HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-69
Cj1/t4\
v~
c..,t"/1I\,~
2tq(p{
@
Jhd ~ I-
I ?iJJl)/j
JEFfERSON CUi.n.
\. VI~1i 1.Jl,,;J
Comment Letter
(OLYMPIC STEWARDSHIP
FOUNDATION)
Dennis D. Reynolds Law Office
cR
January 21/ 2009
.t
(-:
Dennis D. Reynolds Law Office
200 Winslow Way W. Suite 380 Bainbridge Island. WA 98110
Land Use . Asheries law . Environmental Law . Business Law . indian Law . Real Estate
206.780.6m 206.78Q.686S fax ww.ddrlaw.com
January 21,2009
Hand Delivered
Jefferson County Planning Commission
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, W A 98368
(360) 379-4450, tel / (360) 379-4451, fax
Re: Preliminary Draft SMP (December 3. 2008)
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
(
I represent The Olympic Stewardship Foundation (''the aSF"). The aSF's membership
includes a broad array of citizens, property owners and business owners in Jefferson County.
The OSF is a non-profit organization dedicated to representing the voice of rural landowners
who support the shared belief that citizens, particularly those who live on their land, are capable
of providing the very best care and nianagement for the environment in which they live. The
core ofthe aSF's founding members have a demonstrated record of maintaining and improving
on-the-ground conservation in Jefferson County. The January 14th edition of the Port Townsend
and Jefferson County Leader featured a front page article on Roger Short's efforts to enhance
habitat for the rare Trumpeter Swan on his 350 acre farm. The aSF supports balanced regulation
of shoreline use and development.
As set out below, the aSF believes that the current draft of the revised Jefferson County
Shoreline Master Program (SMP) is overly broad, conflicts with the general laws ofthe state,
delegates too much local control to the Department of Ecology, is internally inconsistent and
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use plan, and violates the state law mandate to
regulate shoreline areas exclusively under the Shoreline Management Act.
Contrary to public statements made by some County officials, the proposed Draft SMP
regulates existing uses and relegates the built environment to a disfavored status. Specifically,
imposition of the proposed 150 foot generic shoreline buffer would make all existing
development within Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction in Jefferson County non-
conforming, a highly disfavored treatment. The public should be informed by Jefferson County
that the proposal as currently drafted is a huge expansion ofthe shoreline regulatory system, with
severe consequences on shoreline property owners and users.
In the opinion of the aSF, the County Final Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
Report (Revised) dated June 2008, is incomplete. It lacks both field verification and a thorough
description and analysis of existing conditions since it is based only upon published and
unpublished literature pertaining to Jefferson County. (Study, p. 1-18). This approach violates
the State Guidelines for revision or adoption ofa new SMP. WAC 173-26-201 (37)(c) requires
actual specification of the extent of existing structures and development and the effectiveness of
[90049-1]
(
l
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 2
,I;',;'
the existing shoreline regulatory system in terms of preventing or minimizing impacts associated
with shoreline development to date. The Study does not contain such specification.
The Study concedes it is "not intended as a full evaluation of the effectiveness of the
SMA existing shoreline policies or regulations." (Study, p.1-3). The Characterization Report
also states in 1.2, "While this report provides a basis for updating the policies and regulations
contained in the County's SMP, it does not provide a complete blueprint for managing each
individual shoreline parcel over time." Under the section for. Mapping in 1.2.1, the Study further
states that "this report makes no representation as to the exact ownership (public or private) of
specific areas of the County shoreline or adjacent tidelands, except for noting the general
location of public parks and other public access points." It is also stated in the Draft SMP that
maps are for "informational purposes only."
The Cumulative Impacts Assessment is likewise flawed, since it fails to meaningfully
evaluate the effectiveness of existing regulatory systems or evaluate current conditions. A key
need is to use a process that". .. identifies, inventories and ensures meaningful understanding of
the current and potential ecological functions provided by affected shorelines." WAC 173-26-
186(8)(a). The Impacts Assessment is lacking in this regard.
The State Guidelines for revisions of a SMP require a cumulative impact analysis, which
includes such analysis, along with an evaluation of reasonably foreseeable future development:
Local master programs shall evaluate and consider cumulative ~pacts of
reasonably foreseeable future development on shoreline ecological functions and
other shoreline functions fostered by the policy goals of the act. . . Evaluation of
such cumulative impacts should consider: (i) Current circumstances affecting the
shorelines and relevant natural processes; (ii) Reasonably foreseeable future
development and use of the shoreline: and (iii) Beneficial effects of any
established regulatory programs under the other local, state, and federal laws.
WAC 173-26-186(8)(d)
The OSF strongly opposes adoption of a new or revised SMP until Jefferson County
complies with the State Guidelines and prepares a proper Shoreline Inventory and Cumulative
Impacts Analysis. Sound regulatory choices cannot be made without this essential base
information. The Jefferson CoUnty Comprehensive Plan (''the Plan") mandates use of good
scientific information on which to base regulation of "shoreline land use activities." Plan, p. 8-
24.
INTRODUCTION OF DENNIS REYNOLDS
Before proceeding to detailed comments, let me introduce myself. For 12 years, I was
employed by the Washington State Office of Attorney General. In that capacity, I represented the
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 3
Departments of Fisheries and Game, and other state agencies, in discrete matters, mostly
complex environmental cases heard by the State Shoreline Hearings Board, the Pollution Control
Hearings Board, the Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. I drafted the State Hydraulic Code implementing regulations and
helped draft the SEP A Guidelines.
I have been in private practice since 1985. I handled one of the first appeals to a Growth
Management Hearings Board, Berschauer v. Tumwater, which established ''urban infilling"
requirements. In 1991 I helped draft the Pierce County Critical Areas Ordinance, representing
the building industry. In 1992, I successfully challenged use of the Department of Ecology's
Model Wetlands Ordinance for the Building Industry Association of Washington. I was one of
two attorneys representing a coalition of clients who struck down the 2001 "SMA Rilles"
promillgated by the Department of Ecology to guide revisions and updates .oflocal shoreline
master programs. I helped draft the replacement guidelines, WAC Chapter 173-26, the State
Guidelines for revision or adoption of new SMPs. I was lead counsel in Biggers v. Bainbridge
Island, a case which struck down that City's illegal "rolling" shoreline moratoria. I was named
by Washington CEO Magazine in June, 2008 as one of the top lawyers in two categories.
My current practice emphasizes shoreline regulatory and critical area matters. I routinely
provide comment to local jurisdictions on proposed legislation, including revisions to critical
area ordinances and shoreline master programs on behalf of a broad array of private clients. I .
currently serve as special counsel to Grant County on programmatic land use matters and related
litigation and when needed have a similar position with W alIa Walla County.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
Illegal Integration. Staff via integration of the existing Jefferson County Critical Areas
Ordinance, JCC Chapter 18.22 ("the CAD") with the Draft SMP, proposes to essentially
designate as "critical areas" all marine near shore areas, via use of extreme "No Development"
buffers. This approach is illegal. It is also not supported by the record. As set out below,
shoreline areas are exclusively regulated under the Shoreline Management Act ("SMA"), not
under CADs adopted pursuant to the Growth Management Act ("GMA"); Further, there is no
showing in the record that all marine or shoreline areas in Jefferson County are "critical areas."
Overdesignation. The proposal to make all marine areas and associated uplands a
"critical area" under the GMA is also over-inclusive and not supported by the record. Under
relevant criteria enacted by the Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development, not all near shore areas are "critical" fish and wildlife areas. Such areas must
exhibit truly high functions and value for fish and wildlife to qualify for such a designation. This
is not to say Jefferson County's marine shorelines are unimportant for marine species, but surely
not all shorelines are "critical" areas. Over designation simply deflects attention from other
needs, e.g., good shoreline planning on a site specific basis.
[90049-1 ]
(
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 4
The Staff support for large marine buffers appears to be based upon the perceived need to
protect and restore the shoreline. If so, this approach is overly broad and unsupported by the
law. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board has correctly observed
that:
All of the above quotes from the RCW and the WAC reflect an overall intent to
assure no further degradation, no further negative impacts, no additional loss of
functions or value of critical areas. Further, WAC 365-195-41 O(2)(b) focuses
efforts on those natural areas that can be maintained; not on imposing burdens on
farmers to retrofit or return natural conditions of habitat areas long since altered.
"Critical areas should be designated and protected whenever the applicable
natural conditions exist." ... There is no mention in the definition to improve or
enhance the structures, values and functions, only to 'preserve' them.
