HomeMy WebLinkAboutBest Available Science Report
Final
JEFFERSON COUNTY
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATE
Best Available Science Report
Prepared for December 15, 2015
Jefferson County
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1-1
1.1 Report Background and Purpose ...............................................................................1-1
1.2 Current CAO Update Process ....................................................................................1-2
CHAPTER 2. METHODS ....................................................................................................2-1
CHAPTER 3. WETLANDS ..................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Updates to Scientific Literature ...................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Ecology Synthesis & Guidance ............................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.2 Wetland Delineation and Rating ........................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.3 Buffer Effectiveness ............................................................................................................. 3-3
3.1.4 Mitigation .............................................................................................................................. 3-5
3.2 Assessment of Current Wetlands Provisions ..............................................................3-9
3.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 3-11
CHAPTER 4. FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS ...............................................................4-1
4.1 Updates to Scientific Literature ...................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Functions and Values of Frequently Flooded Areas ............................................................ 4-3
4.1.2 Long-term Climate Trends and Frequently Flooded Areas .................................................. 4-4
4.2 Assessment of Current Frequently Flooded Areas Provisions ....................................4-4
4.3 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................4-5
CHAPTER 5. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS ..........................5-1
5.1 Updates to Scientific Literature ...................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Stream Typing ...................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Buffer Widths and Effectiveness .......................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.3 Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Projects .................................................................. 5-3
5.1.4 Wildlife Habitat and Corridors ............................................................................................... 5-3
5.2 Assessment of Current Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Provisions .......5-4
5.3 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................5-5
CHAPTER 6. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN AND NEAR CRITICAL AREAS ................6-1
6.1 Agriculture and Critical Areas in Jefferson County ......................................................6-1
6.1.1 Regulations and Best Management Practices ..................................................................... 6-3
6.1.2 Voluntary Stewardship Program........................................................................................... 6-4
6.2 Potential Agricultural Impacts and Effectiveness of Existing BMPs.............................6-4
6.2.1 Water Quality ........................................................................................................................ 6-9
6.2.2 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................. 6-9
6.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat ..................................................................................................... 6-10
6.3 Additional Recent Scientific Literature ...................................................................... 6-10
6.3.1 Washington Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Monitoring Summary ........... 6-11
6.3.2 Washington Agricultural Caucus Riparian Buffer Review .................................................. 6-11
6.3.3 Chimacum Watershed Water Quality and Fishes Report .................................................. 6-13
6.3.4 Working Buffers on Agricultural Lands Paper .................................................................... 6-14
6.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 6-16
CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES .............................................................................................7-1
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page ii December 2015
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 3-1. Types of Alternative Mitigation .............................................................................. 3-8
Table 6-1. Types of Potential Impacts from Agricultural Activities........................................... 6-6
Table 6-2. Climate change mitigation benefits from agroforestry practices. .......................... 6-15
List of Figures
Figure 6-1. Figure 4: Conceptual model of integrated design using a Riparian Buffer
Zone, Working Buffer Zones, and integrated runoff management....................... 6-14
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 1-1
Introduction
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
In 1990, the Washington state legislature passed the Growth Management Act (GMA), which requires
cities and counties to designate and protect critical areas. In 1995, the legislature amended the GMA to
require that local governments consider Best Available Science (BAS) in developing policies and
regulations for protecting critical areas, and also give special consideration to the conservation and
protection of anadromous fisheries (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 36.70A.172). BAS is defined as
current scientific information produced through a valid scientific process that is peer reviewed and
includes clearly stated methods, logical conclusions and reasonable inferences, quantitative analysis,
proper context, and references (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 365-195-905). This document
summarizes BAS for Jefferson County critical areas and provides preliminary considerations for
reviewing the County’s critical area protection standards.
As directed by Jefferson County and per RCW 36.70A.050, this document addresses BAS for the
following critical areas:
Wetlands (Chapter 3);
Frequently flooded areas (Chapter 4); and
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHCAs) (Chapter 5).
In addition, this document discusses best management practices for existing and ongoing agricultural
activities (Chapter 6).
1.1 Report Background and Purpose
The information contained within this document is a summary of scientific information relating to
designating and protecting critical areas as defined under the GMA. The information provides a basis
for recommending changes and additions to the County’s critical areas regulations codified in the
Jefferson County Unified Development Code – Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas (Chapter 18.22 JCC). This is
not an exhaustive summary of all science related to critical areas, but is instead a summary of the best
available scientific information that is pertinent to Jefferson County and applicable to the types of
critical areas present.
Each chapter of the report is devoted to a specific type of critical area. In many cases, the information
presented for one type of critical areas overlaps, complements, or is applicable to another type of
critical area because these areas function as integrated components of the ecosystem. The chapters
summarize the information and issues for the County to consider within its process for updating policies
and regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas (RCW 36.70A.172 (1)).
The State legislature and the Growth Management Hearings Boards (GMHBs) have defined critical area
“protection” to mean preservation of critical area “structure, function, and value.” Local governments
are not required to protect all functions and values of all critical areas, but they are required to achieve
“no net loss” of critical area functions and values across the jurisdictional landscape. Local
governments are also required to develop regulations that reduce hazards associated with frequently
flooded areas. The standard of protection is to prevent adverse impacts to critical areas, to mitigate
adverse impacts, and/or to reduce associated risks.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 1-2 December 2015
Introduction
In addition to updating the County’s critical areas regulations under the GMA, this report also reviews
the science supporting standards for existing and ongoing agricultural activities and uses as regulated in
JCC 18.20.030. Existing and ongoing agriculture is defined as “activities conducted on an ongoing basis
on lands enrolled in the open space tax program for agriculture or designated as agricultural lands;
provided, that agricultural activities were conducted on those lands at any time during the five-year
period preceding April 28, 2003.” Existing and ongoing agriculture is exempt from the critical areas
regulations in Chapter 18.22 JCC, but is subject to the objectives and standards of JCC 18.20.030
through voluntary compliance. JCC 18.20.030 is primarily based on a set of best management practices
(BMPs) that protects the functions and values of critical areas from harm or degradation. New
agriculture is defined as “activities proposed or conducted after April 28, 2003, and that do not meet
the definition of ‘existing and ongoing agriculture’” and is subject to the critical areas regulations in
Chapter 18.22 JCC.
1.2 Current CAO Update Process
Jefferson County is updating its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in accordance with the requirements of
the GMA (RCW 36.70A). The County recognizes the current update as an opportunity to clarify the
purpose of the CAO, and refine policy and development regulations to best balance critical areas
protection with other goals of the GMA.
This report is one of three documents prepared in coordination with the County that will support the
evaluation and update to land use regulations in the Jefferson County Code (JCC) that protect critical
areas. First, the Best Available Science Report (this document) summarizes the current scientific
literature and guidance on best practices for critical areas protection relevant to resources in Jefferson
County. The BAS report incorporates the findings of previous review efforts conducted by the County
and assesses current regulations for consistency with current best available science. Second, the
Watershed Characterization Report (ESA, in prep.) documents existing biological and physical data and
watershed-based information relating to critical areas within the eastern portion of the County, with a
focus on stream conditions and agricultural areas. Using fine-scale land cover, topography, streamflow,
and other available data, the report assesses trends in environmental quality and ecological functions of
streams and wetlands in this area of the County. Third, the Recommendations Report (ESA,
forthcoming) will use the assessment of regulations in the BAS report along with the watershed
analysis in the characterization report to identify adjustments to regulations that could improve
protection and management of critical areas in Jefferson County. The report will provide a set of
options and draft recommendations for revising the CAO regulations.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 2-1
Methods
CHAPTER 2. METHODS
To complete the BAS review, ESA compiled current scientific information, including applicable
regulatory agency guidance, and then assessed the County’s regulations in Chapter 18.22 JCC for
consistency with this information for the following critical areas:
Wetlands
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Frequently Flooded Areas
ESA also reviewed regulations for agricultural activities and accessory uses in JCC 18.20.030 against
current scientific information. This report relies upon several regulatory guidance and BAS documents
pertaining to critical areas. Current examples of regulatory language pertaining to critical areas can be
found in Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas within the Framework of the
Washington Growth Management Act (CTED, 2007). Best available science or BAS is defined as
scientific information about critical areas, prepared by local, tribal, state, or federal natural resource
agencies, or qualified scientific professionals that is consistent with the following criteria:
Scientific information is produced through a valid scientific process that includes:
o Peer review,
o A discussion of methods used to gather information,
o Logical conclusions,
o Quantitative data analysis,
o Information used in the appropriate context, and
o References of literature and other sources of information used.
Scientific information is obtained through a common source such as:
o Research,
o Monitoring,
o Inventory,
o Survey,
o Modeling,
o Assessment,
o Synthesis, or
o Expert opinion.
In the context of critical areas protection, a scientific process is one that produces reliable information
useful in understanding the consequences of regulatory decisions, and in developing critical areas
policies and regulations that are effective in protecting the functions and values of critical areas.
Common sources of non-scientific information include anecdotal information; non-expert opinion; and
hearsay. The County will consider the scientific sources that meet the above criteria along with other
factors in its review of critical areas policies and regulations.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 3-1
Wetlands
CHAPTER 3. WETLANDS
This chapter summarizes recent guidance documents published by state resource agencies, the County,
and other organizations concerning wetlands and how they can affect or be affected by land use and
other human activities. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a basis for recommending updates to
the wetland provisions of the County’s critical areas regulations (JCC Chapter 18.22).
Wetlands are defined by state law (RCW 36.70A.030) as:
“…areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands
intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and
drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment
facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990,
that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway.
Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas
created to mitigate conversion of wetlands."
3.1 Updates to Scientific Literature
Most of the latest materials pertaining to wetlands have been prepared by state and federal agencies.
The County’s last BAS review was in 2004 (Christensen, 2004). The Department of Community
Development (DCD) continued to review and consider BAS documents between 2004 and adoption of
the current CAO in 2008. Since then, new scientific findings have been published describing methods
for assessing wetlands on a watershed-based and landscape-scale, alternative mitigation strategies
(mitigation banking and in-lieu fee programs), improving the success of compensatory mitigation, and
buffer effectiveness. Each of these topics are discussed in the following sections.
For model code language, the wetland model code found in the Critical Areas Assistance Handbook
(CTED, 2007) was updated in 2012 to address small cities. The updated model code in Wetlands and
CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version (Bunten et al., 2012) and is
considered Ecology’s BAS for wetland regulations.
3.1.1 Ecology Synthesis & Guidance
In 2005, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) released a two-volume BAS document that is still the primary source of new
information for wetland management: Wetlands in Washington State – Vol. 1 A Synthesis of the Science
(Sheldon et al. 2005) and Vol. 2 Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Granger et al. 2005).
Volume 1 contains a summary and synthesis of the recent literature relevant to the science and
management of wetlands in the state of Washington. It describes what the scientific literature says
directly about the following topics:
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 3-2 December 2015
Wetlands
“How environmental factors control the functions of wetlands across the landscape and at
individual sites, how freshwater wetlands are classified according to these controls, and what
functions are performed by different classes of freshwater wetlands in the state.
How human activities and land uses affect the environmental factors that control the functions
of freshwater wetlands
How disturbances caused by human activities and land uses impact the performance of
functions by freshwater wetlands
How wetlands are protected and managed using common tools such as buffers and
compensatory mitigation, including what the literature says about the relative effectiveness of
these tools
How cumulative impacts can result from current approaches to managing and regulating
wetlands”
Volume 2 translates the scientific findings from Volume 1 into guidance to local governments and
others regarding programs they can or currently do use to protect and manage wetlands. The main
points of Volume 2 follow:
“By relying on a site-by-site approach to managing wetlands, we are failing to effectively protect
them
To effectively protect wetlands and their functions, we must understand and manage their
interaction with the environmental factors that control wetland functions
To understand and manage these environmental factors and wetland functions, information
generated through landscape analysis is needed
Landscape analysis should be the first step in a four-step framework that should be used in
developing a diversified program to protect and manage wetlands and their functions; the four-step
framework should include analyzing the landscape, prescribing solutions, taking actions, and
monitoring results and applying adaptive management
Protection and management measures developed and implemented in steps two and three of the
four-step framework (prescribing solutions and taking action) should incorporate a full range of
components including:
Policies and plans such as landscape-based plans (such as Green Infrastructure),
comprehensive plans, subarea plans, etc.
Regulations such as critical areas ordinances, clearing and grading ordinances, etc.
Non-regulatory activities such as incentives that encourage conservation, restoration, and
preservation through voluntary efforts”
Both Volumes 1 and 2 were written to assist local governments in complying with requirements of the
GMA to include the best available science when adopting development regulations to designate and
protect wetlands. They are not themselves BAS, but rather are recommendations from WDFW and
Ecology as to how a local government could include BAS into policies, plans, and regulations to protect
wetlands.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 3-3
Wetlands
It should be noted that during the County’s last BAS review a draft version of Volume 1 was available
and incorporated into the update process. However, the final version of Volume 1 and Volume 2 were
not available until after the County’s BAS review. In 2008, the County made some amendments to its
critical areas regulations, which did incorporate the Ecology documents that are summarized in the
following section.
3.1.2 Wetland Delineation and Rating
In 2010, the Corps released the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps, 2010). The regional supplement updates
portions of the 1987 Corps’ Wetland Delineation Manual and provides additional technical guidance and
updated procedures for identifying and delineating wetlands. State law requiring the Washington State
Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology, 1997) was repealed in 2011, and the state
manual is no longer required. The Regional Supplement is now identified by state rules (WAC 173-22-
035).
Ecology released an update to the state wetland rating system, the Washington State Wetland Rating
System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Hruby, 2014), that went into effect January 2015. The
rating system is still a four-tier system and most of the material in the 2014 updated manual remains
the same as that in the 2004 manual. The updated wetland rating system includes a new scoring range
(i.e., between 9 and 27 under the updated system versus 1 to 100 in the 2004 system) that is based on a
qualitative scale of functions from high, medium, or low. The new approach to scoring wetland
functions on a high, medium, or low scale is more scientifically supportable than Ecology’s 2004 rating
system (Hruby, 2014). The 2014 system also includes new sections for assessing a wetland’s potential
to provide functions and values on a landscape scale.
3.1.3 Buffer Effectiveness
As summarized previously, the document, Wetlands in Washington State – Vol. 1 A Synthesis of the
Science (Sheldon et al., 2005), synthesized literature related to wetland buffers and buffer effectiveness
among other wetland-related topics. In 2013, Ecology published Update on Wetland Buffers: The State
of the Science, Final Report which updated the 2005 synthesis with a literature review of scientific
documents published between 2003 and 2012 (Hruby, 2013). The review addressed each of the
conclusions in the Sheldon et al. (2005) report and consulted 144 articles.
Water Quality
The updated buffer synthesis confirmed that buffers perform an important water quality function by
trapping pollutants before they reach a wetland. It also confirmed that generally, the wider the buffer,
the more effective it is at protecting water quality, while sheet flow, vegetation, and slope are also
important factors. Recent research shows that processes such as denitrification, adsorption, and
conversion of nutrients and bacteria are more complicated and can be very site specific (Dosskey et al.,
2010; Owens et al., 2007; Sahu and Gu, 2009; Yuan et al., 2009; Polyakov et al., 2005). Many factors
besides width affect the effectiveness of buffers to address water quality, including:
Slope gradient and length (Yuan et al., 2009, Zhang et al., 2010).
