and loss of well control.
Potential Use Conflicts
Commercial and recreational fisheries could be impacted through displacement, changes in fish
location and behavior, and loss of fishing gear. Tourism and recreation could be affected by visual
impacts to boating and sightseeing. Shipwrecks and other archaeological sites could also be impacted.
Future Trends and Factors in Washington
The Washington coastal margin has significant amounts of methane hydrates. However, the hydrates
are generally widely dispersed and therefore not a high target for resource extraction. Current research
efforts are focused on highly concentrated hydrate sites in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coastal
margin.
USGS
US
G
S
MSP Potential New Use Literature Summary :
Mining Marine Sand and Gravel
What is Marine Sand and Gravel Mining?
Sand and gravel mining is the dredging of sand or gravel from the seafloor for use in beach nourishment,
coastal hazard defense, and other uses such as upland construction. Suction dredges are used to extract
the material, which is stored and transported by ship, barge, or pipeline to a beach or re-handling area.
Why Mine for Marine Sand and Gravel?
Sand and gravel are mined more than any other resource in the world, yet they are limited resources.
Land development, decreasing land-based supplies, and climate change are shifting sand and gravel
mining to marine waters. The U.S. East Coast has a high demand for offshore sand to renourish beaches
and provide coastal defense against storms and climate change. Worldwide demand for sand and gravel
is expected to increase.
Potential Benefits and Use Compatibilities
Mining used for beach nourishment and coastal protection
projects may benefit coastal communities and infrastructure as
well as beach recreation and tourism and coastal habitats.
Environmental Concerns
Benthic species and habitats will be directly impacted by the dredge. Seafloor community
recovery can take over 3-5 years, and community composition in dredge “pits” may change.
Bottom fish could be affected if dredging occurs in their habitat.
Noise, vessels strikes, water quality, and ecosystem effects are also concerns.
Potential Use Conflicts
Commercial and recreational fisheries could be impacted by: increased vessel traffic, restricted access
to fishing grounds, gear loss, and changes to fish ecology. Archaeological sites, marine renewable
energy, and methane hydrate mining are also not compatible with sand/gravel mining.
Future Trends and Factors in Washington
Washington’s seafloor contains significant amounts of sand and gravel. Current local demand for sand
and gravel is low, but decreasing land supplies, coastal population growth, increased storms, and sea
level rise may increase future demand. Cost and logistics may limit the sand available from navigation
dredging for beach projects, which may influence demand for offshore sand. To date, BOEM has not
assessed Washington offshore lease blocks for sand and gravel mining for beach nourishment.
Marinelog.com
MSP Potential New Use Literature Summary :
Mining Gas Hydrates
What are Gas Hydrates?
Gas hydrates are a mixture of gas and water which, under low temperature and high pressures, forms a
solid ice-like structure in marine sediments. Methane is the main type of gas in hydrates. When
methane hydrates are exposed to warmer temperatures or lower pressures, the hydrates “dissociate”
and release methane gas. Preliminary research suggests traditional oil and gas equipment and
infrastructure can be successfully adapted to mine gas hydrates. Globally, no commercial methane
mining activities currently exist, and no projects are proposed for offshore Washington.
Why Mine for Gas Hydrates?
Methane is a natural gas that can be used for energy production. Methane hydrates are estimated to be
the world’s largest source of organic carbon. The United States Congress identifed the potential for
methane hydrates to help alleviate the projected shortfall of natural gas
supplies, and has contributed substantial funding for researching gas hydrates.
Potential Benefits and Use Compatibilities
Recreational fisheries could benefit from fish aggregations around platforms.
Environmental Concerns
We expect many of the main environmental concerns to be similar to offshore oil and gas activities
including: noise from seismic surveys, platform construction, and vessel operations; water quality
impacts from hydrocarbons and chemicals; air quality impacts; benthic habitat disturbance; impacts to
marine mammals, birds, fish, and sea turtles; and hazards from leaks, spills, and loss of well control.
Potential Use Conflicts
Commercial and recreational fisheries could be impacted through displacement, changes in fish
location and behavior, and loss of fishing gear. Tourism and recreation could be affected by visual
impacts to boating and sightseeing. Shipwrecks and other archaeological sites could also be impacted.
Future Trends and Factors in Washington
The Washington coastal margin has significant amounts of methane hydrates. However, the hydrates
are generally widely dispersed and therefore not a high target for resource extraction. Current research
efforts are focused on highly concentrated hydrate sites in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coastal
margin.
USGS
US
G
S
MSP Potential New Use Literature Summary :
Mining Marine Sand and Gravel
What is Marine Sand and Gravel Mining?
Sand and gravel mining is the dredging of sand or gravel from the seafloor for use in beach nourishment,
coastal hazard defense, and other uses such as upland construction. Suction dredges are used to extract
the material, which is stored and transported by ship, barge, or pipeline to a beach or re-handling area.
Why Mine for Marine Sand and Gravel?
Sand and gravel are mined more than any other resource in the world, yet they are limited resources.
Land development, decreasing land-based supplies, and climate change are shifting sand and gravel
mining to marine waters. The U.S. East Coast has a high demand for offshore sand to renourish beaches
and provide coastal defense against storms and climate change. Worldwide demand for sand and gravel
is expected to increase.
Potential Benefits and Use Compatibilities
Mining used for beach nourishment and coastal protection
projects may benefit coastal communities and infrastructure as
well as beach recreation and tourism and coastal habitats.
Environmental Concerns
Benthic species and habitats will be directly impacted by the dredge. Seafloor community
recovery can take over 3-5 years, and community composition in dredge “pits” may change.
Bottom fish could be affected if dredging occurs in their habitat.
Noise, vessels strikes, water quality, and ecosystem effects are also concerns.
Potential Use Conflicts
Commercial and recreational fisheries could be impacted by: increased vessel traffic, restricted access
to fishing grounds, gear loss, and changes to fish ecology. Archaeological sites, marine renewable
energy, and methane hydrate mining are also not compatible with sand/gravel mining.
Future Trends and Factors in Washington
Washington’s seafloor contains significant amounts of sand and gravel. Current local demand for sand
and gravel is low, but decreasing land supplies, coastal population growth, increased storms, and sea
level rise may increase future demand. Cost and logistics may limit the sand available from navigation
dredging for beach projects, which may influence demand for offshore sand. To date, BOEM has not
assessed Washington offshore lease blocks for sand and gravel mining for beach nourishment.
Marinelog.com