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community et al. Skagit County (WW6MHB Case No. 02-2-0012c),
p. 1-22 (Dec. 8,2003). At page 24, the Board states that "[W]e find that RCW 36.70(A).060(2)
and .040(1) do not require buffers on every stretch of every watercourse containing or
contributing to a watercourse bearing anadromous fish, to protect the existing functions and
values ofFWHCAs." Further, at page 26, the Board states that "we also find that the
requirement to consider conservations and protection measures necessary to protect, or enhance
anadromous fisheries does not mean that all these measures must be regulatory." The Draft SMP
needs to be reconciled with the law in this regard.
Unsupported Presumptions Offered Under the Guise of "Science." Jefferson County
was recently told by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board that it must
support blanket regulatory restrictions with actual science, not surmise:
Of concern to the Board is Jefferson County's apparent requirement to retain vegetation
regardless of the associated probability of risk which is not equal within the entire
mapped CMZ,let alone on the entirety of properties only a portion of which are within a
CMZ. That is, vegetation removal is not precluded only within the high risk area. Thus,
should a property owner be prohibited from removing vegetation within a low risk area,
or that portion of a property outside a CMZ where the probability of channel occupation
is slight or nonexistent?
The Board concludes OSF has carried its burden of proof in demonstrating that the
County failed to comply with RCW 36. 70A.172 (1) by not having BAS which supports
the limitation of vegetation removal on the entirety of a parcel which includes property
within a CMZ.
Citizens Protecting Critical Areas and Olympic Stewardship Foundation, et al. v. Jefferson
County, WWGMHB Case No. 08-2-0029C, pp.38-39 (Final Decision, November 19, 2008).
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 5
The Existing Regulatory System is Working. The existing State Environmental Policy
Act ("SEP A") review process and the permit system established under the current SMP,
combined with State and Federal regulatory systems, adequately protect marine critical areas
from harm. These regulatory programs are set out in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
Table 8.2, pp. 8-3, 8-4. There is no analysis in the record that the existing regulatory system is
inadequate, thereby requiring adoption of a new SMP over three times the length of the existing
document. It is submitted the County should have confidence that its existing environmental
review and permitting systems will prevent harm to the aquatic environment absent
documentation to the contrary. These systems take away the need to impose generic regulatory
measures, such as. the proposed large shoreline buffers.
Generic Buffers And Set Asides Are Illegal. The Courts have struck down generic set
asides, such as large buffer and native vegetation zones. The current approach which utilizes
these regulatory devices will involve Jefferson County in needless litigation in which in my
opinion it cannot prevail, distracting attention from the need to update the SMP. These generic
devices should be discarded.
megal Forced Restoration. The staff approach is an unprecedented expansion' of
regulation under the SMA and derivatively the GMA, one not supported by the law or facts.
This approach, if adopted, makes the extensively developed shoreline areas of Jefferson County.
non-conforming, especially Eastern Jefferson County, a status highly disfavored in the law as set
out below. Since non-conforming uses must be phased out if discontinued or extensively
damaged or destroyed, the result is mandated restoration of shoreline areas, even though the
existing code and the law, as set in the Swinomish Indian Tribe v Skagit County case and other
decisions, does not require "enhancement" or "restoration" of riparian areas.
Unique Local Circumstances. Jefferson County has unique local circumstances. Over
77% of Jefferson County's total land area is within Olympic National Park, Olympic National
Forest and State Forestland. Comprehensive Plan, p. 3-1. There is a little private ownership or
use of shorelines in the West End but 80% private ownership of shorelines in the East End.
There shorelines ''have value for residential and economic use." Plan, p. 8-5. Thus, preservation
of shorelines in the East End with no meaningful new use or development allowed is not an
option. These local circumstances must be considered. Plan, p. 3-2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
· Defer consideration of adoption of the revised SMP until completion of a more thorough
Shoreline Inventory and Cumulative Impact Analysis which complies with the State
Guidelines.
· Revise the Cumulative Impact Analysis to assess the effectiveness of the existing
regulatory regime and to identify impacts reasonably foreseeable caused by allowed
future development and use.
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 6
· Do not simply integrate the existing CAO into the new SMP. Use the SMA standards to
decide the required level of protection for marine and shoreline areas. '
· Retain the existing 30 foot setback for single-family residential found in JCC
~ 18.25.410( 4)(J), but impose no new generic marine shoreline buffers.
· Establish marine buffers on a case-by-case basis for new commercial and industrial
development, and large subdivisions, through the existing SEP A and SMA processes.
· Establish new performance standards for assessment of required buffers - if any - on a
case-by-case basis.
· Do not designate or treat near shore marine areas as critical simply because of periodic
juvenile salmonoid use during the March to Jrine outmigration.
· Do not establish any buffers on already highly developed shorelines in urban areas, or in
the alternative, explicitly exempt all new reconstruction and redevelopment, including
change in uses and alteration of existing structures.
· Enact greater economic incentives for voluntary restoration of degraded shorelines
ILLEGAL INTEGRATION
1. Overview
At the outset, it appears that some background on the SMA and the GMA and the
relationship of these two laws would be helpful. The Legislature enacted the SMA in 1971 to
protect and manage the shorelines of Washington to foster all reasonable and appropriate uses,
while protecting against adverse effects to public health, land, vegetation, wildlife, and the rights
of navigation. RCW 90.58.020. The SMA has jurisdiction over all marine waters and shorelines
200 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark, both salt and fresh water. , RCW 90.58'.030( d).
The SMA requires that local governments develop master programs for the regulation
and use of their shorelines. RCW 90.58.080. A "master program" is the "comprehensive use
plan for a described area, and the use regulations together with maps, diagrams, charts, or other
descriptive material and text, a statement of desired goals, and standards developed in
accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020." RCW 90.58.030(3)(b). All master
programs must be approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology. RCW 90.58.090.
Once approved, the master programs "constitute [the] use regulations for the various shorelines
of the state." RCW 90.58.100(1).
The GMA was enacted in 1990 to coordinate the State's future growth via comprehensive
land use planning. See Laws of 1990, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 17, codified at RCW 36.70A. As part of
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 7
this update process, the GMA requires cities and counties to designate "critical areas," to be
protected through enactment of development standards and regulations. RCW 36.70A.060(2);
RCW 36.70A.172(l). Critical areas are defined in the GMA to include "fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas." RCW 36.70A.030(5)(c). They include wetlands, aquifer recharge areas,
hazardous slopes and frequently flooded areas. Comprehensive Plan, p. 8-4. '
2. The SMA and GMA: Partial Integration
Turning in more detail to the regulatory schemes set up by the GMA and the SMA, in
1995 the Legislature partially integrated the SMA and the GMA, transferring jurisdiction for
appeals of shoreline master programs to the Growth Management Hearings Boards. Laws of
1995, ch. 347, Section 311, codified at RCW 90.58.190. In addition, the goals and policies of the
SMA were "added as one of the goals of this chapter [36.70A, the GMA]. RCW 36.70A.480"
With these changes, shoreline master program use regulations are now considered as part of a
county's or city's development regulations. See RCW 36.70A.480(1). Other than consolidating
"policies" which become part of the comprehensive land use plan, however, the integration of
the SMA and the GMA did not go further, and the legislature retained regulation of shorelines
exclusively under the SMA. See RCW 36.70A.480(3).
Most importantly, any amendments to a shoreline master program under the current
system must ocCur under completely different procedures in tenus of review and ultimate
approval than those established for amendments to critical area ordinances. RCW 36.70A.480(2)
in this regard provides:
The shoreline master program shall be adopted pursuant to the
procedures of chapter 90.58 RCW rather than the goals, policies,
and procedures set forth in this chapter for the adoption of a
comprehensive plan or development regulations.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Under the SMA, amendments to a shoreline master program are not effective until
presented to the Department of Ecology for its review and approval. See RCW 90.58.080. This
is a totally different process than that established for revisions adopted for a local government's
critical areas ordinance. By contrast, CAO revisions become effective once they are approved by
local municipality's legislative body, whether a board of county commissioners or a city council.
Also, the provisions ofRCW 36.70A.172, use of best available science, "shall not apply to the
adoption or subsequent amendment of the local government shoreline master program and shall
not be used to determine compliance of a local government's shoreline master program with
chapter 90.58 RCW [the SMA] and applicable guidelines." See RCW 36.70A.480(3)(b).
Staff apparently presumes that regulation of marine areas is allowed under both the GMA
and the SMA because a new SMP is to provide a level of protection "at least equal" to the level
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 8
of protection by the local government's CAO. However, as set out above, the GMA separates
shoreline use regulation from critical areas regulation. Washington's shorelines may contain
critical areas, but the shorelines are not critical areas simply because they are shorelines of state-
wide significance. See Department of Ecology Directive, "Questions and Answers on ESHB
1993," p. 2.