Vegetation type, spacing, and density (Buffler et al., 2005; Polyakov et al., 2005; Yuan et al.,
2009; Zhang et al., 2010).
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 3-4 December 2015
Wetlands
Soil type, geochemical and physical properties, infiltration rates, and soil water content (Mayer
et al., 2007; Polyakov et al., 2005).
Type and concentration of pollutants (Gumiero et al., 2011; Hoffman et al., 2009; Mayer et al.,
2007; Ranalli and Macalady, 2010; Uusi-Kamppa, 2005).
Flow path through the buffer – surface and subsurface flow paths are important (Mayer et al.,
2007; Polyakov et al., 2005; Yuan et al., 2009).
Adjacent land use practices (Hoffman et al., 2009)
The 2013 update also included more research regarding how buffers function to remove specific
chemicals. The processes to remove phosphorus and nitrogen are different, and thus the
characteristics of buffers needed to treat these potential pollutants are different:
Phosphorus – Soil type (redox, pH), the amount of phosphorus already in the soil, slope, buffer
width, presence of other minerals that bind to dissolved phosphorus, and the amount of
phosphorus entering the buffer are important factors for buffer effectiveness; the capacity of
buffers to trap phosphorus is finite (Buffler et al., 2005; Hickey and Doran, 2004; Hoffman et al.,
2009; Owens et al., 2007). Buffers release phosphorus under certain conditions (Buffler et al.,
2005; Homan et al., 2004, Uusi-Kamppa, 2005).
Nitrogen – The subsurface denitrification process, nitrogen uptake by vegetation, and
immobilization of microorganisms play a larger role than buffer width in removing nitrogen.
The presence of organic matter and anoxic conditions and amount of nitrate in groundwater
are also important in nitrogen removal (Baker et al., 2006; Dosskey et al., 2002; Ranalli and
Macalady, 2010; Mayer et al., 2007).
Wetland Hydrology
There is little recently published research regarding how buffers affect the hydrologic functions of
wetlands; however, Hruby has inferred how buffers protect depressional wetlands (2013). Surface flows
that fill depressional wetlands during storms often contain sediment, which can reduce the storage
capacity of the wetland. A vegetated buffer helps to protect a wetland’s storage capacity by trapping
sediments from surface flows. Hruby points out that this inference has not been supported by any
studies (2013).
Wildlife Habitat
Research in the past decade supports previous conclusions made by Sheldon et al. that larger buffers
are needed for protecting habitat than are needed to protect water quality functions (2005). The
research also shows that there is a large variability in the habitat needs of wetland-dependent and
wetland-associated species and that habitat needs are complex. Thus, while larger buffers are generally
more effective, habitat protection requires consideration of the broader landscape condition, including
connectivity and proximity between wetlands are other habitat types (Hruby, 2013). Research also
indicates that wetland buffers are themselves an important habitat component, or core habitat. This is
because many species use the habitat adjacent to wetlands for breeding, foraging, resting, or for
movement between otherwise isolated habitats (Baldwin et al., 2006; Bauer et al., 2010; Crawford et
al., 2007; Ribeiro et al., 2011; Rittenhouse and Semlitsch, 2006; Semlitsch, 2007; Semlitsch and Bodie,
2003; Semlitsch and Jensen, 2001; Slawski, 2010).
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 3-5
Wetlands
Birds
Several studies have been conducted on the value of buffers or core habitats to bird species (DeLuca et
al., 2004; Hannon et al., 2002; Hanowski et al., 2006; Hays et al., 1999; Mayer etal., 2007; McKinney et
al., 2011; Pickett et al., 2007; Pearson and Manuwal, 2001; Smith and ChowFraser, 2010; Smith et al.,
2008). Habitat protection provided for wetland-dependent birds depends on the specific species, the
type of vegetation in the buffer, land uses within 500m or 1 km of the wetland, and whether the setting
is urban or rural. For example, obligate marsh-nesting birds preferred rural wetlands; generalist marsh-
nesting birds showed no preference for rural or urban wetlands; while species adapted to living in
developed and residential areas had greater richness and abundance in urban marshes (Houlahan et al.
2004).
Mammals
Literature of effective buffer widths for mammals indicates that dimensions are specific to a species’
life-history needs (e.g., nesting sites, foraging ranges, etc.) and can range from 30m (Foster et al. 1984,
Castelle et al. 1992) to 1,000m (Richter 1997). New literature indicates that mammal diversity and
abundance showed a positive trend with 500m and 1000m buffers, but not 250m buffers (Francl et al.
2004). Supporting research found that the highest richness of small mammals was in wetlands with at
least the first 500m of buffer in forest cover with large woody debris (Richter 2001).
Amphibians
Two amphibians, the northern red-legged frog and the western toad, have been found to commonly
move 1,000 feet or more away from wetland areas (Hayes et al. 2008, Richter et al. 2008; 87). Similar to
wetland-dependent birds, habitat protection provided for amphibians depends on the specific species,
the type of vegetation in the buffer, land uses within 500m or 1 km of the wetland, and whether the
setting is urban or rural.
Research has also been done extensively on the value of buffers or core habitats to amphibians (Bauer
et al., 2010; Eigenbrod et al., 2009; Harper et al., 2008; Trenham and Shaffer, 2005). Further, new
literature confirms that certain species prefer certain types of vegetation in the wetland buffer as some
species prefer grasslands while other prefer shrubs and forests (Goldberg and Waits, 2010; McIntyre,
2011; Rittenhouse and Semlitsch, 2006). For example, the western toad prefers uplands that are
forested (Bartlet and Peterson, 2004; McIntyre, 2011) while the Woodhouse toad and northern leopard
frog prefer non-forested landscapes dominated by natural or unmaintained grasses (McIntyre, 2011).
3.1.4 Mitigation
Mitigation means avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for adverse critical areas impacts. Impacts to
wetlands must be mitigated in step-wise fashion in accordance with the “mitigation sequence” of
actions, which is mandated by WAC 197-11-768:
1. Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during
the life of the action.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 3-6 December 2015
Wetlands
5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or
environments.
6. Monitor the impact and take appropriate corrective measures.
Avoidance and minimization measures occur first during project design and are intended to avoid and
reduce a project’s effects prior to completion of project design. Once a determination is made that
project effects are unavoidable, compensatory mitigation is required. This type of mitigation is
designed to compensate for wetland losses that cannot be avoided during project construction.
Compensatory wetland mitigation is step five in the mitigation sequence.
Compensatory Mitigation
In general, there are four types of compensatory
wetland mitigation. Federal and state agencies that
regulate wetlands recommend they be used
following this order of preference: restoration,
creation, enhancement, and preservation (Corps,
2002; Ecology et al., 2006a). Compensatory
mitigation can occur either on-site, off-site or at an
established mitigation bank or through an approved
in-lieu fee program.
According to the National Research Council (NRC),
compensatory mitigation, particularly onsite
mitigation installed by the permittee (so called
permittee-responsible mitigation) has frequently
been unsuccessful and not achieved the national
policy of “no net loss” of wetland area and functions
(NRC, 2001). For example, a watershed-based
assessment of wetland impacts and compensatory
mitigation in northeastern Ohio found that the
majority of projects (67%) that restored or created
wetlands independently (not a mitigation bank) were
not successful in meeting permit requirements in
terms of wetland area (Kettlewell et al. 2008). In
Washington State, Ecology also studied the
effectiveness of compensatory mitigation within
Washington and came to similar conclusions and the
NRC report (Ecology, 2000, 2001).
In 2006, the Corps, EPA, and Ecology cooperatively
published a two-part guidance documented called Wetland Mitigation in Washington State. Part 1 -
Agency Policies and Guidance (Ecology, Corps, and EPA, 2006a) provides a brief background on
wetlands, an overview of the factors that go into the agencies’ permitting decisions, and detailed
guidance on the agencies’ policies on wetland mitigation, particularly compensatory mitigation. It
outlines the information the agencies use to determine whether specific mitigation plans are
appropriate and adequate. Part 2, Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecology, Corps, and EPA, 2006b)
provides technical information on preparing plans for compensatory mitigation. Some of the
Compensatory Mitigation and Order of
Preference
Restoration (re-establishment or
rehabilitation). The manipulation of the
physical, chemical, or biological characteristics
of a site with the goal of returning natural or
historic functions to a former or degraded
wetland.
Creation (establishment). The manipulation
of the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics to develop a wetland on an
upland or deepwater site, where a wetland did
not previously exist.
Enhancement. The manipulation of the
physical, chemical, or biological characteristics
of a wetland to heighten, intensify or improve
specific function(s) or to change the growth
stage or composition of the vegetation
present.
Preservation (protection/maintenance).
Removing a threat to, or preventing the
decline of, wetland conditions by an action in
or near a wetland. Preservation is an
approved method for compensatory mitigation
only in limited circumstances.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 3-7
Wetlands
information provided Part 1 has been superseded by recent guidance discussed in the Alternative
Mitigation section below; however, wetland mitigation ratios listed in this document are the basis for
many local jurisdictions’ mitigation requirements.
A 2008 review by Kihslinger documented ongoing concerns with standard compensatory mitigation
practices. Kihslinger noted that alternative forms of mitigation, such as mitigation banks and in-lieu fee
(ILF) programs, and advance mitigation were not established uniformly across the country, or within
individual states, and there were numerous cases where alternative mitigation programs were operated
unsuccessfully.
To address these mitigation deficiencies, the Corps and EPA released revised regulations governing
compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The 2008
Federal Rule, formally known as the Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule,
lays out criteria and performance standards designed to improve the success and quality of mitigation
activities (Corps and EPA, 2008). The new order of preference for compensatory mitigation
mechanisms at the federal level is now:
1. Formally approved mitigation bank credits
2. In lieu fee program credits
3. Permittee-responsible mitigation under a watershed approach
4. Permittee-responsible mitigation through on-site and in-kind mitigation
5. Permittee-responsible mitigation through off-site and/or out of kind mitigation
The Federal Rule emphasizes a watershed approach to mitigation as part of the planning,
implementation, and management of mitigation projects. A watershed approach is an analytical
process for making compensatory mitigation decisions that support the sustainability or improvement
of aquatic resources in a watershed; it involves consideration of watershed needs, and how locations
and types of compensatory mitigation projects address those needs.
Alternative Mitigation
Alternatives to permittee-responsible mitigation are increasingly implemented within Washington
State and around the country to compensate for authorized impacts to aquatic resources. Alternative
mitigation is used to restore, establish, enhance, and/or preserve aquatic resources and can satisfy
federal, state, and local regulations depending on the type of impact and the agency with jurisdictional
authority. Common forms of alternative mitigation are listed in Table 3-1.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 3-8 December 2015
Wetlands
Table 3-1. Types of Alternative Mitigation
Mitigation Type Responsible Party Implementation
Schedule Mitigation Location Additional Information
Mitigation Banks Public or private sponsor The sponsor has already
secured a mitigation site
and initiated mitigation
activities before fees are
accepted
Typically, mitigation
banks exist at one
location
Ecology provides banking resources for
potential sponsors on their Wetland
Mitigation Banking website (Ecology,
2015)
In-Lieu Fee (ILF)
Programs
Governmental or non-
profit natural resources
management entity
In-lieu fee programs accept
mitigation fees before
securing and implementing
projects
Mitigation is
implemented at multiple
sites
Ecology provides direction in Guidance on
In-Lieu Fee Mitigation (Ecology, 2012a)
Consolidated Off-site
Mitigation
Public or private entity As compensatory
mitigation fees are paid,
portions of the mitigation
site are constructed
Typically occurs at a
single location
Guidance for mitigation found Wetland
Mitigation in Washington State: Part 1 -
Agency Policies and Guidance and Part 2 -
Developing Mitigation Plans (Ecology,
Corps, and EPA, 2000a and b)
Advance Mitigation Public or private permit
applicants
The permittee implements
mitigation prior to
commencing the
development project
Advance mitigation
typically occurs at one
site
The Corps, Ecology, and WDFW provide
direction in Interagency Regulatory Guide –
Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation
(Ecology, 2012b)
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 3-9
Wetlands
Alternative forms of mitigation do not change the requirements for permit applicants to adhere to
“mitigation sequencing” required by regulatory agencies.
In the Federal Rule, the Corps outlines a mitigation hierarchy, preferring mitigation banks over ILF
programs and ILF programs over permittee-responsible mitigation.
Mitigation Ratios
Mitigation ratios have historically been used in administering both permittee-responsible and
alternative mitigation programs. The 2008 Corps Mitigation Rule points to mitigation ratios that are
determined on a case-by-case basis but generally at least 1:1 when replacing lost wetland area and
higher depending upon the type of mitigation used and the functions to be replaced.
Ecology’s Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Granger et al. 2005) provides guidance on
ratios for compensatory mitigation which are used by most local jurisdictions including Jefferson
County (see Appendix 8-C). The mitigation area required (ratios) is based on wetland category,
function, and special characteristics. Ecology notes that the ratios for compensatory mitigation are
based on the assumption that the category and hydro-geomorphic (HGM) class or subclass of the
affected wetland and the mitigation wetland are the same. The ratios may be adjusted either up or
down if the category or HGM class or subclass of the wetland proposed for compensation is different.
For example, ratios may be lower if impacts to a Category IV wetland are to be mitigated by creating a
Category II wetland. The ratios provided in the guidance should be considered a starting point for
discussion with each proponent of compensatory mitigation.
As an alternative to using mitigation ratios, Ecology developed Calculating Credits and Debits for
Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington (Hruby, 2012) for estimating whether a
project’s compensatory mitigation plan adequately replaces lost wetland functions and values. Termed
the “Credit-Debit Method,” this manual uses a “functions and values”-based approached to score
functions lost at the project site (i.e., “debits”) compared to functions gained at a mitigation site (i.e.,
“credits”). A mitigation project is considered successful when the “credit” score for a compensatory
mitigation project is higher than the “debit” score. Ecology does not require use of this method, but the
Corps and Ecology are increasingly relying on the Credit-Debit Method instead of mitigation ratios
alone.
3.2 Assessment of Current Wetlands Provisions
Jefferson County updated its wetlands ordinance in 2008 based on the BAS review conducted in 2004
(Christensen, 2004) as well as BAS documents that had been prepared while CAO language was being
drafted for the 2008 CAO update. The information produced is still generally valid for current
conditions, but some new information has been produced that supersedes the documents or their
findings (as described above). Based on our review of current literature, regulatory guidelines, and our
best professional judgment, we note the following topics.
Wetland designation and delineation
Wetlands in Washington State must be identified and delineated in accordance with the approved
federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements (WAC 173-22-035). The
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 3-10 December 2015
Wetlands
current language in JCC 18.22 refers to an outdated manual for wetland delineation and should be
revised for clarification.
Wetland rating system
As discussed in Section 3.1.3, the Ecology rating system was updated in 2014. JCC 18.22 refers to the
previous 2004 Ecology rating system, but includes the phrase “as amended”. The code could be revised
to clarify which wetland rating system is adopted by Jefferson County.
Wetland buffers
The County’s approach to wetland buffers and the standard buffer widths are still consistent with
current agency guidance and were previously approved by Ecology in 2008. The County uses Ecology’s
“Buffer Alternative 3” in Granger et al. (2005). This system allows for the wetland buffer width to be
based on wetland category, intensity of impacts, and wetland functions such as water quality and
wildlife habitat. As a result of the update to the wetland rating system, Ecology released a modified
version of its guidance for Buffer Alternative 3. Ecology is not changing the recommended buffer
widths, but the scale of scores for buffer functions has been changed. Minor changes to Tables
18.22.330(1, 2, and 3) in JCC 18.22 are needed to reflect the updated guidance. There are also additional
land uses in the guidance that are not included in the tables for low, moderate, and high impact land
uses. The code could be revised to include these additional land uses for consistency with the guidance.
Compensatory mitigation ratios and alternative mitigation
The County’s approach to compensatory mitigation and the mitigation ratios in Table 18.22.350 of JCC
18.22 mirror the Ecology recommendations in Granger et al. (2005) and are based on BAS, with a few
possible exceptions. However, the mitigation ratios apply to creation or restoration activities that are
in-kind, onsite, and accomplished prior to or concurrently with wetland alteration. The County’s code
should be updated to give preference for watershed-based mitigation rather than in-kind and on-site
and if an alternative mitigation approach is used. The code should allow for temporal delay when
implementing mitigation (as is the case with ILF programs and consolidated off-site mitigation). While
mitigation ratios in JCC 18.22.350 do not explicitly take into account the ecological needs of the
watershed, the County does have an overall mitigation goal of no net loss of wetland function, value,
and acreage. The County could account for wetland functional loss by allowing the use of the Credit-
Debit Method (described in Section 3.1.5) to assess wetland impacts associated with development.
However, use of the 2014 wetland rating system will also evaluate functions according to Ecology.
For wetlands that exhibit moderate to high functional value, in-kind and onsite mitigation is the
County’s preferred mitigation type. If the impacted wetland is of lower functional value, onsite
mitigation is still preferred, but out-of-kind mitigation may be implemented to achieve the highest
likelihood of success and greatest functional value. If out-of-kind mitigation is acceptable to the
County, greater mitigation ratios are required to compensate for lost functions and values. This CAO
language allows for the potential use of out-of-kind and offsite mitigation, supporting watershed-based
mitigation and the associated decision framework to determine the type and location of mitigation.
The County’s CAO varies from mitigation banking and ILF program mitigation in that the CAO requires
offsite mitigation for Category I to III wetlands to occur within the same watershed as the wetland
impact, while alternative forms of mitigation typically do not place within-watershed geographic
limitations. Similarly, the CAO states that stormwater storage function provided by Category IV
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 3-11
Wetlands
wetlands must be provided for within the development project design (e.g., onsite) as proposed by the
applicant. A requirement for onsite mitigation of water quantity functions is not shared by mitigation
banking and ILF programs, which mitigate for all wetland functions (water quantity, water quality, and
habitat) where most functionally-appropriate within the watershed.
3.3 Conclusions
There are some specific regulations that should be updated to reflect current state law and BAS
guidance provided by regulatory agencies, such as the current versions of the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Corps, 2010) are
now required to be used under state law. Also, the regulatory agencies are encouraging the use of
alternative mitigation strategies including mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs, and Jefferson
County could expand its code to take advantage of these options by providing an enhanced authorizing
environment for these strategies. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule
(Corps and EPA, 2008), Making Mitigation Works: The Report of the Mitigation that Works Forum
(Ecology, 2008), and Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western
Washington (Hruby, 2012) include current guidance.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 4-1
Frequently Flooded Areas
CHAPTER 4. FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS
Frequently flooded areas are specifically identified for protection as a critical area by GMA (WAC 365-
190-110). Frequently flooded areas are defined as “lands in the floodplain subject to a one percent (1%)
or greater chance of flooding in any given year, or within areas subject to flooding due to high
groundwater” (WAC 365-190-030). At a minimum, frequently flooded areas include the 100-year
floodplain designations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Flood
Insurance Program.
Washington Administrative Code 365-190-110(2) states that counties and cities should consider the
following when designating and classifying frequently flooded areas:
Effects of flooding on human health and safety, and to public facilities and services;
Available documentation including federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and programs,
local studies and maps, and federal flood insurance programs, including the provisions for
urban growth areas in RCW 36.70A.110;
The future flow floodplain, defined as the channel of the stream and that portion of the
adjoining floodplain that is necessary to contain and discharge the based flood flow at build
out;
The potential effects of tsunami, high tides with strong winds, sea level rise, and extreme
weather events, including those potentially resulting from changing global climate conditions;
Greater surface runoff caused by increasing impervious surfaces.
Due to its geology and existing development, the County’s interior contains relatively little floodplain
area as designated by FEMA. The Dosewallips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene, and Little Quilcene rivers are
short, steep systems that drain the steep eastern slopes of the Olympic Mountains. The rivers are
confined to narrow canyons for most of their length but do contain some limited floodplain before
entering Hood Canal or Quilcene Bay. Chimacum, Snow, and Salmon creeks flow through wetlands
prior to discharging into the marine environment. In addition to streams and rivers, frequently flooded
areas include the marine environment. The majority of marine shorelines in the County are within 100-
year floodplain designated by FEMA and activities occurring this zone are regulated under the County’s
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in Chapter 18.25 JCC.
The current CAO provides standards for protection of frequently flooded areas outside of shoreline
jurisdiction in Chapter 15.15 JCC, which includes standards for identification, reporting, and protection
of floodplains, and additionally references floodplain standards for new development and structures
within the International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC). In addition, the
County’s SMP includes flood hazard reduction regulations (Chapter 18.25 JCC) that were not in effect at
the time of the last CAO update.
4.1 Updates to Scientific Literature
In 2015, Ecology released Guidance to Local Governments on Frequently Flooded Areas Updates in CAOs
that contains a useful summary of BAS sources for updating the designation and mapping of frequently
flooded areas, new information that focuses on improving habitat in floodplains, and considerations for
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 4-2 December 2015
Frequently Flooded Areas
FEMA Puget Sound Biological Opinion (BiOp) compliance (Ecology, 2015b). Topics addressed in this
guidance document are described in detail here.
The current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the County has an effective date of July 19, 1982. A
revised FIRM is scheduled to become effective in February 2017. As noted in Ecology (2015b), Ecology
and FEMA encourage local governments to go beyond the FEMA minimum requirements for floodplain
management. Greater protection from floods may be a policy objective that should be incorporated
into a local jurisdiction’s critical areas regulations. For example, some jurisdictions use the “flood of
record” elevations to regulate the minimum elevation of structures, where the record flood is higher
than the 100-year flood elevation used by FEMA (called the Base Flood Elevation [BFE]). Additionally,
some jurisdictions require that structures be built two (or three) feet above the BFE or flood of record,
rather than the minimum FEMA standards.
Although limited in Jefferson County, riverine floodplains such as those associated with the Big and
Little Quilcene Rivers and the Dosewallips and Duckabush Rivers perform a variety of beneficial
functions including providing for natural flood and erosion control, water quality maintenance,
groundwater recharge, biological productivity, fish and wildlife habitat (Steiger et al., 2005), production
and of wild and cultivated products, recreational opportunities, and areas for scientific study and
outdoor recreation (Kusler, 2011). Floodplains typically contain several major types of habitats
including aquatic, riparian, wetland, and upland habitat.
Recent BAS and regional guidance for protection of ecological functions within a floodplain emphasizes
the importance of other critical areas (including wetlands, streams, riparian areas, and FWHCAs) within
floodplains, and emphasizes the importance of protection of these critical areas (PSP, 2010; NMFS,
2009). Due to the 2009 Biological Opinion (BiOp) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
regarding protection of some federally-listed species under the Endangered Species Act, there is a
requirement by FEMA to assess the effects of floodplain development on habitat used by listed species.
This new standard for protection is now required for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
participating communities (NMFS 2009; FEMA 2013).
Ecology guidelines encourage protection of channel migration zones in critical areas ordinances either
through the flood hazard section of the code or through the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas section (Ecology, 2015a). In Jefferson County, channel migration zones are included in the
geologically hazardous areas section of the CAO. Channel migration zones (CMZs) occur in Jefferson
County within the floodplains of the Big and Little Quilcene Rivers, the Dosewallips River, the
Duckabush River, and the lower Hoh River. Although the majority of CMZs for these rivers fall under
Shoreline Management Program (SMP) jurisdiction, portions of the CMZs are outside of SMP
jurisdiction and fall under critical areas jurisdiction. Recent BAS regarding CMZs is provided by the
Ecology document, Channel Migration Processes and Patterns in Western Washington: A Synthesis for
Floodplain Management and Restoration (Legg et al., 2014). The document provides guidance for
understanding stream patterns and processes for planners, land-use managers and floodplain
managers by describing the following:
Landscape controls on channel migration processes
Fundamental channel migration processes; and
Channel patterns and the many channel migration process that support them (Legg et al., 2014)
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 4-3
Frequently Flooded Areas
Mapping of some CMZs in Jefferson County was first completed in 2004 (Klawon) and updated in 2006
(Perkins) and subsequently incorporated into the County’s 2008 CAO update as well as the County’s
updated SMP, which went into effect in February 2014.
4.1.1 Functions and Values of Frequently Flooded Areas
Floodplains perform a variety of beneficial functions such as flood storage, sediment storage,
groundwater recharge, water quality improvement, and provision of habitat. Some of the functions are
unique to river floodplains but apply to both river and marine coastal frequently flooded areas. Kusler,
(2001) in Assessing the Natural and Beneficial Functions of Floodplains: Issues and approaches; future
directions outlines the beneficial functions of floodplains. The functions are summarized below.
Flood Storage
o Temporarily reduce flood heights and velocities and flood damages, protect health and
safety, prevent nuisances, reduce the economic impacts of flooding.
Groundwater Recharge
o Provide recharge - Some floodplains provide groundwater recharge during wet periods,
although most are discharge areas much of the year.
Water Quality Maintenance and Improvement
o Intercept/Treat pollution - Virtually all types of vegetated floodplains and the wetlands they
contain intercept, trap and/or transform sediments, nutrients, debris, chemicals, and other
pollutants from upland sources before they reach receiving waters.
Habitat
o Fish and other aquatic species - Floodplains adjacent to lakes and streams can provide food
chain support, spawning areas, rearing areas, and shelter for fish and other aquatic animals.
o Amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and insect species - Floodplains and floodplain wetlands
provide habitat for a broad range of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds and
corridors for migration or movement.
o Rare, endangered and threatened species - Floodplains provide food chain support,
feeding, nesting, and substrates for endangered and threatened animals and plants.
Other Values
o Recreational opportunities and scenic beauty - Floodplains provide hiking, wildlife viewing
and other water and land-based recreational opportunities. Many floodplains have
aesthetic value. Scenic beauty when viewed from a car, a path, a structure, or a boat may
enhance real estate values, provide recreation, and provide the basis for tourism.
o Historical, archaeological, heritage, cultural opportunities - Some floodplains have
historical and/or archaeological value (e.g., shell middens, burial sites).
o Educational and interpretive opportunities - Many floodplains and the wetlands they
contain provide education and research opportunities for schools and universities and
government agencies.
o Scientific research opportunities - Schools, universities, resource agencies, and not-for-
profit organizations carry out many types of scientific research in floodplains, wetlands and
riparian areas.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 4-4 December 2015
Frequently Flooded Areas
o Maintain carbon stores and sequester carbon - Many wetlands and floodplains store carbon
in carbon-rich wetland soils and trees and vegetation. Some continue to sequester carbon
from the atmosphere.
Many of the ecological issues associated with floodplain management are addressed in other chapters
of this BAS report (e.g., Chapter 3 Wetlands). Making the appropriate connections between frequently
flooded areas and these other critical areas will be an important outcome of the CAO update process.
4.1.2 Long-term Climate Trends and Frequently Flooded Areas
A recent review of the effects of projected long-term climate trends (Dalton et al. 2013; ISAB, 2007)
identified the following probable consequences of changing global climate conditions along the Pacific
coast of North America, as relevant to Jefferson County:
Sea level rise will shift coastal beaches inland and increase erosion of unstable bluffs (Huppert
et al., 2009).
Stronger and more severe storms with heavier precipitation and higher wave conditions will
affect coastal shorelines (Dalton et al., 2013).
Regional climate model simulations generally predict increases in extreme high precipitation
over the next half-century will affect urban stormwater infrastructure; existing drainage
infrastructure designed using mid-20th century rainfall records is anticipated to reach capacity
and result in urban flooding more frequently (Rosenberg et al., 2009).
These consequences suggest that hazards associated with both coastal and localized flooding could
increase in the decades ahead. Management of frequently flooded areas provides an opportunity for
the County to anticipate increased flood hazards related to changing global climate conditions and
provide standards to further minimize future risks.
4.2 Assessment of Current Frequently Flooded
Areas Provisions
Jefferson County’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in Chapter 15.15 JCC, has served the dual-
purpose of satisfying the requirements of the GMA (RCW 36.70A) and the Floodplain Management
statute (RCW 86.16) since it was adopted in 2006. The ordinance focuses on flood risk from a human
health and safety standpoint. Based on our review of current BAS, agency guidelines, and best
professional judgement, the following could be considered for updating the frequently flooded area
provisions to more directly address the functions and values of floodplains and the probable impacts of
changing global climate conditions:
The regulations address human health and safety as well as standards for use and development
within frequently flooded areas.
Regulations could be expanded to ensure protection of the ecological functions associated with
floodplains. However, many of these functions are addressed by other critical areas
regulations.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 4-5
Frequently Flooded Areas
The revised FIRM scheduled to be issued in 2017 by FEMA provides updated information for
flood hazard areas in the County that should be considered in conjunction with local
information.
Language for BiOp implementation could be considered during code review to incorporate a
broader approach, allowing the County to address floodplain impacts to habitat in a
programmatic fashion. In anticipation of future climate conditions, language to address rising
sea levels, tsunami, high tides with strong winds, and extreme weather events could also be
considered.
Many frequently flooded areas in the County are also regulated under the County’s Shoreline
Master Program since they lie within shorelands. The language in the County’s critical areas
chapter (Chapter 18.22 JCC, Article IV) could be expanded to ensure it is aligned with the SMP
and clarify that the regulations do not apply to land uses and modifications within shoreline
jurisdiction. In reviewing regulations to increase protection of development and of ecosystem
functions in the floodplain, consider the revised Community Rating System Coordinator’s
Manual (FEMA, 2013) and Ecology’s Guidance for Frequently Flooded Areas (Ecology, 2015).