What "at least equal to" means is that there be "no net loss" of shoreline processes, that
is, that we do not go backwards in terms of protection. It does not mean "just use the CAO."
The terms "at least equal" do not equate to a wholesale integration of a CAO. The goal of
shoreline regulation is to prevent "net loss to shoreline ecological functions." See WAC 173-26-
186(8)(6). As used in the State Guidelines, the terms "ecological functions" mean"... the work
performed or role played by the physical, chemical and biological processes that contribute to the
maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural
ecosystem." WAC 173-26-020(11). The functions of shorelines, especially marine areas and
beaches, differ. from upland critical areas. Also, all shorelines cannot be classified as "critical
areas." These basic differences counsel against an uncritical integration. Simply put, the
functions and values are less important than, for instance, protecting a key and irreplaceable
aquifer recharge' area. Integration of the CAO would be like protecting all upland areas as
"critical areas," when they are not.
The only time that there is "integration" between the GMA and the SMA as to critical
areas regulation is when a local government's master program does not include buffers required
for protection of those critical areas that are located within shorelines of the state. See RCW
36.70A.480(6), which reads:
If a local jurisdiction's master program does not include land
necessary for buffers for critical areas that occur within
shorelines ofthe state, as authorized by RCW 90.58.030(2)(f),
then the local jurisdiction shall continue to regulate those critical
areas and their required buffers pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060(2).
In Jefferson County, the Shoreline Master Program does include buffers, denominated
setbacks. For instance, a 30 foot minimum is currently imposed for residential development.
See JCC ~ 18.25.4lO(4)(J). Therefore, the SMA controls in all respects for the update ofthe
existing SMP.
The Department of Ecology has issued a directive, found on the County's website,
advising local municipalities that it is acceptable to regulate marine areas under a CAO until a
SMP update is undertaken and approved, relying upon RCW 36.70A.480(3(a), which reads:
As of the date the department of ecology approves a local
government's shoreline master program adopted under applicable
shoreline guidelines, the protection of critical areas as defined by
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 9
RCW 36.70A.030(5) within shorelines of the state shall be
accomplished only through the local government's shoreline
master program and shall not be subject to the procedural and
substantive requirements of this chapter, except as provided in
subsection (6) of this section.
RCW 36.70A.480(3)(a).
This approach does not apply in Jefferson County. For one, the County has shoreline
buffers via the minimum setbacks, so RCW 36.70A.480(6) preserves exclusive regulation under
the SMA. Two, since the current CAO has not been approved by Ecology, it has no force or
effect in terms of valid shoreline regulation. See Evergreen Islands, Futurewise and Skagit
Audubon Society v. City of Anacortes, WW6MHB Use No. 05-2-0016, Final Decision and Order,
December 27, 2005, p.3l (CAO provisions inapplicable to shoreline critical areas unless
approved by Department of Ecology). Third, the matter of SMA/GMA is now settled by the
courts, and the SMA trumps the GMA as to regulation of marine and shoreline areas. 1
In Biggers v. Bainbridge Island, 162 Wn.2d 683, 169 p.3d 14(2007), the City of
Bainbridge Island argued that provisions of the GMA applied to shoreline development,
regardless of the SMA or the City's SMP. Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island, 124 Wn. App.
858,866-67, 103 P.3d 244 (Div. 2, 2004). The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the GMA
clearly specifies that the SMA governs the unique criteria for shoreline development, and "[i]n
other words, the SMA trumps the GMA in this area." Id., 124 Wn. App. at 867. In fact, the
Biggers court considered an argument that RCW 36.70A.480(3) was not added until 2003 and
should only apply prospectively, and dismissed it stating that "this change does not affect our
analysis." Id. at n.8. Thus, Ecology's interpretation relied upon by Bainbridge Island was
rejected, but the Department for some reason has not issued any new directive.
In Futurewise, et al. v. WWGMHB, 162 Wn.2d 242, 244-45 (2008), the State Supreme
Court unequivocally ruled that areas under SMA jurisdiction are exclusively regulated by that
law, not the GMA. Thus, CAOs enacted under the GMA do not carte blanche apply to shoreline
areas, so staff's mandated integration in the proposed Draft SMP is dead on arrival. The Western
Washington Growth Management Hearing Board recently confirmed this point in a case
involving Jefferson County:
Board Discussion.
The Board recognizes, based, on the Supreme Court's recent holdings in
1 The Washington Constitution provides that local police powers may not conflict with the general law of the state.
See WASH. CONST. art. XI, ~ 11; see also HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce County, 148 Wn.2d 451, 482, 61 P.3d
1141 (2003); Lend v. City of Seattle, 63 Wn.2d 664, 670, 388 P.2d 926 (1964). This rule is applicable to procedures
found in the SMA Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island, 162 Wn.2d 683,698,169 P.3d 14 (2007). Thus, the staff
proposed CAD integration is illegal.
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 10
Futurewise,et al. v. WWGMHB, that there maybe one exception to the GMA's
rule requiring protection of critical areas - critical areas located within the
jurisdiction of the SMA. The Court, in addressing the question of whether the
Legislature intended the GMA to apply to critical areas in shorelines covered by
the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) until the Department of Ecology has approved a
new or updated SMP, stated (Emphasis added).
[Citing ESHB 1933 (codified as RCW 36.70A.48)] "The
legislature intends that critical areas within the jurisdiction of the
[SMA] shall be governed by the [SMA] and that critical areas
outside the jurisdiction of the [SMA] shall be governed by the
[GMA]." We hold that the legislature meant what it said. Critical
areas within the jurisdiction of the SMA are governed only by
the SMA.
The regulations at issue for DSP in this case relate primarily to the County's
adoption of Channel Migration Zones (CMZs) for four of its most prominent
rivers. The Board notes all of these rivers are within the jurisdiction of the SMA
and therefore land located within 200 feet of either side of the rivers falls under
the jurisdiction of the SMA. Therefore, despite the lack of a mandate and the
pending motion for reconsideration, this Board will adhere to the Court's
unambiguous holding that critical areas within the shoreline are regulated by the
SMA.
Thus, for the area of the CMZ that is within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction,
the Board views the County's action effectively as a segment of its SMP update
which is subject to review and approval by Ecology.
Citizens Protecting Critical Areas and Olympic Stewardship Foundation, et al. v. Jefferson
County, WWGMHB Case No. 08-2-0029C, pp.16-17 (Final Decision, November 19, 2008).
3. Why It Is Important To Act Under The SMA.
I trust it is clear that Washington State has separate regulatory systems for critical areas
located outside a shoreline jurisdiction, and areas within shoreline jurisdiction. This approach
has a sound basis in the law and public policy and common sense. After all, uplands remote
from shoreline and marine areas regulated under the GMA have different environments and uses.
In addition, while upland uses can be sited in many areas, water dependent uses and development
have no choice but to use the shorelines. Thus, the SMA and GMA provide legal standards that
differ significantly in terms of whether or not proposed local ordinance revisions comport with
state law. The GMA standard for determining consistency or validity of a local regulation
promulgated as part of a CAD is essentially whether the adopted law "protects" critical areas.
[90049-1)
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 11
See RCW 36.70A.060(2). The SMA standards are fundamentally different, since balanced
choices must be made to allow development for water dependent and water related uses.
To expand on the last point, although the SMA does have strong policies relating to the
protection and preservation of shoreline areaS, the law allows "alterations" to the shoreline,
especially for water dependent uses. Further, the law does not mandate shoreline enhancement
and restoration 2 See RCW 90.58.020. The SMA also provides for permitted uses in the
shorelines of the states, and sets priorities for certain shoreline uses and developments. ld. The
SMA standards are very different from "protecting" an area, since they allow some alteration,
use and development, and mandate that water development uses have a priority for development.
In other words, while the GMA "protects" areas from development and use, the SMA seeks "a
balance" between that protection and the allowable development and use and allows uses which
have no choice but to be on or near the shoreline. This approach is consistent with the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. ("Planning enhances our ability to weigh competing
needs in our community and make judicious allowances for each. It affords us the opportunity to
balance the demands of development with benefits of economic development and environmental
protection.") Plan, p. 1-2.
Since the regulatory standards for assessing the validity oflocal ordinances differ
significantly between the GMA and the SMA, one can see the wisdom of not regulating near
shore areas under the CAO. The GMA and the SMA are indeed separate laws, and should
remain separate in terms of process and procedure. I trust the Planning Commission recognizes
the significant differences in the goals, standards and regulatory systems of the SMA and the
GMA in terms of decision making.