4.3 Conclusions
The County’s frequently flooded areas regulations address floodplains and the risks of flooding from a
human health and public safety perspective. However, there is no consideration of the ecological
functions of floodplains. Ecology’s Guidance to Local Governments on Frequently Flooded Areas Updates
in CAOs (Ecology, 2015) states that the local governments need to consider the adequacy of the
designation and the protection of frequently flooded areas in the critical area regulations. The County
could consider measures recommended by FEMA and Ecology that are appropriate for riverine and
coastal flooding areas, address ecological functions in addition to measures that are beneficial to
human health and safety. Jefferson County could also consider options for incorporating potential
impacts from long-term climate trends on frequently flooded areas. Channel migration zone
protections could be included in either the frequently flooded areas or the FWHCA sections of the
ordinance.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 5-1
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
CHAPTER 5. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
CONSERVATION AREAS
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are specifically identified for protection as a critical area by
the Growth Management Act (WAC 365-190-030[4]). The current CAO provides standards for
protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas in Chapter 18.22 JCC, Article VI. As
summarized in the County’s previous BAS review (Christensen, 2004), a wildlife habitat assessment was
conducted in 2004 and Core Wildlife Habitat Areas and Corridors were identified and mapped (Tomassi,
2004). This assessment provided the basis for recommendations made by Christensen (2004) to
protect designated habitat areas and corridors. The CAO adopted by the Jefferson County Board of
County Commissioners in 2008 was drafted to comply with WAC 365-190-030(2).
This section summarizes new scientific literature concerning wildlife habitat protections and
management and provides an assessment of current CAO provisions.
5.1 Updates to Scientific Literature
The most recent materials pertaining to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas have been prepared
predominantly by state, federal, and tribal agencies. Much of this science is related to protecting
salmon and fisheries habitat. For example, in 2009, WDFW published Land Use Planning for Salmon,
Steelhead and Trout: A Land Use Planner’s Guide to Salmonid Habitat Protection and Recovery as part of
an initiative to integrate local planning programs with salmon recovery efforts (Knight, 2009). Other
documents are related to managing biodiversity and habitat quality with urban development. In 2009,
WDFW also published Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife: Managing for Biodiversity in
Developing Areas, which provides guidance for wildlife issues related to rural and urban residential
development.
5.1.1 Stream Typing
The purpose of classifying streams at the local level is primarily to prioritize the protection and
management of streams that provide habitat for fish, including salmonids, adjacent to development.
Furthermore the protection of water quality is also an important consideration. In general, stream
classification and typing systems are based on physical characteristics of the stream bed, bank, width,
riparian cover, hydrologic regime (e.g., year-round flow, seasonal flow) and documented fish use. Field
investigation is usually required to accurately classify a stream, although map analysis can help
determine location and extent.
Under state law (RCW 90.48.020), waters of the state include lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland
waters, underground waters, salt waters and all other surface waters and watercourses. Streams also
fall under the GMA definition of “fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas” and state law refers to the
use of the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) stream typing system in Title 222 WAC,
the forest practices regulations.
Streams in Jefferson County are classified using the DNR Stream Typing System. The DNR
classification system is a four-tier system (Type S, F, Np, and Ns) that categorizes streams based on
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 5-2 December 2015
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
whether or not streams/water bodies are within shoreline jurisdiction; whether or not those water
bodies outside of shoreline jurisdiction are used by fish, and whether or not streams experience
perennial or seasonal flow. The DNR water types are used by the DNR’s Forest Practices program to
determine the amount and pattern of riparian buffer protection required during forest practices
activities.
A full description of the DNR criteria for each type and definitions is in WAC 222-16-030, but generally is
as follows:
Type S Water - all waters, within their bankfull width, as inventoried as "shorelines of the state"
under chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW including
periodically inundated areas of their associated wetlands.
Type F Water - segments of natural waters other than Type S Waters, which are within the
bankfull widths of defined channels and periodically inundated areas of their associated
wetlands, or within lakes, ponds, or impoundments having a surface area of 0.5 acre or greater
at seasonal low water and which in any case contain fish habitat.
Type Np Water - all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of defined channels
that are perennial nonfish habitat streams. Perennial streams are flowing waters that do not go
dry at any time of a year of normal rainfall and include the intermittent dry portions of the
perennial channel below the uppermost point of perennial flow.
Type Ns Water - all segments of natural waters within the bankfull width of the defined
channels that are not Type S, F, or Np Waters. These are seasonal, nonfish habitat streams in
which surface flow is not present for at least some portion of a year of normal rainfall and are
not located downstream from any stream reach that is a Type Np Water. Ns Waters must be
physically connected by an above-ground channel system to Type S, F, or Np Waters.
It is important to point out three aspects of the above criteria. First, “fish” in the DNR typing system
refers to all fish species and not just anadromous salmonids. Second, fish-bearing potential is
determined by specific physical attributes of the stream habitat, including channel width and gradient.
Thus in the absence of fish (observed or documented), a waterbody can still be designated as Type F if
it has the “potential to support fish”. Thirdly, downstream man-made barriers to fish passage are not
sufficient reason to classify upstream habitat as incapable of supporting fish, since upstream fish access
may be regained in the future upon removal of the barrier.
5.1.2 Buffer Widths and Effectiveness
When discussing BAS for buffers and buffer effectiveness for fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas, one must distinguish between stream/riparian buffers (those areas providing functions related to
fish habitat and stream processes) and habitat buffers (areas including riparian buffers and the
terrestrial areas adjacent to them which provide wildlife functions for a variety of species). WDFW
documented the importance of riparian buffers for stream protection and protection of salmonid
habitat in the Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats: Riparian (Knutson and
Naef, 1997) and the Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead, and Trout: A Land-use Planner’s Guide for
Salmonid Habitat Protection and Recovery (Knight, 2009). Recommendations for stream buffers from
the BAS literature review during the County’s last CAO update, recommended buffer widths varied
between 50 and 150 feet (Christensen, 2004). Christensen also recommended that stream buffers
include the presence of Channel Migration Zones (CMZs), areas where riverine processes can distribute
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 5-3
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
sediment, collect large woody debris, and provide habitat for salmonids and other wildlife (2004).
Other recommendations for stream buffer widths vary from 75 feet to well over 300 feet to help protect
a suite of ecological functions (Brennan et al., 2009; May, 2003; Knutson and Naef, 1997).
Ecology has published guidance on minimum riparian buffer widths for implementing riparian
restoration or planting projects that use water quality-related state and federal pass-through grants or
loans (Appendix L in Ecology, 2013). The buffer widths are recommended by the NMFS to help protect
and recover Washington’s salmon populations. NMFS recommends a 100-foot minimum buffer for
surface waters that are currently or historically have been accessed by anadromous or listed fish species
and a 50-foot buffer for surfaces that do not have current or historic access.
5.1.3 Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Projects
The WDFW has released multiple guidance documents provided technical assistance for those that
want to protect and restore salmonid habitat. The Aquatic Habitat Guidelines (AHG) address issues
relevant to fish passage such as water crossings, streambank protection, and habitat restoration. The
Water Crossing Design Guidelines (Barnard et al. 2013) replaces the department’s previous guidance
(Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage) and covers the design of culverts with new chapters on bridge
design, tidally influenced crossings, temporary crossings, culvert abandonment, and project
development. These guidelines provide scientific information related to water crossings and other
proposed development near streams.
The Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (Cramer et al. 2012) is state-of-the-science guidance
document that assembles a comprehensive list of factors and criteria to consider during the planning
and designing stream restoration and rehabilitation work. Topics addressed in the SHRG include site,
reach, and watershed assessment, problem identification, general approaches to restoring stream and
riparian habitat, factors to consider in identifying and selecting an approach, approaches to solving
common restoration objectives, and stream and riparian habitat restoration techniques. Watershed
processes and conditions that shape stream channels, stream ecology, geomorphology, hydrology,
hydraulics, planting considerations and erosion control, and construction considerations are also
presented in the main text and appendices.
5.1.4 Wildlife Habitat and Corridors
Research related to general wildlife habitat connectivity indicates that it is important for species to
travel and carry out life processes. Small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles are generally more
sensitive to changes and gaps in connectivity compared to larger mammals and birds (WDFW, 2009).
Areas with less than 50 percent undisturbed land cover (i.e., developed urban environments) need
assistance to ensure that habitat connectivity is maintained (WDFW, 2009). In addition to using local
critical areas inventory information and Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data, WDFW recommends
protecting large undeveloped habitat patches and open space areas as part of planning and building
habitat corridors (WDFW, 2009). Habitat corridor widths greater than 1,000 feet generally provide the
most benefit for the most species (WDFW, 2009). Tomassi (2004) provides several recommendations
for management strategies to protect Jefferson County habitat areas (forests, riparian areas, wetlands)
and corridors. While the majority of recommendations relate to timber harvesting techniques and are
not relevant to critical areas protection, the following management strategies for habitat corridors are
applicable:
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 5-4 December 2015
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
“Corridors should not be broken by construction. Information on alternatives to road crossings
is available from the WDFW.
Corridors should remain free of human and animal disturbance. As recommended for all
riparian corridors, they should exclude livestock and high-impact human recreation. This will
reduce soil compact, sedimentation, litter, and noise disturbance.
Riparian corridors should be enhanced where they are degraded. Cover is necessary for most
wildlife species to use a corridor. Enhancement in riparian corridors consists primarily of
planting appropriate native vegetation along the waterway. In addition to providing cover, this
reduces sedimentation and pollution in the waterway. It has the added benefit of enhancing the
stormwater control function of the waterway.”
The mitigation measures outlined in Ecology’s model code under Table XX.2 (Bunten et al., 2012) can
also be used to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; and includes
maintaining connections to offsite areas that are undisturbed, and restoring corridors or connections to
offsite habitats by replanting. Low Impact Development (LID) strategies, which are mainly geared
towards improving water quality, can also have secondary benefits to wildlife (WDFW, 2009).
5.2 Assessment of Current Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas Provisions
The County’s regulations for FWHCAs are contained in JCC 18.22.195 through 18.22.280. These
sections classify and designate FWHCAs per the state definition (WAC 365-190-130) and include those
FWHCAs that are found only along shorelines or salt waters, such as:
Commercial and recreational shellfish areas
Kelp and eelgrass beds
Surf smelt, Pacific herring, and Pacific sand lance spawning areas
These FWHCAs are also protected and managed under the County’s SMP and could thus be removed
from this section to improve clarity of County regulations.
Information from the Tomassi (2004) wildlife habitat study does not appear to be integrated or codified
in the FWHCA regulations. If the County is using the study or the habitat and corridor maps to
condition development, this should be present in the regulations.
The County uses the Washington Department of Natural Resources stream typing system for
classifying streams as Type S, F, Np and Ns. Currently there is no description of the stream types and a
reference to WAC 222-16-030 is found as a footnote to the stream buffer table. The FWHCA section
could be revised to include a description of stream characteristics and typing to provide clarity to staff
and applicants.
The current stream and riparian buffers are consistent with BAS and range from 50 to 150 feet in width.
Additional information on buffer widths could be considered as referenced above. The regulated
activities could be improved through additional references to the WDFW guidance documents for fish
passage and stream restoration.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 5-5
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
5.3 Conclusions
The County’s FWHCA regulations address all types of habitats found in freshwater and saltwater
environments. There is no reference to the County’s SMP and critical areas protection of habitats
present within shoreline jurisdiction. Science relating to core habitat areas and corridors, both at the
local level and state level, has been released since the County’s last BAS review. The County funded a
habitat area and corridor study (Tomassi, 2004) that could be better integrated into the CAO and
various WDFW publications should be incorporated as important guidance documents for staff and
applicants. Lastly, we note that WDFW’s Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife: Managing for
Biodiversity in Developing Areas provides high level considerations for wildlife protection that could
inform the County’s overall strategy for preserving wildlife habitat functions and values.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 6-1
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
CHAPTER 6. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN
AND NEAR CRITICAL AREAS
This chapter summarizes the scientific literature concerning critical areas located within and adjacent
to land used for agricultural purposes and how they can affect or be affected by agricultural uses. The
discussion focuses on multiple critical areas including wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a basis for reviewing
agricultural activities provisions of County code to protect critical areas and agricultural uses.
6.1 Agriculture and Critical Areas in Jefferson
County
Most of the agricultural uses and farmland are located in eastern Jefferson County. Figure 6-1
represents the most recent agricultural census data for the County, which has nearly 221 farms totaling
over 15,000 acres with the majority being small farms (70 acres on average) (USDA, 2012). From 2007 to
2012 the county has experienced a shifting trend in farm size, with 20% less farms 1 to 9 acres in size
and more farms ranging between 10 and 500 acres in size (Figure 6-2). Only two farms in the County are
over 500 acres and there are no farms over 1,000 acres (USDA, 2012). The number of cattle and calves
sold between 2007 (549) and 2012 (1, 216), has increased approximately 50 percent. Farming remains a
significant agricultural economic base and contributes to the rural character valued by County
residents.
Figure 6-1. Farms by size in Jefferson County using 2012 USDA Census of Agriculture data (USDA,
2012).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1-9 10-49 50-179 180-499 500-999
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
f
a
r
m
s
Size (acres)
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 6-2 December 2015
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
Figure 6-2. Farms by size for 2007 and 2012 using USDA Census of Agriculture data (USDA 2007,
2012).
The Jefferson County Farmer Survey 2012 Report (CLF, 2012) provides a summary of information and
data collected from interviews with farmers in Jefferson County as part of a comprehensive farm
survey. The interviews and survey report were completed by an ad-hoc committee of county citizens,
called “Citizens for Local Food (CLF)”. The CLF was organized in response to the Jefferson County
Planning Commission’s desire to make changes in the Jefferson County comprehensive plan to provide
greater support for local farmers and farm land. To encourage the Planning Commission’s interest, the
CLF took on four projects to achieve their goal, one of which was the farm survey.
A total of 57 farms out of 87 identified by the CLF were interviewed as part of the survey. The majority
of surveyed farms were located in the southern portion of eastern Jefferson County near the towns of
Chimacum, Quilcene, Brinnon, Port Ludlow, and Coyle. The western portion of Jefferson County was
not surveyed by the CLF as its focus was entirely in eastern Jefferson County since it is more densely
populated. Farmers were asked a variety of questions, including whether critical areas were located on
their property. The report found that a majority (56%) of farms surveyed had critical areas on their
property, with many stating they had made improvements to protect critical areas (e.g. reforestation,
fencing, bridges). The farmer survey report noted that there is a high level of voluntary stewardship
exhibited by Jefferson County farmers that are protecting streams and riparian areas through
installation of protective plant hedges along streams and pumping of water for livestock. In conclusion,
the report provides recommendations regarding stream buffer widths and clarifying the permit
process.
In the Chimacum Creek watershed, the major impacts of agriculture on fish and wildlife habitat have
been the channelization of Chimacum Creek, removal of riparian vegetation; draining of wetlands; bank
erosion due to livestock access, and introduction of reed canarygrass to the watershed (Latham, 2004).