2 In 2003, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board ruled in Case No. 02-3-0009C that "the primary and
paramount policy mandate that the board gleans from a complete reading ofRCW 90.58.020, pamcularly within the context
of the goals and overall growth management structure Chapter 36.70A RCW, is one of shoreline preservation,
protection, enhancement and restoration." Shorelines Coalition et at. v. City of Everett at at., CPSGHMB Case
No. 02-3-0009C (January 9,2003), p. 15 (Emphasis in original). After issuance of the Board's decision in the City
of Everett case, the Washington Legislature intervened, enacting Chapter 321 of the Laws of2003, [ESHB 1933].
This law clarifies how the Shoreline Management Act ("the SMA") is to be applied and interpreted by the Growth
Management Hearings Boards in conjunction with the Growth Management Act ("the GMA") and the new authority
delegated to the Boards by RCW 36.70C.480(3) to hear appeals of amendments to shoreline master programs.
Therein, the Legislature stated the SMA shall be: "... .read, interpreted, applied, and implemented as a whole
consistent with decisions of the shoreline hearings board and Washington courts prior to the decision of the central
Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board in Everett Shorelines Coalition v. City of Everett and
Washington State Department of Ecology." Washington Laws of2003, ch. 320, Section 1. (Emphasis supplied).
Since the adoption ofESHB 1933, the Central Board and the Washington State Attorney General have concluded
that blanket treatment of SMA regulated shorelines as critical areas under the GMA is not appropriate. See, Tahoma
Audubon Society v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB No. 05-3-0004c, Final Decision and Order (July 12, 2005) and AGO
2006 No.2 at 4 (Jan. 27, 2006) ("The Legislature explicitly repudiated the Board's conclusion that shorelines of
statewide significance are categorically critical areas which must be protected both under the SMA and GMA.")
The wisdom of these rulings was confirmed in the Futurewise case.
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 12
Thus, the Co1iunission should reject any regulation of the marine environment under the
CAD, including all of the "integration" language found in the Draft SMP, which should be
stricken. If the County accepts Staff's recommendation to integrate the CAD and SMP in terms
of regulation of near shore areas, it will be difficult if not impossible for the public, and the
Department of Ecology, to determine which portions are actually amendments to the Jefferson
County Shoreline Master Program (which require state agency review and approval) and which
portions are unrelated to the shoreline (and may be approved by the City Council). Clearly, this
would present serious practical difficulties without regard to its obvious illegality.
THE SMA STANDARDS FOR REGULATION
Since the SMA standards control, I turn to a brief explanation of the law on shoreline use
and development. The State Guidelines for revising SMPs acknowledge that there is a "balance"
in the SMA regarding the use and development of the shorelines:
The policy goals for the management of shorelines harbor potential for conflict.
The act recognizes that the shorelines and the waters they encompass are "among
the most valuable and fragile" of the state's natural resources. They are valuable
for economically productive industrial and commercial uses, recreation,
navigation, residential amenity, scientific research and education. They are
fragile because they depend upon balanced physical, biological, and chemical
systems that may be adversely altered by natural forces (earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions, landslides, storms, droughts, floods) and human conduct (industrial,
commercial, residential, recreation, navigational). Unbridled use of shorelines
ultimately could destroy their utility and value. The prohibition of all use of
shorelines also could eliminate their human utility and value. Thus, the policy
goals of the act relate both to utilization and protection of the extremely valuable
and vulnerable shoreline resources of the state. The act calls for the
. accommodation of "all reasonable and appropriate uses" consistent with
"protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation
and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life" and consistent with
"public rights of navigation." The act's policy of achieving both shoreline
utilization and protection is reflected in the provision that "permitted uses in the
shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize,
in so far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the
shoreline area and the public's use of the water." RCW 90.58.020.
WAC 173-26-176(2).
The quoted language from the State Guidelines is based upon a long series of cases which
have construed the SMA as allowing reasonable use and development of the shorelines of the
state. As a general matter, the SMA declares that it "is the policy of the state to provide for the
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 13
management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and
appropriate uses." See RCW 90.58.020. According to this State's highest court,
The SMA does not prohibit development of the state's shorelines, but calls
instead for "coordinated planning. . . recognizing and protecting private property
rights consistent with the public interest."
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 103 Wn.2d 720, 727, 696 P.2d 1222 (1985) (emphasis
added); see also RCW 90.58.020.
The policy of the SMA as set forth in RCW 90.58.020 strikes a balance between
protection of the shoreline environment and reasonable and appropriate use of the waters of the
state and their associated shoreline. This balance is recognized by the Washington Supreme
Court:
The SMA is to be broadly construed in order to protect the state shorelines as
fully as possible. The policy of the SMA was based upon the recognition that
shorelines are fragile and that the increasing pressure of additional uses being
placed on them necessitated increased coordination in their management and
development. The SMA provides that it is the policy of the State to provide for
the management of the shorelines by planning for and fostering all "reasonable
and appropriate uses". This policy contemplates protecting against adverse
effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters
of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally the public right of
navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto.
Buechel v. State Department of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196,203,884 P.2d 910 (1994).
The balance envisioned by the SMA anticipates that there will be some impact to
shoreline areas by new development or continued use, repair and maintenance of existing
structures or developments: "[a ]lterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines and
shorelands shall be recognized by the department." See RCW 90.58.020. The coUnterbalance to
this shoreline development is the requirement that "[p ]ermitted uses in the shorelines of the state
. . . be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant
damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area. . . ." Id
A key focus of the SMA is on preventing "unrestricted" use or development of the
shorelines or "uncoordinated development." Before enactment of the GMA, the only tool to
address this focus was a SMP; now, however, the GMA and its planning and zoning provisions
have been added to the mix of regulation. In terms of planning to avoid unrestricted
development of the shorelines, the GMA solves many concerns. For one, in rural areas which
comprise much of Jefferson County, the GMA has significantly "down zoned" land, thereby
limiting future development intensity. See Comprehensive Plan, p. 3-4, Table 3-2, p. 3-5. Two,
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 14
in combination with other laws, such as the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEP A"),
regulatory systems are now consolidated to avoid the need for new regulations to prevent
duplication.
What are the implications of the new GMA regime for shoreline regulation? The
Comprehensive Plan acknowledges some adverse impacts over the past decades associated with
rapid growth on shorelines "in some areas." Plan, p. 8-5. However, the GMA now controls the
rate and intensity of new nrral growth. As the aSF sees it, County planners must aclmowledge
that the fear of unrestricted or uncoordinated piecemeal development of the shoreline has largely,
if not totally, been resolved by enactment of a GMA compliant comprehensive land use plan and
implementing regulations. Thus, enactment of preclusive new regulations based upon the desire
to avoid the "mistakes" of the past is not necessary, particularly without an affirmative showing
that the existing system is inadequate.
PROPER USE OF SCIENCE
(1) Standards
In designating and protecting critical areas, best available science is to be used.
RCW 36.70A.172. While BAS is not explicitly a factor for an SMP update, scientific
information must be considered and assessed. See RCW 90.58.100. To the extent science is
considered, which it must, the science cannot be used in isolation from all of the other planning
goals specified in the GMA or the SMA. RCW 36.70A.020; HEAL v. Central Puget Sound
Growth Management Hearings Board, 96 Wn. App. 522, 979 P. 2d 864 (1999). For instance,
the only purpose of the BAS requirement is to ensure that critical area regulation is not based
upon speculation and surmise. HEAL v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings
Board, supra. Thus, counties have the authority and obligation to balance scientific evidence
among the many goals and factors set out in the GMA and the SMA, to fashion locally
appropriate regulations based on the evidence and local circumstances. In this regard, science
does not mandate the form nor extent of regulation. See Swinomish Indian Tribe v. Skagit
County.
When considering what may be supportive science for the SMP update under RCW
90.58.100, aSF urges that undue weight not be given to the views of the state agencies expressed
in "guidance documents." particularly where the science is non-specific to marine habits. For
instance, the State of Washington Department of Ecology's manuals on wetlands and wetlands
regulation, and the State of Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife ("WDFW") polices for
protection for certain wildlife habitat have not been adopted as rules and regulations pursuant to
the Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 34.04, RCW. Therefore, these policies do not have
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 15
the force oflaw.3 They are also skewed because of a narrow perspective. As one scientist has
stated:
What constitutes an allowable cost is not a matter solely of science, These deliberations
require multi-faceted consideration of all of the consequences of the decision to include
the effects on natural resources and the legal, social, political and economic
consequences of the decision. Resource agencies must follow legislative mandates and
rigoro~ rule making procedures before environmental criteria are codified in regulatory
(RCW) or administrative (WAC) codes. Natural resource agencies such as the
Department of Ecology and the Department ofFish and Wildlife are not generally
charged with making multi-faceted appraisals, they are charged with protecting fish and
wildlife, water, air, soil and sediment quality, etc. These one-dimensional tasks lead to
one-dimensional thinking that is evident in the Best Available Science (Sheldon et aI,
2005) written by WDOE and even more so in the WDFW recommendations of (Knutsen
and N aef, 1997) describing perceived wetland and stream buffer requirements for
protecting water quality and wildlife.
Dr. Kenneth M. Brooks, Supplemental Best Available Science Supporting Buffer Widths in
Jefferson County, Washington, p. 3. (2007)
The WDFW has identified certain fish and wildlife species or habitat that it considers a
priority for management and conservation, and has published a document entitled "Management
Recommendations for Priority Species" which is intended to "assist" reviewing agencies,
planners, landowners and members of the public in making land use decisions.4 By design, these
Management Recommendations are merely "generalized guidelines" without the force oflaw:
"[These] Management recommendations are not intended as site-specific prescriptions but as
guidelines for planning." See WDFW, Management Recommendations for Priority Species,
Volume IV, Introduction (May 2004). Because they are general guidelines, the law does not
mandate their use as official, binding performance standards for the regulation of land
development and uses, but the Draft SMP impermissibly stipulates that they control.
3 In 1991, the State of Washington Department of Ecology stipulated in litigation handled by the undersigned
involving the Building Industry Association of Washington that its wetland guidance materials, including its
"model" wetland ordinance, did not have legal force or effect.
4 The WDFW is charged with protection of fish and wildlife species, in terms of their harvest or non-harvest, but has
very limited authority over their habitat Instead, the state legislature has determined that protection of wildlife
habitat will be achieved through the GMA, the SMA, the Forest Practices Act (FP A), and the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEP A), as well as through local government planning processes. See WDFW, Management
Recommendations for Priority Species, V olum.e IV, Introduction (May 2004).
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 16
When local governments designate critical areas, the Washington Administrative Code
("WAC") provides that they ''may'' use the information, and advises that WDFW's priorities are
not necessarily shared by all:
Counties and cities should determine which habitats and species
are oflocal importance. Habitats and species may be further
classified in terms of their relative importance. Counties and cities
may use information provided by the Washington department of
wildlife to classify and designate important habitats and species.
Priority habitats and priority species are being identified by the
department of wildlife for all lands in Washington state. While
these priorities are those of the department, they and the data on
whic:J1 they are based may be considered by counties and cities.
WAC 365-190-080 (5)(c)(ii).
A serious matter for the Commission's deliberations is the effect of science urged by
some regulators without regard to requirements to protect private property rights. The Heal
court held that a restriction of the use of property that is insufficiently supported by best
available science violates constitutional nexus and proportionality requirements:
[P]olicies and regulations adopted under the GMA must comply with the nexus
and rough proportionality limits the United States Supreme Court has placed on
governmental authority to impose conditions on development applications . . .
Simply put, the nexus rule permits only those conditions necessary to mitigate a
specific adverse impact of a proposal. The rough proportionality requirement
limits the extent of the mitigation measures, including denial, to those which are
roughly proportional to the impact they are designed to mitigate. . . .
. . . [F]or example, if the City proposed a policy prohibiting development on
slopes steeper than 40 percent grade or requiring expensive engineering
conditions for any permitted project, only the best available science could provide
its policy makers with facts supporting those policies and regulations, which,
when applied to an application, will assure that the nexus and rough
proportionality tests are met. If the City failed to use the best available science
here in making its policy decision and adopting regulations, the permit decisions
it bases on those regulations may not pass constitutional muster under Nollan and
Dolan. The science the legislative body relies on must in fact be the best
available to support its policy decisions. Under the cases and statutes cited above,
it cannot ignore the best available science in favor of the science it prefers simply
because the latter supports the decision it wants to make. If it does, that decision
will violate either the nexus or rough proportionality rules or both.
[90049-1}
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 17
Heal. 96 Wn. App. at 533-34 (emphasis added); see also Isle Verde Int'l Holdings v. City of
Camas. 146 Wn.2d 740, 763 (2000) (striking down generic open space condition regardless of
the specific needs created by a given development). As set out below under Specific Comments,
many sections of the Draft SMP violate constitutional protections. The State Guidelines in this
regard mandate protection of property rights. See WAC 173-26-186(5) ("Guiding Principles").
The OSF believes it is the obligation of Jefferson County to assess the validity of its proposed
actions, not simply leave that to citizens who comment. Jefferson County must request a legal
opinion from third party counsel as to the validity of the Draft SMP, measured against statutory
and constitutional obligations to protect private property rights.
(2) Application of Standards
As noted, the BAS mandate is meant to preclude local authorities from relying on
"speculation [ or] sunnise" when protecting critical areas. Heal. supra. at 531 ; Ferry County v.
Concerned Friends of Ferry County, 155 Wn. 2d 824,834, p. 8,824,835 (2005). Under the case
law, this means that Jefferson County must identify the presence of important shoreline functions
through preparation of a detailed and adequate Shoreline Inventory. A compliant inventory
identifies discrete areas that need protection from development and assesses the extent and
impacts of current development and the presence of important shoreline ecological functions.
See WAC 173-26-201(3)(c) Obviously, this has not been done to date, so there is no support for
the proposed blanket imposition of buffers on all shorelines, as well as much of the proposed
new regulatory requirements found in the Draft SMP. The Comprehensive Plan mandates that
buffers for fish and wildlife habitat areas "be consistent with the best available science for
habitat protection." Plan, p. 8-29, p. 8-24 (Policy ENP 5.1). Best available science does not
equate to superficial or incomplete analysis, nor does it excuse compliance with the State
Guidelines in terms of securing required information.
The County is not able to extensively regulate all shorelines without justification in the
record. What is needed is a demonstration that all near shore areas exhibit the presence of high
functions and value to justify a blanket designation. There is no such definitive inventory in
Jefferson County which determines what shorelines justify the "critical area" designation
proposed by staff.
The purpose of science is to ensure that regulations are based on a reasoned analysis of
appropriate science and meaningful, reliable, and relevant evidence:
[Critical areas] are deemed "critical" because they may be more susceptible to
damage from development. The nature and extent of susceptibility is a uniquely
scientific inquiry. It is one in which the best available science is essential to an
accurate decision about what policies and regulations are necessary to mitigate
and will in fact mitigate the environmental effects of new development.
Heal, 96 Wn. App. at 533.
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 18
Turning to the science, the most that can be said is that there is little scientific study of
marine riparian zones at this time. The major work relevant to Puget Sound lowlands areas is the
Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, No. 2680. See Attachment 1.
This report has been analyzed by Kitsap County staff in the context of consideration of marine
buffers by the Board of County Commissioners, who confirmed that". . .it was felt no good science
currently exists to recommend vegetation buffer widths in the (marine habitat zone) at this time."
See Attachment 2, Bolger e-mail.
Bainbridge Island is currently reviewing its existing CAO to consider possible additional
regulation of marine areas, although that has been tabled in light of the Futurewise decision.
Dr. Don Flora is providing comment. His resume is attached, Attachment 3. Enclosed as
Attachments 4 and 5 are Dr. Flora's analysis of the scientific literature which is often cited in
the context of consideration of adoption of marine buffers for urban areas. As can be seen, the
science relied upon is in a totally different context, and many of the functions and values oflarge
width marine vegetated buffers appear overstated.
It is submitted that the studies often relied upon to support large riparian or marine
buffers is out of context or irrelevant to Jefferson County's local circumstances. For instance,
the studies show that the:
. BAS is from the East Coast and Midwest agricultural uses, such as feed lots, row crops
and spraying chicken manure on fields then irrigating to study impacts, uses irrelevant to
Jefferson County's situation.
. The rain patterns are different from the East Coast and Midwest. The Northwest receives
its major rains in the winter, not the summer months.
. BAS in the NW is for logging near streams in rural areas.
. BAS indicating that vegetated buffers are needed for wildlife habitat does not apply to
commercial zones and high density residential and appear irrelevant in rural Jefferson
County under current GMA rural densities.
. BAS indicating the need for trees and shade to provide micro climate comes from the
Midwest, the East Coast and the West Coast in remote forest areas and is based on
protecting the temperature from rising in small shallow streams. The concept of micro
climates does not apply to a large tidal body like Puget Sound or the Straits of
Juan de Fuca.
. BAS in the NW demonstrates that streams in recently logged areas with no tree cover
have better salmon production than those with tree buffers and shade. The increased
warmth allows for faster growth of salmon and better survival rate.
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 19
. Shade could never cover or cool baitfish spawning beds. On the hottest summer days in
Puget Sound, the sun is high in the sky and strikes all beaches directly except the upper
10 feet of northerly facing beaches with very tall trees on the shoreline or very tall banks
- a rare occurrence.