Since the 1970’s, efforts by individual landowners, agencies and community groups have had positive
impacts on fish and wildlife habitat within the watershed. As mentioned previously, the application of
common agricultural BMPs is a long-standing practice on many farms in Jefferson County. In
cooperation with the local conservation district, farmers in the county have worked to develop and
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1-9 10-49 50-179 180-499 500-999
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
f
a
r
m
s
Size (acres)
2007
2012
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 6-3
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
implement BMPs and farm plans. Most streams and ditches have been fenced to exclude livestock
from the stream and stream banks; best management practices such as roof water management
systems, pasture management, and livestock waste management have been implemented in a way
that improved water quality in the County.
6.1.1 Regulations and Best Management Practices
Agriculture is addressed in multiple sections of Jefferson County's critical areas regulations and specific
provisions for agricultural activities and accessory uses occur in JCC 18.20.030. Existing and ongoing
agricultural use is considered exempt and is not subject to land use permits or approvals provided the
activities follow the requirements provided in JCC 18.20.030(2). However, new agriculture, defined as
activities proposed or conducted after April 28, 2003 and that are not considered existing or ongoing
agriculture is subject to critical areas regulations including standard stream and wetland buffers.
Existing and ongoing agriculture is exempt from these provisions provided it is related to cultivating
crops and grazing livestock and the land preparation associated with those agricultural activities, as
stated in JCC 18.20.030(2)(b)(B).
JCC 18.20.030(2)(b)(ii)(C) provides that “in exchange for this exemption from standard stream and
wetland buffers, the agricultural communities in each Jefferson County watershed are expected to
establish and implement appropriate agricultural best management practices (BMPs) in order to protect
wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas from adverse impacts related to the practice of agriculture.”
Agricultural BMPs are meant to protect the existing functions and values of critical areas (primarily fish
and wildlife habitat, wetlands, and streams) from harm or degradation. In response to legal settlement
agreement with the Washington Environmental Council in 2002, Jefferson County funded a watershed-
level plan to provide protection of critical areas as required under the GMA and accommodate existing
and ongoing agriculture that is conducted adjacent to streams. The plan was developed by the
Jefferson County Conservation District (JCCD) who collaborated with agricultural stakeholders in the
Chimacum Creek watershed and completed in 2004.
The Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Habitat Protection Plan (Latham, 2004) lays out a
framework for voluntary protection and improvements to fish and wildlife habitat on agricultural land
that is compatible with maintaining agricultural capability. It establishes a “no harm or degradation”
standard for landowners and operators to follow and describes agricultural protection standards for
stream protection, or BMPs, for existing agricultural activities. The conservation district relies on NRCS
Conservation Practice Standards as distributed in local Field Office Technical Guides (FOTGs).
Conservation practice standards include information on why and where a practice is applied and sets
forth the minimum quality criteria required during application of that practice for it to achieve its
intended purpose. The state FOTGs are the primary scientific references for determining NRCS
standard practices. They contain technical information about the conservation of soil, water, air, and
related plant and animal resources. FOTGs are specific to the geographic area for which they are
prepared.
The BMPs described in detail in the Chimacum Watershed plan are the same as those in JCC
18.20.030(2)(b)(iii). According to the plan, BMPs should address five management areas:
(I) Livestock and dairy management
(II) Nutrient and farm chemical management
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 6-4 December 2015
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
(III) Soil erosion and sediment control management
(IV) Operation and maintenance of agricultural drainage infrastructure
(V) Riparian management
Landowners and operators are expected to use BMPs and meet the standards described through
voluntary compliance. A plan for compliance and non-compliance is established in the plan that relies
on the JCCD Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program to detect trends or conditions considered
detrimental to fish and wildlife. Lastly, the plan includes descriptions and a set of habitat improvement
recommendations for each stream reach of Chimacum Creek. The reach descriptions mention
restoration efforts to date and potential sources of funding for the recommended improvements.
6.1.2 Voluntary Stewardship Program
In 2011, Washington state adopted the Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) (RCW 36.70A.705 – 904).
The purpose of the VSP is to protect natural resources, including critical areas, while maintaining and
enhancing the state's agricultural uses. It encourages voluntary local stewardship efforts as an
alternative to critical areas regulation under the GMA. Counties are not required to implement the VSP
until adequate state funding is available.
Jefferson County considered the VSP program over a series of meetings with County staff, County
Commissioners, stakeholders (agricultural, environmental, and tribal entities), and the public in 2011
and 2012. The commissioners held a public hearing and various avenues of public comment were made
available. In 2012, the BOCC ultimately decided not to participate in the program and published a letter
explaining the rationale behind the decision (Jefferson County BOCC, 2012). The BOCC stated a
concern for unknowns and risks with program implementation, but noted positive value in the goals
offered by the VSP such as the balance between protection of critical areas and maintaining the long-
term viability of agriculture in the County and a focus on voluntary incentive programs that encourage
stewardship. They also recognized the use of best management practices and farm plans, coupled with
watershed-wide restoration efforts to protect critical areas and sustain agricultural activities. They
noted that the County uses many of these same tools and approaches at a local level and in partnership
with local stakeholders. The BOCC stated a willingness to consider the program in the future after
funding is made available and if another opt-in period was made available to Washington communities.
6.2 Potential Agricultural Impacts and Effectiveness
of Existing BMPs
Like other types of land uses, farming and agricultural uses can have impacts on critical areas. These
potential impacts fall into three general categories:
Impacts on water quality;
Impacts on hydrology (movement of water); and
Impacts on wildlife habitat.
The following discussion first describes the types of impacts in each category (water quality, hydrology,
and habitat) and the types of agricultural activities most likely to cause each type of impact
(summarized in Table 6-1). It then describes the BMPs listed in JCC 18.20.030 that address each of
these potential impacts and evaluates the consistency of these BMPs with the best available science for
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 6-5
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
protection of wetlands, FWHCAs, and floodplains. BAS references for Table 6-1 include additional BAS
reviews and guidance documents, including the Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance – Best
Available Science Review and Recommendations for Code Update (Whatcom County, 2005), and Pierce
Conservation District Tips on Land & Water Management for Puget Sound Rural Living (2013).
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 6-6
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
Table 6-1. Types of Potential Impacts from Agricultural Activities
Type of Impact1
Agricultural
Activities
Potentially
Resulting in Impact
Critical Areas Affected
References
Wetlands Floodplains FWHCAs
Water Quality
Increased sediment in surface runoff Tilling
Grading X X Sheldon et al., 2005
GEI, 2005
Pesticides and herbicides in surface runoff,
erosion, subsurface drains, groundwater
leaching, or airborne spray drift
Pesticide, herbicide
application X X Cornell, 2012
GEI, 2005
Excess nutrients in surface water or
groundwater; potential eutrophication of
wetlands (excess algal blooms and reduced
oxygen in the water)
Fertilizers
Runoff of animal waste X X
USGS, 2013
Burkart and Stoner, 2007
Smolders et al., 2007
GEI, 2005
Reduced opportunity for floodplain to
provide water quality improvement functions
due to faster surface water flow
Channelizing streams in
floodplain areas X Whatcom County, 2005
Hydrology
Changes in amount or timing of water within
or feeding existing wetlands through
modification of hydrologic regime or
topography.
Irrigation
Tilling X Sheldon et al., 2005
Reduction in floodplain capacity to store
water Filling for floodproofing X Whatcom County, 2005
PCD, 2013
Increased surface runoff and reduced
infiltration
Paving
Soil compaction
Expansion or new
(additional) agricultural
structures
X Whatcom County, 2005
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 6-7
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
Type of Impact1
Agricultural
Activities
Potentially
Resulting in Impact
Critical Areas Affected
References Wetlands Floodplains FWHCAs
Restricted movement of water through
floodplain areas
Constructing barriers
(levees, embankments,
bridges, culverts, walls)
X Whatcom County, 2005
Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Removal or fragmentation of wildlife habitat Clearing of native
vegetation X X Sheldon et al., 2005
Conversion of wetlands to fields or pasture
Tilling
Filling
Draining
Removal of wetland
vegetation
X X Sheldon et al., 2005
Changes to the vegetation structure of
riparian wetlands Livestock grazing X X Sheldon et al., 2005
PCD, 2013
Harm to aquatic species (e.g., amphibians)
due to degradation of water quality
Pesticide, herbicide
application
Fertilizers
Runoff of animal waste
X X
De Solla et al., 2009
Zedler, 2003
Spread of nonnative invasive plant species
(e.g., reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife)
that can outcompete native plants and
degrade wildlife habitat
Runoff from fields
containing weeds
Wheels from mechanized
farm equipment
transport weed seeds
from infested areas to
areas of native
vegetation
X X X
Sheldon et al., 2005
Zedler, 2003
Jefferson County Noxious
Weed Control Board
(website)
Degradation of fish and wildlife habitat in
floodplains Channelizing streams X X Whatcom County, 2005
Restricted movement of fish and wildlife, Constructing barriers X X Whatcom County, 2005
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 6-8 December 2015
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
Type of Impact1
Agricultural
Activities
Potentially
Resulting in Impact
Critical Areas Affected
References Wetlands Floodplains FWHCAs
along with sediment and wood that help to
form habitat features
(levees, embankments,
bridges, culverts, walls)
1 If BMPs are used these impacts would likely occur at reduced levels.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 6-9
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
6.2.1 Water Quality
As shown in Table 6-1, the primary pollutants of concern for agricultural uses in Washington State
reported in BAS documents are pesticides and herbicides, nutrients (e.g., nitrate), and sediment. Some
of these can enter streams as well as wetlands. Water pollution can also have indirect negative effects
on the functions of these critical areas. For example, excess sediment can accumulate in wetlands,
reducing the ability of the wetland to store flood waters or filter surface runoff over time.
The use of agricultural buffers and vegetated filter strips has been well tested in the scientific literature.
Numerous studies have confirmed that wetland buffers perform an important water quality function by
trapping pollutants before they reach a wetland. In general, the wider the buffer, the more effective it
is at protecting water quality. However, the width of a buffer is not the only factor that determines its
effectiveness for protecting water quality functions. As discussed in detail in Chapter 3 Wetlands, the
following additional factors contribute to the effectiveness of buffers to address water quality:
Slope gradient and length
Vegetation type, spacing, and density
Soil type, geochemical and physical properties, infiltration rates, and soil water content
Type and concentration of pollutants
Flow path through the buffer (both surface and subsurface flow paths
Adjacent land use practices
The agricultural BMPs provided in JCC 18.20.030 are focused on protecting water quality by controlling
sources of pollution by covering nutrient storage areas and limiting livestock access to streams and
avoiding excessive sediment contribution to streams through proper construction measures. In a
recent comprehensive review of surface water monitoring since the implementation of BMP, as
summarized in detail in the following section (Section 6.2), the JCCD concluded that many of the BMPs
have been successful at improving water quality and salmonid habitat (Gately et al. 2015).
6.2.2 Hydrology
The primary hydrologic impacts that can result from agricultural activities reported in BAS documents
are changes in the hydrologic characteristics within wetlands and streams, reduction in floodplain
storage capacity, and blockage of water movement through floodplains (as summarized in Whatcom
County, 2005 and Sheldon et al. 2005). In the Chimacum watershed of Jefferson County, the major
agricultural impacts on streams and floodplains historically began when Chimacum Creek and its
tributaries were channelized to allow for farming. Other activities such as tilling, soil compaction,
irrigation, maintenance of drainage systems, and new fill or structures in the floodplain can contribute
to ongoing impacts to the movement of surface water.
The BMPs specified in JCC 18.20.030 may help to protect the hydrology of wetlands, FWHCAs, or
floodplains, but no specific scientific review has been conducted on this topic. In terms of buffers, some
studies have concluded that buffers alone do little to protect the hydrologic functions of wetlands; the
impacts of land uses in the surrounding drainage basin appear to be a greater influence on wetland
hydrology (Sheldon et al., 2005; Hruby, 2013).
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 6-10 December 2015
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
6.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Fish and wildlife habitat can be directly impacted by agriculture through channelization of streams and
removal of native vegetation. Indirect effects on habitat include, for example, blocking the natural
movement of water through floodplain areas, which in turn prevents large wood (an important habitat
structure) from reaching floodplain wetlands. As another example, infestation by nonnative invasive
vegetation such as reed canarygrass can reduce the diversity of native plants that provide wildlife
habitat. Conversely, a stream channel overgrown by reed canarygrass can impact agricultural activities
by reducing field drainage capacity. Removal of native vegetation can lead to habitat fragmentation.
Agricultural practices have had an on-going impact on salmonid habitat in the Chimacum watershed as
noted in the watershed characterization appendix of Latham (2004). Salmonids utilizing the watershed
include summer chum, fall chum, pink, and coho salmon; steelhead, and cutthroat trout. The majority
of salmonid use where agricultural uses are concentrated is juvenile rearing (not spawning). Factors
affecting salmonids include the lack of riparian vegetation and associated high water temperature in
the summer; lack of large woody debris and channel complexity, periods of low levels of dissolved
oxygen, reed canargygrass infestations and reduced juvenile rearing habitat (from historic levels)
(Correa, 2002). Specific salmonid species are affected differently, however, and the report states that
impacts on summer chum by agriculture are minimal. Although summer chum are affected by high
water temperature, the main limiting factor for this species is the high level of fines in the spawning
gravel and it is unlikely that agricultural practices are responsible for this substandard condition
(Latham, 2004).
The agricultural BMPs provided in JCC 18.20.030 directly benefit critical areas by protecting water
quality in streams, in particular temperature. In Whatcom County, Benedict and Shaw (2012) evaluated
whether buffer width of planted buffers on agricultural waterways influence water temperature. The
study monitored air temperature and effective shade in five buffer areas with widths of 0, 5, 15, 35, and
180 feet at four different planted agricultural waterways. The results of the study indicated that narrow
(5 foot and 15 foot), dense buffers were just as effective as wide (35 foot and 180 foot) buffers in
lowering air temperature and generating effective shade.
In terms of protecting and maintaining riparian habitat for fish and wildlife, research in the past decade
supports previous conclusions that larger, vegetated buffers are needed compared to those
recommended for water quality improvement functions (as summarized in Hruby, 2013). The research
also shows that there is a large variability in the habitat needs of species and that habitat needs are
complex. Thus, while larger buffers are generally more effective to protect the habitat functions of
wetlands, Hruby (2013) recommends a landscape-based approach, which incorporated with other
factors, would better protect wetland-dependent species and provide habitat corridors to other habitat
types. See Chapters 3 and 5 for discussion of wetland buffers and wildlife habitat.
6.3 Additional Recent Scientific Literature
The following sections describe recent scientific studies published since the County’s last BAS review in
addition to those mentioned previously. These studies warrant a detailed description due to relevance
to agricultural uses and critical areas in Jefferson County.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 6-11
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
6.3.1 Washington Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Monitoring Summary
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) aims to restore and protect stream and
riparian habitat for fish on agricultural land through financial incentives for farmers. About one third of
salmon-bearing streams on private lands in Washington State cross through land used for agriculture.
As an entirely voluntary program, farmers can be under a CREP contract up to 15 years to restore
habitat and preclude agricultural activities in stream buffers. Administered by both the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Washington State Conservation
Commission (WSCC), the CREP has been in service for about 14 years.