As can be gleaned from a review of the attachments to this comment letter, essentially all
of the studies relate to study of agricultural or forest uses, and the benefits of intact buffers in
areas of the United States with vastly different circumstances and climate than found in Jefferson
County. The GMA and SMA require consideration of "local circumstances," which in Jefferson
County is shorelines with much diversity, a large amount of public ownership, and low intensity
future rural development.
Some Board decisions reference the study Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification
Issues. However, insofar as the study addressed marine shoreline buffers, it ultimately
concluded that the current science is inconclusive and that additional study is required:
[F]unctions of marine riparian vegetation need. to be better documented in the
scientific literature in order to create adequate policies for protection (e.g.,
functional buffer widths) and restoration. . .Experimental research now will allow
us to fill knowledge gaps, learn from our actions, and minimize repetition of
failures and wasteful expenditure of resources.
[T]he upper limit of the nearshore zone includes that area landward some distance
from the intertidal zone. The strongest intertidal-upland coupling occurs where
bluffs provide sediments that nourish beaches, where upland transition (e.g.,
dune) vegetation stabilizes the beach, and where fringing vegetation shades the
intertidal zone and contributes insects (i.e. fish prey) and leaflitter (i.e. primary
production) directly into the aquatic environment. This marine riparian zone also
provides buffers from upland noise and water runoff. The characteristics and
landward extent of the upland portion of the nearshore zone is unquantified and
still requires directed research to define.. Index 590 at 5 (emphasis added).
Index 590 (G.D. Williams and R.M. Thorn, Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues,
Batelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, White Paper submitted to Washington Department ofFish
and Wildlife at 81 (Apr. 2001).
The most on point scientific study on marine riparian buffers is Marine and Estuarine
Riparian Habitats and Their Role in Coastal Ecosystems, Pacific Region, which concludes that
the science is insufficient to support uniformly applied big-buffers:
[T]here are insufficient data in the scientific literature to recommend generic or
region-wide setback distance. . . in marine riparian habitats. Further research is
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 20
needed to determine buffer widths for various vegetation units that compose the
marine riparian. In addition to research on biological functions such as fish food
supply (e.g. for juvenile salmon rearing) and spawning (e.g. surf smelt and '
sandlance), studies need to be conducted on physical factors such as soil
integrity. . .
. . . [B]ecause of the variation in potential damage, the dimensions of the setback
may have to be modified by site specific conditions such as slope stability. . . Not
all types ofblackshore habitat have the potential to act as sediment corridors
through the marine riparian. In addition, not all industrial developments have the
potential to create disruptive sediment supplies through the marine riparian. Index
1363 at 14. That is because research "on the importance of marine riparian habitat
. . . are virtually absent from the peer reviewed literature" - which is one of the
OSFal requirements for a study to qualify as best available science.
A critical question is what to do with the near shore areas where young salmon reside and
migrate for three months per year. There is no science stating extensive buffers are required to
. protect this species' sporadic use of the near shore area, especially where the existing condition
is a rural zoning which does not allow intensive new development or urban areas with a highly
developed waterfront. Further, existing regulations preclude virtually any new development or
construction during this period. See State Hydraulic Guidelines, WAC Chapter 220-110.
Just as the science does not support imposition of generic marine buffers or vegetation
protection set asides, neither does the law. The legislature, in 2003, enacted Engrossed Substitute
House Bill (ESHB) 1933. This law affirms that:
. Shorelines of statewide significance may include GMA critical areas, but that
shorelines are not critical areas simply because they are shorelines of statewide
significance;
. Critical areas within the jurisdiction of the SMA shall be governed by the SMA
and that critical areas outside of the jurisdiction of the SMA shall be governed by
the GMA;
. The GMA goals, including the SMA goals and policies, are continued to be listed
without an order or priority.
Laws of2003, ch. 321 Section 1 codified at RCW 90.58.030 and RCW 36.70A.480.
While thejustification for a blanket buffer for all shoreline is the perceived need to
protect critical habitat for salmon, no detailed marine shoreline inventory or ranking of areas
according to their quality as habitat for fish is contained in the record. In Tahoma, the Central
Board rejected a wholesale designation of marine shorelines as critical areas and commented
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 21
favorably on the work the County consultants did distinguishing "high value" and "low value
shorelines." fd. At 44. Notably, the record in that case included a detailed marine shoreline
inventory and ranking of areas according to their quality as habitat for salmon in response to a
listing of Chinook Salmon under the Endangered Species Act. fd. At 53. Jefferson County's
generalized Shoreline Inventory and Characterization report is an insufficient base to impose any
new marine buffers, let alone the proposed 150 foot setback.
The Attorney General reached similar conclusions to those in the Tahoma case in
response to a recent legislative inquiry. The Attorney General concluded: (1) that blanket
treatment of SMA shorelines as critical areas was not sufficient, and (2) that in passing ESHB
1933, the Legislature intended local governments to engage in a more detailed and
discriminatory process to identify what is critical about a shoreline as part of its review criteria
before designating the SMA regulated shoreline as a critical area AGO 2006 No.2 (Jan. 27,
2006).
[A]t least since the 2003 amendments to the SMA and GMA, it is clear that no
shoreline of the state, including shorelines of statewide significance, is to be
treated as automatically qualifying for critical area designation under the GMA.
Rather, each jurisdiction is expected to evaluate its shorelines to determine the
extent to which they contain areas meeting the "critical area" definitions set forth
in RCW 36.70A.030(5).
AGO 2006 No.2 at 4. The Futurewise case confirms the Attorney General's Opinion.
AGO 2006 No.2 did not address the validity of generic buffers under RCW 82.02 or
constitutional standards, but the Citizens Alliance case establishes that such buffers, and
associated ''vegetation preservation" set asides, are illegal. In this case, the Court of Appeals
held that King County failed to meet its burden to show limits on land clearing to a maximum of
50 percent of site coverage was not an illegal tax, fee or charge on development of land as
prescribed by RCW Chapter 82.02. The Appeals Court held not only that the vegetation clearing
limit was a ''tax., fee, or charge" but that there was no showing that the generic standard was
reasonably necessary to ameliorate impacts directly related to a proposed site development and
also that its effect was disproportionate to any possible impacts caused by clearing rural lands.
Thus, the limitation was struck down. Citizens Alliance for Property Rights, et al v. Sims, et aI,
145 Wn. API" 649, 187 P. 3d 786(2008). See also, Isla Verde Int'l Holdings v. City ofCamas,
146 Wn. 2d 740, 49 P. 3d 867 (2002).
It is important to recognize that the best available science requirement is not only
intended to provide protection for critical areas, but is also intended to protect economic and
property interests from unsupported and unduly preclusive regulation:
[T]he obvious purpose of the scientific requirement that each agency ''use the best
scientific and commercial data available" is to ensure that [environmental
[90049-1]
(
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 22
regulations] not be implemented haphazardly, on the basis of speculation or
surmise. While this no doubt serves to advance the ESA's overall goal of species
preservations, we think it readily apparent that another objective (if not indeed the
primary one) is to avoid needless economic dislocation produced by agency
officials zealously but unintelligently pursuing their environmental objectives.
Bennett v. Spears, 520 U.S. 154, 176-177 (1977) (reasoning adopted in Heal, 96
Wn. App. At 531). In this regard, the Washington State Supreme Court held that
local government must provide a "scientific OSF, evidence of analysis, or a
reasoned process to justifY [critical area regulations].
Ferry County v. Concerned Friends of Ferry County, 155 Wn.2d 824,835 (2005). Once again,
the OSF reiterates the need for Jefferson County to assess property rights and the effect of the
Draft SMP on these rights if adopted as proposed by staff.
A comparison to Pierce County's approach may be helpful. Pierce County was faced
with the same task as Jefferson County. See, Tahoma Audubon et al. v. Pierce County,
CPSGMHB No. 05-3-0004c, Order Finding Compliance (Jan. 12,2006). On a remand order
from the Central Board, Pierce County was tasked with revising its marine shoreline buffers and
critical area designations. ld. Unlike Jefferson County to date, Pierce County used "scientific
study which included data collection, field observations, and a recognized methodology. . . that
can be replicated" to identifY "stretches of marine shoreline with high habitat values for salmon."
ld. at 4. Using a scientifically replicable method, Pierce County was able to identifY and
designate approximately 20 miles' of its 179-mile of shoreline as salmon habitat justifying a 100-
foot buffer. ld. at 2.