Jefferson County farmers have established CREP buffers along Chimacum Creek since 2002 (Gately et
al. 2015). Under CREP, a landowner is paid rent for land put into riparian buffers. Buffers can vary in
width from 35 feet to 180 feet. Streams that have an ordinary high water level less than 15 feet wide
and that flow into a fish bearing stream qualify for a 15-foot wide hedgerow buffer. Based on soil
productivity, a landowner receives about $300 per acre per year for land installed in CREP. As a result of
CREP, riparian restoration in Jefferson County has accelerated substantially (Gately et al. 2015).
Restoration and protection methods implemented on CREP sites include buffers along streamside
wetlands, installation of fencing and livestock watering facilities, and planting of native trees and
shrubs. To ensure these methods are followed and become successful, WSCC monitors CREP sites by
annually collecting data on acres treated, stream miles restored, number of contracts, feet of fencing
installed and number of plants installed. Stream and riparian functions and conditions are monitored as
well and include: plant survival, buffer plant diversity, canopy cover, bank erosion, and non-native
species cover.
In 2012, the WSCC provided the report, 2012 Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Results for
the Washington Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): Plant and Buffer Performance
(Smith, 2012). Results from the report found that over 1,000 total contracts had been implemented
since the program began, with most using the riparian forest buffer practice (with an average buffer
width of 143 feet) followed by wetland enhancement and riparian hedgerow practices. The percent
canopy cover found in CREP sites with longer (5-10 year) contracts was greater (approx. 72%) than
those sites with shorter (1-4 year) contracts. Invasive species cover was also found to be low in CREP
sites, ranging from 1 to 3 percent. Based on these results and others included in the report, WSCC
determined that the CREP is a successful and growing program in restoring and protecting riparian
areas on agricultural lands.
6.3.2 Washington Agricultural Caucus Riparian Buffer Review
In 2002 and 2005, the Washington Agricultural Caucus, Washington Hop Commission, and the Ag Fish
Water Process funded research analyzing the implications of mandated fixed-width riparian buffer
zones on existing agricultural lands in Washington State for the protection of listed anadromous
salmonids. The research was documented in two stages, Efficacy and Economics of Riparian Buffers on
Agricultural Lands – State of Washington, Phase I and II (GEI, 2002 and 2005). The Phase I report
reviewed and summarized BAS literature on agricultural buffer recommendations and riparian buffer
zones. Findings from the Phase I review determined that proposed widths of agricultural riparian buffer
zones have been mostly based on a set of timber harvest models and regulations and are not applicable
to agricultural lands. Riparian buffer zones used to mitigate for timber harvest impacts may be wider
(300 feet or more) than required for agriculture lands as research indicates narrower buffers (5 to 30
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 6-12 December 2015
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
meters) were just as effective for water filtration, sediment reduction, animal exclusion, shade, nutrient
removal, and bank stabilization of agricultural streams (GEI, 2002). Based on its findings, the Phase I
report concluded that instead of a fixed-width buffer for all agricultural streams, widths for riparian
buffers should be site-specific and based on BAS specific to existing agricultural lands and uses that
focus mainly on water quality protection.
The Phase II report is a continuation of Phase I with a BAS literature review of additional scientific
literature on buffer effectiveness and other BMPs. The report provides recommendations for BMPs
applications specific to Washington agriculture and Appendix III of the report includes suggestions for
minimum riparian buffers ranging between 25 and 60-feet for three different conditions within an
existing agricultural settings. These three conditions are:
Farms demonstrating BMPs implementation on slopes less than 7 percent in drier areas (18
inches of average annual precipitation) of the state to have a minimum vegetated riparian
buffer width of 25-feet;
Farms demonstrating BMPs implementation on slopes 7 percent or greater in wetter areas
(more than 18 inches of average annual precipitation) of the state to have a minimum
vegetated riparian buffer width of 35-feet;
Farms that do not implement BMPs to have a minimum vegetated riparian buffer width of 60-
feet.
Several of the suggested BMPs from the Phase II review support the findings of the Phase I report and
reduce the need for a wide-set buffer width. Some of these BMPs include: slope management,
contouring, avoiding use of steep slopes, and proper irrigation techniques to filter runoff and/or
stabilize streambanks (GEI, 2005). The report determined that BMPs to improve livestock management
and reduce impacts resulting from grazing were dependent upon site conditions and the kinds of
grazing management practices in place. Several studies supported site specific grazing plans that:
1) Include sufficient timing for vegetation re-growth;
2) Retain sufficient vegetation during peak flows to protect stream banks;
3) Limit grazing time and intensity; and
4) Create appealing areas for food, water, and rest away from streams, stream banks, and riparian
vegetation with or without fencing (GEI, 2005).
Like the Phase I report, the Phase II report highlights Jefferson County as an example of successful
narrow buffer zone application and agricultural livestock management BMPs implementation that has
improved water quality (reduced fecal coliform levels) in Chimacum Creek.
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office Technical Guides (FOTGs) are
described in the Phase II report as BMPs practiced in Washington and support the agricultural BMPs
listed in JCC 18.20.030(2) .The reports highlights key methods and management options beyond those
provided by FOTGs in a NRCS review completed in 1997 that are specific to Washington agriculture.
The key management options cover primarily water quality goals such as: soil erosion and
sedimentation control; keeping nitrogen and chemicals out of streams; animal waste management;
pesticide field losses and residues; water diversion and distribution systems; water application systems
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 6-13
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
and efficiencies; active water application research and development; water management and
cultivation-horticulture practices; and water management – fish and wildlife programs.
6.3.3 Chimacum Watershed Water Quality and Fishes Report
The JCCD recently completed a comprehensive review of surface water monitoring since the
implementation of BMPs to improve water quality and salmonid habitat in agricultural areas of the
Chimacum watershed (Gately et al. 2015). Several monitoring parameters were assessed as part of the
review and included: fecal coliform, temperature, dissolved oxygen, nitrate, pH, phosphorous,
turbidity, and conductivity, as well as salmon and beaver presence. The majority of monitoring was
conducted at twenty-eight stations throughout the watershed by the JCCD while some monitoring was
completed by local groups, such as Chimacum High School and the North Olympic Salmon Coalition.
Monitoring stations were located downstream and upstream of agricultural lands near the main stem of
Chimacum Creek as well as its eastern fork. Key findings from the review include improving trends in
fecal coliform concentrations, stream temperatures, dissolved oxygen and salmon returns.
Although concentrations of fecal coliform in the last year of monitoring (2012) failed the Washington
Department of Ecology (Ecology)’s “extraordinary contact” standard at 25 of 28 monitoring stations,
concentrations have declined over time since monitoring first began in 1988. In addition, human fecal
coliform was more commonly detected in samples from monitored stations than ruminant fecal
coliform. Over half of the stations monitored for temperature failed the 7-day average of the daily
maximum temperature (16o as designated by USEPA Region 10 (2003)) standard in 2013. However,
there has been a decreasing trend in temperature since monitoring started in 1998. Stream
temperatures have dropped 1 degree Celsius in the main stem of Chimacum Creek and 2 degrees in the
east fork of the creek. Similarly, many of the monitoring stations failed the 1-day minimum 9.5 mg/L
standard for dissolved oxygen.
With regards to fecal coliform, the report concludes that meeting Ecology’s standard is challenging in
the Chimacum watershed due to the combination of high survival and growth of fecal coliform bacteria
in stream sediment, algae, soil, and animal manure; the capability of bacteria to infiltrate groundwater
and be transported to surface water; and the variety of fecal sources, including human and wildlife.
These factors also make it difficult to demonstrate improvements resulting from BMPs as distinguished
from other pathways.
Despite not meeting many of the above water quality standards set by Ecology, according to the
JCCD’s review, the Chimacum watershed experienced record returns of summer chum and coho
salmon. From 2001 to 2013 Chum salmon returns ranged from 558 to 3,066 adults; and Coho returns
ranged from 333 to 3,539 (JCCD, 2015). The watershed has also seen an increasing trend in juvenile coho
abundance in restoration sites. Similarly, beaver activity has been increasingly witnessed by the JCCD in
the watershed, especially in forested buffers.
Based on the findings from the review, the JCCD concluded that many of the BMPs as well as CREP
buffers created by farmers have been successful at improving water quality and salmonid habitat, but
improvements could still be made. Suggested improvements include off-channel watering facilities for
livestock, and more funding/incentives for landowners to adopt CREP buffers and BMPs.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 6-14 December 2015
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
6.3.4 Working Buffers on Agricultural Lands Paper
In cooperation with the NOAA Restoration Center and the Puget Sound Partnership, the Snohomish
Conservation District (SCD) issued the paper: The Working Buffer Opportunity: A Proposal for
Ecologically Sound and Economically Viable Riparian Buffers on Agriculture Lands (Dittbrenner et al.,
2015). The paper promotes a more site-specific, integrated design of riparian buffers to improve
riparian management in agricultural lands. The authors conclude that efforts to improve riparian
management in these areas have been unsuccessful largely because of the conventional, “one-size-fits-
all” approach to riparian buffer design. Instead, they propose a design with an inner riparian buffer
zone bordered by an outer working buffer zone in combination with on-farm runoff management.
As part of the design, buffer widths would remain flexible and site-specific to accomplish certain water
quality or habitat functions. The “inner riparian buffer” zone would be used primarily to enhance
stream habitat but could also be used for some low impact harvest practices (e.g. small fruit, wild
greens, boughs, mushrooms). The outer “working buffer” zone would protect stream functions and
mitigate water quality from on-farm runoff, while also incorporating agroforestry practices as a source
of revenue to landowners. Figure 6-1 is a conceptual model of an integrated design using a riparian
buffer zone, a working buffer zone, and integrated runoff management.
Figure 6-1. Figure 4: Conceptual model of
integrated design using a Riparian Buffer Zone,
Working Buffer Zones, and integrated runoff
management (from Dittbrenner et al., 2015)
Agroforestry in the working buffer zone that is well-
designed and integrated with runoff management
practices can increase buffering functions on
Working Buffer Zone Agroforestry Practices
Forest Farming. Cultivation of specialty crops
(mushrooms, medical plants, nursery cuttings,
and ornamental plants) under a forest canopy.
Alley Cropping. Growing an annual or
perennial agricultural crop simultaneously
with a long-term woody crop, both in rows,
typically on contour.
Silvopasture. The canopy is managed for
timber or fruit/nut production while the
understory is managed for seasonal and
rotational livestock forage.
Short Rotation Biomass. Frequently harvest
fast-growing trees or shrubs that stump-sprout
(willow, cottonwood, or hybrid poplar) are
harvested for biomass.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 6-15
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
agricultural lands. Agroforestry is the incorporation of trees into crop or livestock farming to increase
ecological functions, increase yield, and diversify farm income. Agroforestry systems can be designed
to provide a mix of ecological services while allowing harvest. By implementing what we call “working
buffers”, the functional width of buffers can be increased while continuing to allow farmers to control
and derive income from their land.
The suggested agroforestry practices are specific to floodplains and riparian corridors and include:
forest farming, alley cropping, silvopasture, and/or short return biomass (see sidebar).
To encourage implementation of the working buffer concept, the SCD has created four templates that
describe the agroforestry practices. The templates detail the ecological benefits provided by each
practice, guidance for their prescription, and information on the installation and management of
appropriate plant species. Additional information about working buffers including the templates can
be found at: https://salishsearestoration.org/wiki/Working_Buffer_Pilot_Project
Agroforestry practices have also been found to help mitigate the effects of climate change by
sequestering carbon, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, allowing species migration, and increasing
the resiliency of agriculture. This is especially important as climate models for the Pacific Northwest
predict the area will see more intense and frequent flooding events in the winter as well as increased
temperatures and less precipitation in the summer (CIG, 2013). Table 6-2 highlights how agroforestry
practices can mitigate climate change effects (Schoenberger et al. 2012).
Table 6-2. Climate change mitigation benefits from agroforestry practices.
Climate change activity* Major climate change
functions
Agroforestry functions that support climate
change mitigation and adaptation
Mitigation
Activities that reduce GHGs
in the atmosphere or
enhance the storage of
GHGs stored in ecosystems
Sequester Carbon Accumulate C in woody biomass
Accumulate C in soil
Reduce GHG Emissions Reduce fossil fuel consumption:
Reduce equipment runs in areas with trees
Reduce farmstead heating and cooling
Reduce CO2 emissions from farmstead structures
Reduce N2O emissions:
By greater nutrient uptake through plant diversity
By reduced N fertilizer application in tree
component
Enhance forage quality, thereby reducing CH4
Adaptation
Actions to reduce or
eliminate the negative
effects of climate change or
take advantage of the
positive effects
Reduce threats and
enhance resilience
Alter microclimate to reduce impact of extreme
weather events on crop production
Alter microclimate to maintain quality and quantity
of forage production
Alter microclimate to reduce livestock stress
Proved greater habitat diversity to support
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 6-16 December 2015
Agricultural Activities In and Near Critical Areas
organisms (e.g. native pollinators, beneficial insects)
Provide greater structural and functional diversity to
maintain and protect natural resource services
Create diversified production opportunities to reduce
risk under fluctuating climate
Allow species to migrate
to more favorable
conditions
Provide travel corridors for species migration
The working buffers paper concludes that the concept is not appropriate for all situations nor that the
proposed agroforestry techniques will restore all ecological functions and resolve all conflicts, but
rather it suggests working buffers can be “a vital component of a watershed strategy that could foster
partnership between farmers in the business of growing food and public agents working to restore
aquatic ecosystems.”
6.4 Conclusions
Existing and ongoing agricultural uses and activities can have impacts on water quality, the flow of
water, and wildlife habitat. Much of the impact can be minimized through application of agricultural
BMPs used commonly on farms in Jefferson County and CREP buffers. The County’s current
agricultural BMPs provided in JCC 18.20.030 are generally focused on protecting water quality and
maintaining riparian habitat for fish and wildlife. The level of protection afforded by BMPs will be
evaluated in the watershed characterization phase of this project. Information from this report and the
watershed characterization report will inform development of options and recommendations for
improving critical areas protection in and near agricultural activities.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 7-1
References
CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES
General References
CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development). 2002.
Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science for Designating and Protecting
Critical Areas. March 2002. Available at: http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-
BAS-Citations-Final.pdf.
CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development). 2007.
Critical Areas Assistance Handbook: Protection Critical Areas within the Framework of the
Washington Growth Management Act. January 2007. Available at:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook.pdf.
CTED (Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development). 2007. Small
Communities Critical Areas Ordinance Implementation Guidebook. June 2007. Available at:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Small-Communities-Critical-Area-Ordinance-
Implementation.pdf.
Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 365-190-080[3]. Critical Areas.
Wetlands
Baker, M E., D E. Weller, et al. 2006. Improved methods for quantifying potential nutrient interception
by riparian buffers. Landscape Ecology 21(8):1327-1345.
Baldwin, R.F., J.K. Calhoun. 2006. Conservation Planning for Amphibian Species with Complex Habitat
Requirements: A Case Study Using Movements and Habitat Selection of the Wood Frog Rana
sylvatica. Journal of Herpetology 40:443-454.