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
Pursuant to the limited GMAlSMA integration, review of a new or revised SMP is
meaSured only against compliance with the policies and requirements of the SMA and the
Shoreline Guidelines rw AC Chapter 173-26) and the "internal consistency" provisions of
RCW 36.70A.070, RCW 36.70A.040(4), RCW 35.63.125 and RCW 35A.63.105. See
RCW 90.58.190(2)(b); RCW 36.70A.480(3). What this means is that a SMP must be consistent
with Comprehensive Plan policies and its own provisions must be internally consistent.
The OSF has interspersed comments on the Jefferson County Comprehensive Land Use
Plan and the inconsistencies of the proposed SMP draft on Plan provisions throughout its
comments. The purpose here is to summarize some key concepts on approach, balanced
regulation, the need to reflect local circumstances, and the need to promote economic
development and to protect private property rights.
This commentator's review of the Comprehensive Plan demonstrates a well thought out
and GMA compliant document. The purpose of the Plan is of relevance:
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 23
This Comprehensive Plan has been crafted to incorporate the lessons leamed in a
difficult planning process. It is the intent of this Plan to accept and build on the
difficulties of the past; identify appropriate solutions consistent with relevant
laws, decisions, adopted policies, and community involvement; and propose a
responsible strategy with which the County can effectively face the future.
Plan, p. 1.1.
As the Planning Commission can see, solutions for shoreline management must be
consistent with relevant laws, decisions and adopted policies. As set out herein, in its detailed
comments, the OSF demonstrates that the draft proposal is inconsistent with the general laws of
the state, adopted court and Growth Management Hearings Board decisions, and it is internally
inconsistent with some provisions of local laws.
The GMA imposes affirmative obligations to encourage economic development, promote
economic opportunity for all citizens of the state, encourage growth in areas such as Jefferson
County which are experiencing insufficient economic growth. RCW 36.70A(5); Comprehensive
Plan, p. 1.9.
The GMA also provides significant protections for private property rights. Not only must
private property rights not be taken for public use without just compensation, but the rights ofland
owners "shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions." RCW 36.70A.020(6);
Comprehensive Plan, p. 1.9.
Jefferson County has strong Plan policies to enhance the rural economy:
To ensure that Jefferson County can accommodate new economic development
opportunities, policies are contained within this plan which encourage developing
the necessary land base and rural infrastructure and ser.vices to accommodate
modern economic activities; promote the County's natural environment as a basis
of economic activities that are tourist or recreation-oriented; encourage and
provide incentives for business to create "family wage" employment
opportunities; and ensure that the County's quality of life is preserved as it is
enhanced.
Plan, p. 1-13.
The Plan also acknowledges that there will be at least moderate growth in Jefferson
County over the next 20 years. The Plan projects a total county-wide growth of 13,804 new
citizens. The unincorporated rural and resource areas will accommodate 4,149 new citizens.
Comprehensive Plan, p. 3-3. The Draft SMP, to the extent it seeks to preserve the status quo,
does not accord with the obligation of the GMA to accept new growth, and accommodate it in
both urban and rural areas, nor does it promote economic development in rural areas.
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 24
The Plan has strong policies to protect existing lots of record and property rights. Plan,
pp. 3-4, 3-17. The aSF discusses these policies in more detail, when commenting upon and
criticizing the Draft SMP's criteria for nonconforming uses. The aSF believes that the Draft
SMP's treatment of nonconforming uses and existing lots of record is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan recognizes existing lots of record as "legal lots," but the Draft
SMP's imposition of generic buffers, and other requirements to maintain vegetation effectively
preclude development on existing lots of record.
The Draft SMP also has a strong prejudice against any commercial uses in SMA
regulated areas. However, the Plan provides for policies to protect legal existing uses, home
based businesses, and cottage industries to provide for "the economic viability of businesses that
are not included in designated commercial areas." Plan, p. 3-17. In terms ofrural character, the
Plan provides that preservation of the rural character and promotion of the rural lifestyle which
includes the "opportunity to live and work in rural areas." Plan, Goal LNG18.0, p. 3-61.
The Comprehensive Plan itself is internally consistent; the Draft SMP is not. The Draft
SMP unduly emphasizes environmental protection and preservation over all other goals and
objectives. Significant redrafting is required if the County is to adopt a revised SMP that is
internally consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
The Plan encourages affordable housing. The Comprehensive Plan also has strong
policies that developmental regulations and procedures intended to protect environmental quality
minimize the "economic impact on the development of housing." Plan, p. 5-13 (Polices,
HSP 2.1). The Plan's use of generic buffers and vegetation set asides directly conflicts with the
stated policy. There are also other provisions of the DraftSMP which conflict with this policy,
including those severely limiting exemptions for the repair and maintenance of existing facilities,
construction of new single family protective bulkheads, the stated bias against private
recreational docks, and many other provisions which are set out in the aSF's detailed comments.
Turning to economic development, in more detail, the Plan stipulates that ''the County
must develop an approach to create a climate for economic development that facilitates the
recruitment of industry and the retention and strengthening of existing businesses." Plan, p. 7-1.
The Plan strives to achieve a "balance between social needs, the environment and the economy,"
that is, "sustainable economic development." Plan, p. 7-2. Tourism is one of the targeted
industry programs. Goal EDG 3.0, Plan, p. 7-5. In the opinion of the aSF, the Draft SMP
conflicts with the stated policies.
As set out in its detailed comments on the Draft SMP, Article 4, the draft proposal
significantly expands restrictive shoreline designations, and creates new designations which
preclude virtually any new commercial developm~nt or use, even those that would provide
important new access to the waters of the State for the public, and would promote tourism. The
Draft SMP's huge expansion of what is considered to be the Priority Aquatic, Natural and
Conservancy shoreline designations cannot be reconciled with any of the Comprehensive Plan
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 25
policies for encouragement and facilitation of economic opportunities and the encouragement
and support of economic development for rural lands. See Plan, Goal EDG 5.0; EDG 6.0, p. 7-6.
It is noted that the Plan has an explicit goal to promote the Port of Port Townsend "as a
valuable tool to implement industry, trade strategies and promote employment opportunities."
Plan, Goal EDP 4.5, p. 7-6. Yet, as set out below in its detailed comments, the OSF believes that
the Draft SMP has significant restraints on the expansion of the Port District or the establishment
of new port districts or port district facilities. The Draft SMP essentially prohibits any mixed use
developments if a component is non-water dependent or related, and mandates that new
industrial and commercial uses are conditional uses in all shoreline environments. Most
importantly, while the Draft SMP states that shorelines which could serve as future port facility
sites should be protected from incompatible uses, the Draft over-designates restrictive shoreline
designations, and prevents any new commercial industrial uses in these designations.. The SMP
is not only internally inconsistent in this regard, but inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan
policies for the Port District and economic development.
The Plan has a goal, EDG 8.0, to "promote the development oftourist and tourist related
activities as a provider of employment and business opportunities in Jefferson County." This
includes an implementing policy, EDP 8.4, Plan, p. 7-8, to "encourage public access to water
bodies.. .." As set out below in its detailed comments, the OSF believes that the Draft SMP
unduly restricts creation of new accesses and facilities to the waters of the State, including boat
launches, private and public docks and piers, and mooring buoys. Once again, the Draft SMP is
internally inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policies.
It is true that the Comprehensive Plan has well thought out goals and policies to protect
the environment, including the marine environment. Those goals must be balanced with land use
goals and policies for economic development, existing uses, legal lots of record, and rural
economic development. The Plan states that:
RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE
GOAL:
LNG 2.0 Establish land use goals and policies in the Land Use Element of
this plan that are internally consistent with and reflective of the goals and policies
of all other elements of the Plan.
Plan, p. 3-47.
Overall, the OSF believes the current draft of the SMP is all about preservation, even
enhancement, of shorelines, and little or nothing about development. The Comprehensive Plan,
however, states:
GOAL:
ENG 5.0
Allow development along shorelines which is compatible with the
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 26
protection of natural processes, natural conditions, and natural functions of the
shoreline environment.
Plan, p. 8-24.
The Comprehensive Plan is about balance, protecting the environment but allowing
measured new development and use of the shorelines. It is not about carte blanche preservation.
Much work is needed before the Draft SMP will be consistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON SMA REGULATION
(1) Restoration and Buffers
A major focus of the Draft SMP is establishing new buffers of 150 feet in width. The
"larger buffer-oriented" proposals urged by County staff are designed to implement a strategy
that buffers must be part of any critical area or shoreline management program and should be
adopted wholesale as part of any SMP update. Proponents of this strategy urge that the science
of buffers is well suited to "built environments," is properly directed to existing conditions,
and/or can prevent "future impacts." This approach ignores current GMA rural zoning
requirements, impennissibly assumes unrestricted future development and does not consider the
efficacy of existing regulatory systems.