Bartelt, P., C.R. Peterson. 2004. Sexual differences in the post-breeding movements and habitats
selected by western toad (Bufo boreas) in southeastern Idaho. Herpetologica 60(4):455-467.
Bauer, D.M., P.W.C. Paton. 2010. Are wetland regulations cost effective for species protection? A case
study of amphibian metapopulations. Ecological Applications 20:798-815.
Bunten, D., A.McMillan, R. Mraz, and J. Sikes. 2012. Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small
Cities. Western Washington Version. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication
No. 10-06-002. October 2012 2nd Revision. Olympia, WA.
Christensen, D. 2004. Review of Best Available Science for 2004 Comprehensive Plan and Development
Regulations Update. Jefferson County Natural Resources Division. September 22, 2004.
Corps and EPA (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and US Environmental Protection Agency). 2008.
Compensatory Mitigation for losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule. Federal Register 73(70):
19594-1970.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 7-2 December 2015
References
Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2002. Guidance on Compensatory Mitigation Projects for
Aquatic Resource Impacts Under the Corps Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899; Regulatory Guidance
Letter. No. 02-2. December 24, 2002. Available at:
http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/RGL2-02.pdf.
Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). Report No.
ERDC/EL TR-10-3. May 2010. Available at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046494.pdf.
Crawford, J.A. and R. Semlitsch. 2007. Estimation of core terrestrial habitat for stream-breeding
salamanders and delineation of riparian buffers for protection of biodiversity. Conservation
Biology 21:152-158.
DeLuca, W.V., C. Studds, L.L. Rockwood, and P.P. Marra. 2004. Influence of land use on the integrity
of marsh bird communities of Chesapeake Bay, USA. Wetlands 24:837-847.
Denissoff, C. and D. Urban. 2012. Evaluating the Success of Wetland Mitigation Banks. National
Wetlands Newsletter 34(4):8.
Dosskey, M.G., M.J. Helmers, D.E. Eisenhauer, and K.D. Hoagland. 2002. Assessment of concentrated
flow through riparian buffers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 57:336-343.
Dosskey, M G., P. Vidon, N.P. Gurwick, C.J. Allan, T.P Duval, and R. Lowrance. 2010. The Role of
Riparian Vegetation in Protecting and Improving Chemical Water Quality in Streams. Journal
of the American Water Resources Association 46(2):261-277.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2002. Washington State Wetland Mitigation
Evaluation Study Phase 2: Evaluating Success. Publication No. 02-06-009. January 2002.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0206009.pdf.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2008. Making Mitigation Work: The Report of the
Mitigation that Works Forum. Ecology Publication No. 08-06-018. December 2008. Available
at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0806018.pdf.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012a. Guidance on In-Lieu Fee Mitigation.
Ecology Publication No. 12-06-012. December 2012.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1206012.pdf.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012b. Interagency Regulatory Guide: Advance
Permittee-Responsible Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. December 2012.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1206015.html.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015. Wetland Mitigation Banking. How to
become a wetland mitigation bank sponsor. Accessed November 2015. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/mitigation/banking/sponsor.html
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 7-3
References
Ecology, Corps, and EPA (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and US Environmental Protection Agency). 2006a. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—
Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance. Ecology Publication: No. 06-06-011a. March 2006.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0606011a.pdf.
Ecology, Corps, and EPA (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and US Environmental Protection Agency). 2006b. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—
Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans. Ecology Publication No. 06-06-011b. March 2006.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0606011b.pdf.
Ecology, Corps, and WDFW (Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Advance Permittee-Responsible
Mitigation. Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. December 2012. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1206015.pdf.
Eigenbrod, F., S. Hecnar. 2009. Quantifying the road-effect zone: threshold effects of a motorway on
anuran populations in Ontario, Canada. Ecology and Society 14(1): 24 online.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Massachusetts.
Available at: http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf.
Francl, K.E. and S.B. Castleberry (2004). Small mammal communities of high elevation central
Appalachian wetlands. American Midland Naturalist 151:388-398
Goldberg, C.S. and L.P. Waits 2010. Comparative landscape genetics of two pond-breeding amphibian
species in a highly modified agricultural landscape. Molecular Ecology 19(17):3650-3663.
Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale. 2005.
Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands.
Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 05-06-008. April 2005. Available
at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0506008.pdf.
Gumiero, B., B. Boz, P. Cornelio, and S. Casella. 2011. Shallow groundwater nitrogen and
denitrification in a newly afforested, subirrigated riparian buffer. Journal of Applied Ecology
48(5):1135-1144.
Hannon, S. J., C. A. Paszkowski, S. Boutin, J. DeGroot, S.E. Macdonald, M. Wheatley, and B.R. Eaton
(2002). Abundance and species composition of amphibians, small mammals, and songbirds in
riparian forest buffer strips of varying widths in the boreal mixedwood of Alberta. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research 32:1784-1800.
Hanowski, J., N. Danz, and J. Lind. 2006. Response of breeding bird communities to forest harvest
around seasonal ponds in northern forests, USA. Ecology and Management 229:63-72.
Harper, E., T.A.G. Rittenhouse, and R. Semlitsch. 2008. Demographic consequences of terrestrial
habitat loss for pool breeding amphibians: predicting extinction risks associated with
inadequate size of buffer zones. Conservation Biology 22:1205-1215.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 7-4 December 2015
References
Hayes, M.P., T. Quinn, K.O. Richter, J.P Schuett-Hames, and J.T. Shean (2008). Maintaining lentic
breeding amphibians in urbanizing landscapes: the case study of the Northern Red-legged frog
(Rana aurora). Urban Herpetology. eds. J. C. Mitchell and R. E. Brown, Society for the study of
amphibians and reptiles. pp.139-155.
Henning, B.M. and A. J. Remsberg. 2009. Lakeshore vegetation effects on avian and anuran
populations. American Naturalist 161:123-133.
Hickey, M.B.C. and B. Doran. 2004. A review of the efficiency of buffer strips for the maintenance and
enhancement of riparian ecosystems. Water Quality Research Journal Canada 39:311-317.
Hoffman, C.C., C. Kjaergaard, J. Uusi-Kampa, H.C. Hansen and B. Kronvang. 2009. Phosphorus
retention in riparian buffers: review of their efficiency. Journal Environmental Quality 38:1942-
1955.
Homan, R.N., B.S. Windmiller, and M. Reed. 2004. Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss for
two vernal pool-breeding amphibians. Ecological Applications 14(5):1547-1553.
Houlahan, J E., P.A. Keddy, K. Makkay, and C.C. Findlay (2006). The effects of adjacent land use on
wetland species richness and community composition. Wetlands 26(1):79-96.
Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Washington
Department of Ecology. Publication No. 04-06-025. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0406025.pdf.
Hruby, T., K. Harper, and S. Stanley. 2009. Selecting Mitigation Sites using a Watershed Approach.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 09-06-032.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0906032.pdf
Hruby, T. 2012. Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western
Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication No. 10-06-011. March
2012. Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1006011.pdf.
Hruby, T. 2013. Update on Wetland Buffers: The State of the Science, Final Report. Washington State
Department of Ecology. Publication No. 13-06-011. October 2013. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1306011.pdf.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update.
Washington Department of Ecology. Publication No. 14-06-029. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1406029.pdf.
Kettlewell, C., V. Bouchard, D. Porej, M. Micacchion, J. Mack, D. White, and L. Fay. 2008. An
Assessment of Wetland Impacts and Compensatory Mitigation in the Cuyahoga River
Watershed, Ohio, USA. Wetlands. 28:57-67.
Kihslinger, R. 2008. Success of Wetland Mitigation Projects, National Wetlands News. 30 (2): 14-16
(2008). Available at:
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 7-5
References
http://www.tetonwyo.org/compplan/LDRUpdate/RuralAreas/Additional%20Resources/Kihsling
er%202008.pdf.
Mayer, P.M., S.K. Reynolds Jr., M.D. McCutchen, and T.J. Canfield. 2007. Meta-analysis of nitrogen
removal in riparian buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality 36:1172- 1180.
May, C.W. 2003. Stream-Riparian Ecosystems in the Puget Sound Lowland Eco-Region: A Review of
Best Available Science. Watershed Ecology LLC. 76 pp.
Marton, J., I. Creed, D. Lewis, C. Lane, N. Basu, M.Cohen, and C. Craft 2015. Geographically Isolated
Wetlands are Important Biogeochemical Reactors on the Landscape. BioScience 65: 408–418.
Martin, T.G., S. McIntyre, C.P. Catterall, and H.P. Possingham. 2006. Is landscape context important
for riparian conservation? Birds in grassy woodland. Biological Conservation 127:201-214.
McIntyre, C. 2011. Predicting amphibian occurrence based on wetland and landscape level factors in
Montana. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana.
McKinney, R A., K.B. Raposa,and R.M. Cournoyer. 2011. Wetlands as habitat in urbanizing landscapes:
Patterns of bird abundance and occupancy. Landscape and Urban Planning 100(1-2):144-152.
NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act.
The National Academies Press. Washington, DC. Available at:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309074320.
Owens, P.N., J.H. Duzant, L.K. Deeks, G.A. Wood, R.P.C. Morgan, and A.J. Collins. 2007. Evaluation of
contrasting buffer features within an agricultural landscape for reducing sediment and
sediment-associated phosphorus delivery to surface waters. Soil Use and Management
23(Suppl. 1):165-175.
Pearson, S.F. and D A. Manuwal. 2001. Breeding Bird response to riparian buffer width in managed
Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 11:840-853.
Polyakov, V., A. Fares, and M.C. Ryder. 2005. Precision riparian buffers for the control of nonpoint
source pollutant loading into surface water: a review. Environmental Review 13:129-144.
Ranalli, A. J. and D.L. Macalady. 2010. The importance of the riparian zone and instream processes in
nitrite attenuation in undisturbed and agricultural watersheds – a review of the scientific
literature. Journal of Hydrology 389:406-415.
Ribeiro, R., M A. Carretero, N. Sillero, G. Alarcos, M. Ortiz-Santaliestra, M. Lizana, and G.A. Llorente.
2011. The pond network: can structural connectivity reflect on (amphibian) biodiversity
patterns? Landscape Ecology 26(5):673-682.
Richter, K.O. and A.L. Azous. 2001. Terrestrial small mammal distribution, abundance, and habitat use.
Chapter 7, pages 201-220 in A.L. Azous and R.R. Horner (eds.), Wetlands and Urbanization:
Implications for the Future. New York: Lewis Publishers.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 7-6 December 2015
References
Richter, K.O., D.W. Kerr, and B.J. Earle (2008). Buffer-only wetland protection: implications for pond-
breeding amphibians. Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell and R. E. J. Brown, Society for the
Study of Amphibians & Reptiles. pp. 489-504.
Rittenhouse, T. and R. Semlitsch. 2006. Grasslands as movement barriers for a forest associated
salamander: migration behavior of and juvenile salamanders at a distinct habitat edge.
Biological Conservation 131:14-22.
Sahu, M. and R. R. Gu. 2009. Modeling the effects of riparian buffer zone and contour strips on
stream water quality. Ecological Engineering 35(8):1167-1177.
Semlitsch, R. 2007. Differentiating migration and dispersal processes for pond-breeding amphibians.
Journal of Wildlife Management 72:260-267.
Semlitsch, R. and J. R. Bodie. 2003. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian
habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17(5):1219-1228.
Semlitsch, R. and J. B. Jensen. 2001. Core habitat, not buffer zone. National Wetlands Newsletter
July-August 2001:5-11.
Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale.
2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State
Department of Ecology. Publication No. 05-06-006. March 2005. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0506006.pdf.
Slawski, T. 2010. Managing the water's edge: Making natural connections. Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission Booklet 24pp.
Smith, L. A. and P. ChowFraser. 2010. Impacts of adjacent land use and isolation on marsh bird
communities. Environmental Management 45: 1040-1051.
Smith, T.A., D.L. Osmond, C.E. Moorman, J.M. Stucky, and J.W. Gilliam (2008). Effect of vegetation
management on bird habitat in riparian buffer zones. Southeastern Naturalist 7:277-288.
Trenham, P.C. and H.B. Shaffer. 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for
population viability. Ecological Applications 15:1158-1168.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V.
Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric
Soils.
Uusi-Kamppa, J. 2005. Phosphorus purification in buffer zones in cold climates. Ecological
Engineering 24:491-502.
Van Meter, K. and N. Basu. 2015. Signatures of human impact: size distributions and spatial
organization of wetlands in the Prairie Pothole landscape. Ecological Applications, 25(2):451–
465
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 7-7
References
Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 173-22-035. Wetland Identification and Delineation.
Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 365-190-080[3]. Critical Areas.
Yuan, Y.P., R.L. Bingner, and M.A. Locke. 2009. A Review of effectiveness of vegetative buffers on
sediment trapping in agricultural areas. Ecohydrology 2(3):321-336.
Zhang, X., X. Liu, M. Zhang, and R.A. Dahlgren. 2010. A review of vegetated buffers and a meta-
analysis of their mitigation efficacy in reducing nonpoint source pollution. Journal of
Environmental Quality 39:76-84.
Frequently Flooded Areas
Bolton, S. and J. Shellberg. 2001. Ecological issues in floodplains and riparian corridors. White paper
prepared for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology
and Washington Department of Transportation. University of Washington, Center for
Streamside Studies.
Dalton, M.M., P.W. Mote, and A.K. Snover [Eds.]. 2013. Climate Change in the Northwest:
Implications for Our Landscapes, Waters, and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012. Preparing for a Changing Climate
Washington State’s Integrated Climate Response Strategy. Publication No. 12-01-004. April
2012. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/ipa_responsestrategy.htm#REPORT.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2014. A Methodology for Delineating Planning-
Level Channel Migration Zones. Publication No. 14-06-025. July 2014. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1406025.pdf.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015a. Channel migration zones (CMZs)
information. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/jurisdiction/CMZ.html.
Accessed November, 2015.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2015b. Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Guidance
for Frequently Flooded Areas. Available at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/floods/FloodedAreaGuidance.html.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. National Flood Insurance Program -
Floodplain Management Guidebook. FEMA - Region 10. Bothell, WA. March 2009. Available
at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1647-20490-
1041/nfipguidebook_5edition_web.pdf.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013. Community Rating System Coordinator’s
Manual. OMB No. 1660-0022. Available at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-
data/1406897194816-fc66ac50a3af94634751342cb35666cd/FIA-15_NFIP-Coordinators-
Manual_2014.pdf
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 7-8 December 2015
References
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013. Model Ordinance for Floodplain Management
under the National Flood Insurance Program and the Endangered Species Act. FEMA - Region
10. November 2013. Available at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1383597893424-
4747f702310a2bbc7e04ea83d66f73f5/NFIP_ESA_Model_Ordinance.pdf.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013. Regional Guidance For Floodplain Habitat
Assessment and Mitigation in the Puget Sound Basin. August 2013. Available at:
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1383598118060-
e34756afe271d52a0498b3a00105c87b/Puget_Sound_R10_Habitat_Assess_guide.pdf.
Huppert, D.D., A. Moore and K. Dyson. 2009. Impacts of Climate Change on the Coasts of
Washington State. Chapter 8 in The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment.
Available at: http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach8coasts651.pdf.
ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia River basin
fish and wildlife. ISAB, Report 2007-2, Portland, Oregon. Available at:
http://www.nwcouncil.org/media/31247/isab2007_2.pdf.
Klawon. J.E. 2004. Channel Migration Zone Study for the Duckabush, Dosewalips, Big Quilcene and
Little Quilcene Rivers, Jefferson County, Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau
of Reclamation. September 2004.
Kusler, J.A. 2011. Assessing the Natural and Beneficial Functions of floodplains: Issues and approaches;
future directions. Prepared for the Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. Berne, NY.
October 18, 2011. Available at: http://www.aswm.org/pdf_lib/nbf.pdf
Legg. N.T., P.L. Olson. 2014. Channel Migration Processes and Patterns in Western Washington: A
Synthesis for Floodplain Management and Restoration. Washington State Department of
Ecology. Publication no. 14-06-028. August 2014. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1406028.pdf.
Mantua, N.J., I.Tohver, and A. Hamlet. 2009. Impacts of Climate Change on Key Aspects of
Freshwater Salmon Habitat in Washington State. Climate Impact Group, 2009, Ch. 6, pp. 217-
253; The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment. M. McGuire Elsner, J. Little and L.
Whitely Binder (eds). Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the
Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
MRSC (Municipal Research and Services Center). 2015. The National Flood Insurance Program and the
Impacts of the Biological Opinion. Available at: http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Public-
Safety/Emergency-Services/Flood-Hazard-Management-Planning-(1)/The-National-Flood-
Insurance-Program-and-the-Impac.aspx.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 7-9
References
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008. Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation
Final Biological Opinion And Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation, Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program
in the State of Washington Phase One Document – Puget Sound Region. September 2008.
Available at: http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1900-25045-
9907/nfip_biological_opinion_puget_sound.pdf
Perkins, S. 2006. Channel Migration Hazard Maps for the Dosewalips, Duckabush, Big Quilcene and
Little Quilcene Rivers Jefferson County, Washington Final Report. Prepared for Jefferson
County Natural Resources Division and Jefferson County Dept. of Community Development.
February 2006.
PSP (Puget Sound Partnership). 2010. Floodplain Management: A Synthesis of Issues Affecting
Recovery of Puget Sound. Prepared by Millie Judge (Lighthouse Natural Resource Consulting,
Inc.); David St. John (PSP) and Caitlin Imaki (PSP). Available at:
http://www.psp.wa.gov/vitalsigns/documents/Floodplain_Management_Report%20Judge%20
Final-July%202010.pdf.
Rosenburg, E.A., P. Keys, D. Booth, D. Hartley, J. Burkey, A. Steinemann, D. Lettenmaier. 2009.
Precipitation Extremes and the Impacts of Climate Change on Stormwater Infrastructure in
Washington State. Chapter 9 in The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment.
Available at: http://cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciach9storminfra652.pdf.
Steiger J., E. Tabacchi, S. Dufour, D. Corenblit, and J.L. Peiry. 2005. Hydrogeomorphic processes
affecting riparian habitat within alluvial channel-floodplain river systems: A review for the
temperate zone. River Research and Applications 21(7): 719–737.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Barnard, R. J., J. Johnson, P. Brooks, K. M. Bates, B. Heiner, J. P. Klavas, D.C. Ponder, P.D. Smith, and P.
D. Powers (2013), Water Crossings Design Guidelines, Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 2007.
Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science. 10.1073/pnas.0701685104.
Correa, G. 2002. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors – Water Resource Inventory Area 17
Quilcene-Snow Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission Final Report.
Cramer, Michelle L. (managing editor). 2012. Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines. Co-published by
the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Transportation and
Ecology, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Puget Sound Partnership, and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Olympia, Washington.
Gately, G., J. Clarke, D. Ecelberger, C. Schrader. 2015. Chimacum Watershed Water Quality and Fishes:
A Comprehensive Review. Prepared by Jefferson County Conservation District. Port Hadlock,
WA.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 7-10 December 2015
References
Knight, K. 2009. Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington.
Knutson, K. L., and Naef, V. L. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats:
Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 181 pp.
Larsen, E., J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. 2004. Management recommendations for
Washington’s priority species, Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Olympia, Washington.
Martin, T.G., S. McIntyre, C.P. Catterall, and H.P. Possingham. 2006. Is landscape context important
for riparian conservation? Birds in grassy woodland. Biological Conservation 127:201-214.
Mayer, P.M., S.K. Reynolds Jr., M.D. McCutchen, and T.J. Canfield. 2007. Meta-analysis of nitrogen
removal in riparian buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality 36:1172- 1180.
McIntyre, C. 2011. Predicting amphibian occurrence based on wetland and landscape level factors in
Montana. M.S. Thesis, University of Montana.
May, C.W. 2003. Stream-riparian ecosystems in Puget Sound lowland eco-region: A review of best
available science. Watershed Ecology LLC.
Ousley, N.K., L. Bauer, C. Parsons, R.R. Robinson, and J. Unwin. 2003, Updated 2007. Critical areas
assistance handbook. Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development, Olympia, Washington. Available at:
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/GMS-Critical-Areas-Assist-Handbook.pdf.
Pearson, S.F. and D A. Manuwal. 2001. Breeding Bird response to riparian buffer width in managed
Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 11:840-853.
Polyakov, V., A. Fares, and M.C. Ryder. 2005. Precision riparian buffers for the control of nonpoint
source pollutant loading into surface water: a review. Environmental Review 13:129-144.
Ranalli, A. J. and D.L. Macalady. 2010. The importance of the riparian zone and instream processes in
nitrite attenuation in undisturbed and agricultural watersheds – a review of the scientific
literature. Journal of Hydrology 389:406-415.
Ribeiro, R., M A. Carretero, N. Sillero, G. Alarcos, M. Ortiz-Santaliestra, M. Lizana, and G.A. Llorente.
2011. The pond network: can structural connectivity reflect on(amphibian) biodiversity
patterns? Landscape Ecology 26(5):673-682.
Richter, K.O., D.W. Kerr, and B.J. Earle (2008). Buffer-only wetland protection: implications for pond-
breeding amphibians. Urban Herpetology. J. C. Mitchell and R. E. J. Brown, Society for the
Study of Amphibians & Reptiles. pp. 489-504.
Rittenhouse, T. and R. Semlitsch. 2006. Grasslands as movement barriers for a forest associated
salamander: migration behavior of and juvenile salamanders at a distinct habitat edge.
Biological Conservation 131:14-22.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 7-11
References
Roberts, W.M., M.I. Stutter, and P.M. Haygarth. 2012. Phosphorous retention and remobilization in
vegetated buffer strips: a review. Journal of Environmental Quality 41:389-399.
Sahu, M. and R. R. Gu. 2009. Modeling the effects of riparian buffer zone and contour strips on
stream water quality. Ecological Engineering 35(8):1167-1177.Semlitsch, R. and J. R. Bodie.
2003. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians
and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17(5):1219-1228.
Semlitsch and Jensen. 2001. Core Habitat, Not Buffer Zone. National Wetlands Newsletter: 23(4).
Accessible at:
http://www.northinlet.sc.edu/training/media/2011/06142011IsolatedWetlands/RESOURCES/CO
RE_HABITAT.pdf
Stanley, S., S. Grigsby, D. B. Booth, D. Hartley, R. Horner, T. Hruby, J. Thomas, P. Bissonnette, R.
Fuerstenberg, J. Lee, P. Olson, George Wilhere. 2011. Puget Sound Characterization. Volume
1: The Water Resources Assessments (Water Flow and Water Quality). Washington State
Department of Ecology. Publication No. 11-06-016. Olympia, WA. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1106016.pdf.
Stutter, M.I. and S. Richards. 2012. Relationships between soil physiochemical, microbiological
properties, and nutrient release in buffer soils compared to field soils. Journal of Environmental
Quality 41:400-409.
Stutter, M.I., W.J. Chardon, and B. Kronvang. 2012. Riparian buffer strips as a multifunctional
management tool in agricultural landscapes: Introduction. Journal of Environmental Quality
41:297-303.
Syverson, N., and M. Bechmann. 2004. Vegetative buffer zones as pesticide filters for simulated surface
runoff. Ecological Engineering 22: 175-184.
Smith, L. A. and P. ChowFraser. 2010. Impacts of adjacent land use and isolation on marsh bird
communities. Environmental Management 45: 1040-1051.
Smith, T.A., D.L. Osmond, C.E. Moorman, J.M. Stucky, and J.W. Gilliam (2008). Effect of vegetation
management on bird habitat in riparian buffer zones. Southeastern Naturalist 7:277-288.
Tomassi, S. 2004. Management Strategies for Core Wildlife Habitat Areas in Eastern Jefferson County.
Prepared for Jefferson County Natural Resources Division. March 2014.
Trenham, P.C. and H.B. Shaffer. 2005. Amphibian upland habitat use and its consequences for
population viability. Ecological Applications 15:1158-1168.
Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 232-12-292. Bald Eagle Protection Rules.
Washington Administrative Code [WAC]. 365-190-080[3]. Critical Areas.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife:
Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 7-12 December 2015
References
WDFW (Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009. Land Use Planning for Salmon,
Steelhead, and Trout: A Land Use Planner's Guide to Salmon Habitat Protection and Recovery.
October 2009. Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Program.
Wilhere, G.F., T. Quinn, D. Gombert, J. Jacobson, and A. Weiss. 2013. A Coarse-scale Assessment of
the Relative Value of Small Drainage Areas and Marine Shorelines for the Conservation of Fish
and Wildlife Habitats in Puget Sound Basin. Washington Department Fish and Wildlife, Habitat
Program, Olympia, Washington. Available at:
ftp://www.ecy.wa.gov/gis_a/inlandWaters/ps_project/Docs/Watershed_Characterization_WDF
W_Report_Final_Dec2013.pdf.
Agricultural Activities
Benedict, C. and J. Shaw. 2012. Agricultural Waterway Buffer Study – Whatcom County, Washington.
Prepared by Washington State University Whatcom County Extension. Bellingham, WA.
Buffler, S., C. Johnson, J. Nicholson, and N. Mesner. 2005. Synthesis of design guidelines and
experimental data for water quality function in agricultural landscapes in the Intermountain
West. USDA Forest Service/UNL Faculty Publications. Paper 13.
Burkhart, M.R. and J.D. Stoner. 2007. Nitrate in aquifers beneath agricultural systems. Water Science
Technology 56(1): 56-69.
CIG (Climate Impacts Group). 2013. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Washington State:
Technical Summaries for Decision Makers. University of Washington.
CLF (Citizens for Local Food). 2012. Jefferson County Farmer Survey 2012 Report. Port Townsend, WA.
Cornell University Cooperative Extension. 2012. Pesticides and Groundwater: A Guide for the Pesticide
User. Available at: http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/pest-gr-gud-grw89.aspx.
Correa, G. 2002. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors – Water Resource Inventory Area 17
Quilcene-Snow Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission Final Report.
De Solla, S.R., K.E. Pettit, C.A. Bishop, K.M. Cheng, and J.E. Elliott. 2002. Effects of agricultural
runoff on native amphibians in the Lower Fraser River Valley, British Columbia, Canada.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21(2): 353-360.
Dittbrenner, C., P. Cereghino, E. Hagan. 2015. The Working Buffer Opportunity: A proposal for
ecologically sound and economical viable riparian buffers on agricultural lands. Snohomish
Conservation District.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Section 404 and Swampbuster: Wetlands on
Agricultural Lands. Available: http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/wetlands/facts/fact19.cfm.
GEI Consultants, Inc. 2002. Efficacy and Economics of Riparian Buffers on Agricultural Lands – State of
Washington Phase I. Prepared for Washington Agricultural Caucus. October 2002.
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
December 2015 Page 7-13
References
GEI Consultants, Inc. 2005. Efficacy and Economics of Riparian Buffers on Agricultural Lands – State of
Washington Phase II. Prepared for Washington Agricultural Caucus. July 2005.
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). 2012. Letter to interested parties and
stakeholders re: ESHB 1886 Voluntary Stewardship Program and Jefferson County dated
February 6, 2012. BOCC members Phil Johnson, David W. Sullivan, and John Austin. Port
Townsend, WA.
Latham, A. 2004. Chimacum Watershed Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife Protection Plan. Prepared by
Jefferson County Conservation District. Port Hadlock, WA.
Owens, P.N., J.H. Duzant, L.K. Deeks, G.A. Wood, R.P.C. Morgan, and A.J. Collins. 2007. Evaluation of
contrasting buffer features within an agricultural landscape for reducing sediment and
sediment-associated phosphorus.
PCD (Pierce Conservation District). 2013. Tips on Land & Water Management for Puget Sound Rural
Living.
Schoeneberger, M., G. Bentrup, H. de Gooijer, R. Soolanayakanahally, T. Sauer, J. Brandle, X. Zhou,
and D. Current. 2012. Branching out: agroforestry as a climate change mitigation and
adaptation tool for agriculture. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Vol 67, No. 5.
Smalling, K.L, R. Reeves, E.L. Muths, M. Vandever, W.A. Battaglin, M.L. Hladik, and C.L. Pierce.
2015. Pesticide concentrations in frog tissue and wetland habitats in a landscape dominated by
agriculture. Science of the Total Environment Volume 502: 80-90.
Smith, C. 2012. 2012 Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Results for the Washington
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): Plant and Buffer Performance.
Washington State Conservation Commission. December 2012.
Smolders, A.J.P., E. Lucassen, R. Bobbink, J.G.M. Roelofs, and L.P.M. Lamers. 2009. How nitrate
leaching from agricultural lands provokes phosphate eutrophication in groundwater fed
wetlands: The sulphur bridge. Biogeochemistry. Published online November 5, 2009.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. US Summary and State
Data. Available at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2007. Census of Agriculture. Table 1: County Summary
Highlights 2012. Available at:
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_
Level/Washington/st53_2_001_001.pdf
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2012. Census of Agriculture. Table 1: County Summary
Highlights 2012. Available at:
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_
Level/Washington/st53_2_001_001.pdf
Jefferson County CAO Update Best Available Science Report
Final
Page 7-14 December 2015
References
USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service). 2015. National
Conservation Practice Standards. Available at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/cp/ncps/#
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2008–3063. Distribution of
Elevated Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water in Washington State. Available:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3063/
Whatcom County. 2005. Whatcom County Critical Areas Ordinance – Best Available Science Review
and Recommendations for Code Update. Whatcom County Planning and Development
Services. May 2005.
Yuan, Y.P., R.L. Bingner, and M.A. Locke. 2009. A review of effectiveness of vegetative buffers on
sediment trapping in agricultural areas. Ecohydrology 2(3):321-336.
Zedler, J.B. 2003. Wetlands at your service: Reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale.
Front Ecol Environ 2003, 1(2): 65-72.
Zhang, X., X. Liu, M. Zhang, and R.A. Dahlgren. 2010. A review of vegetated buffers and a meta-
analysis of their mitigation efficacy in reducing nonpoint source pollution. Journal of
Environmental Quality 39:76-84.