The large buffer strategy is at the heart of a "de facto" restoration program designed to
return the landto some pristine prior undeveloped state or condition, even though there is no
authority under the SMA or the GMA to restore or rehabilitate shoreline areas. The OSF submits
that overly expanding existing shoreline buffers is not a good strategy for Jefferson County,
because it results in the elimination of many "nonconforming" structures and uses within the
shorelines. This is the inevitable result, because nonconforming uses and structures are highly
disfavored under the law. The better approach is to establish clear performance standards for a
site-specific analysis of the impacts of proposed development, including the possible imposition
of buffers on a case-by-case basis. For instance, the City of Seattle's CAO simply establishes
additional standards for development within established marine zones, a process available to
Jefferson County.
The designation of more "critical areas," including fish and wildlife conservation areas
and associated marine under the GMA and SMA has been pushed by the State of Washington
Departments of Ecology ("DOE") and the WDFW. To an extent, the Department of
Community, Trade and Economic Development ("CTED") has endorsed the concept oflarger
buffers as well. See, in general, Protection of Critical Areas and the Mythology of Buffers, by
Alexander W. Mackie, "Growth Management In Washington," CLE seminar, November 15-16,
2004, Seattle. However, CTED specifically cautions against uncritical acceptance of the
compilations of published lists of "science" relating to buffers, and strongly suggests that local
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 27
governments critically examine the applicability of the published materials to make sure
recommendations are appropriate for local land use and conditions. In this regard, the CTED
Guidelines state:
The standard buffer widths presume the existence of a relatively
intact native vegetation community in the buffer zone adequate to
protect the wetland functions and values at the time of the
proposed activity.
(CTED, Critical Areas Assistance Handbook, Appendix A)
The OSF believes there is no need to significantly revise the existing SMP and its current
buffers just because some state or local agency staff believes that "more" needs to be done. At a
minimum, the proposed SMP is over-inclusive as to the treatment of near shore marine areas.
Thus, the OSF suggests that the Planning Commission critically examine for itselfwhat is really
needed, if anything, in terms of more shoreline area regulation or larger buffers for near shore
marine areas. As noted above, CTED specifically cautions against uncritical acceptance of
compilations or published lists of "best available science," and strongly suggests that local
governments examine the applicability of the published materials to make sure recommendations
presented under the guise of "science" are truly appropriate for local use and conditions.
Some comment letters will likely suggest a "precautionary approach," asserting buffers
are needed because the existing shoreline is "degraded" or the science ''unclear.'' There is no
record of extensive shoreline degradation in Jefferson County (Comprehensive Plan, p. 8-5), but
it is true that the Central Board has alluded to the "immature science dilemma," Hood Canal
Environmental Counsel, et al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB, 06-3-00122, at 41-42 (Final
Decision and Order (August 28,2006) (2006 WL 2644138), suggesting imposition of buffers in
the face of doubt without regard to their efficacy. How this approach is reconciled with the
GMA and SMA planning goals, and the case law is not explained, and the Board does not have
the last word here, which is reserved to the courts.
A precautionary principle is not one of the GMA and SMA planning goals. RCW36.70A02O,
RCW 90.58.020. The GMA and the SMA instruct and authorize local government to consider
and balance all GMA planning goals (including protection of property rights) in order to develop
locally appropriate critical area regulations. RCW 36.70A320; RCW 36.70A.3201; Clallam
County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, 130 Wn. App. 127, 139
(2005) (The GMA requires that local government "must balance protecting the environment"
against other GMA planning goals.); Wean, 122 Wn. App. At 173; Heal, 96 Wn. App. At 531-
32.
Neither the GMA nor the SMA authorizes local government to restrict the use of property
in the absence of having actually identified impacts on the functions and values of critical areas.
The best available science mandate is meant to preclude local authorities from doing exactly
what Kitsap County did when it imposed generic buffers - rely upon "speculation or surmise."
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 28
See Ferry County, 155 Wn. 2d at 837-38, Heal, 96 Wn. App. At 532. Now, under the law, it is
clear that these large buffers are illegal set asides under the Citizens Alliance case. Jefferson
County must not repeat this mistake, thereby exposing itself to a class action regulatory takings
claim. Under the Ferry County decision, Jefferson County must identify the actual presence of
functions and values that need to be protected from the effects of development and avoid the
proposed blanket vegetation protection designation and the 150 foot buffer urged by staff.
Both the GMA and its implementing regulations require that regulations adopted under
the GMA and SMA not violate property rights. RCW 36. 70A.360; WAC 365-195-855
(development regulations adopted under GMA are specifically subject to RCW 36.70A.370's
mandate to protect property rights); Advisory Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings
of Private Property (AGO 2006). Thus, Jefferson County must assess the impact ofthe Draft
SMP on property rights, which to date, it has failed to do, in combination with the science and
not act upon guesses or fears.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
The OSF's comments from a legal perspective on the Draft SMP are grouped for ease of
review by the Planning Commission to follow the outline of the Draft SMP. These comments
are in addition to the comments the OSF and/or its members will provide from a property
owner/citizen perspective.
Article 1. Introduction
1. Purpose and Intent.
The purpose to "plan for restoring shorelines that have been impaired and degraded in the
past" is a worthy goal. At times in the Draft SMP, this goal is stated as a voluntary or non-
regulatory item, which it must be. However, at other times, for example, the use regulations for
marinas, it is placed in as a requirement set out in mandatory terms. The SMA cannot be
construed as imposing a mandatory requirement to restore shorelines, so all mandatory
requirements for shoreline restoration must be stricken. The OSF does want to laud Jefferson
County for its apparent willingness to work in a cooperative fashion with citizens to restore
shorelines, commensurate with public or private funds. In this regard, it should be remembered
that one way to fund voluntary restoration is to allow measured new development and use.
2. Applicability.
The Draft SMP's provisions for administration of exemptions, as set out in more detail
below, go well beyond the bounds of the law. The County does not have the authority to
"regulate" exemptions to shoreline substantial development permits in a way to effectively treat
exemptions as permits. The Draft SMP deals with exemptions as permits, when in fact issuance
of exemption is a ministerial act. For instance, the Draft SMP provides in several sections that
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 29
shoreline exemptions must be "consistent with this program." Draft, pp 9-1,9-6. This language
mandates compliance with all provisions of the SMP, including its use regulations, not just
policies. The Shoreline Hearings Board struck down a similar process when it invalidated the
SMA Rules:
Part III of the guidelines regulates exempt uses by requiring that
local governments issue letters of exemption to cover activities
that are not subject to permit requirements. Those letters must set
forth a statement that "All uses and development occurring within
the shoreline jurisdiction must conform to chapter 90.58 RCW, the
Shoreline Management Act and this master program." WAC 173-
27-190(2)(3)(iii)(A). Part IV of the guidelines requires, in the case
of exempt developments, that the letter of exemption include
conditions ''where necessary to ensure that the development does
not cause significant ecological impacts or contribute to potential
adverse cumulative impacts." WAC 173-27-300(2)(g)(i). Under
Part IV, the master program must include a mechanism for
assuring that the development meets the mitigation requirements of
the letter of exemption. This may include a performance bond.
WAC 173-27-300(2)(g)(ii). Local governments must also provide
a means for final inspection of exempted development and send the
results offinal inspections to Ecology.
****
The provisions governing letters of exemption under [Department
of Ecology Guidelines] exceed the statutory authority of the SMA.
The provisions are therefore invalid. The [required] letter of
exemption operates as a permit. It sets forth conditions and
requires enforcement mechanisms for those conditions including,
possibly, a bond. These terms create a new permitting process for
activities that are specifically exempt from shoreline permit
requirements. The letter of exemption created [by Ecology] is also
devoid of the procedural requirements of a shoreline permit, or for
that matter, any other land use permit. Additionally, the
conditioned letters of exemption do not give notice to the public as
required under RCW 90.58.140 or an opportunity to appeal the
terms of the letter of exemption under the SMA, RCW 90.58.140
or an opportunity to appeal the terms of the letter of exemption
under the SMA, RCW 90.58.180(1), for the permitee [sic] or an
aggrieved third party. Putnam v. Carroll, 13 Wn. App. 201
(1975). Because the new guidelines [by Ecology] essentially
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 30
create a permit for activities that are specifically exempt for
shoreline permits; [ they are] invalid.
See SHB Case No. 00-037 (Order Granting and Denying Appeal, 2001); 2001
WL 1022097.
3. Governing Principles.
Subsection 3.B is excellent, acknowledging that the SMP must be consistent with the
statute, and the SMA controls. The problem, as set out in my comments below, is that there are a
significant number of inconsistencies with the draft and the SMA as written and interpreted.
In subsection F, Integration, Jefferson County assumes that by adopting its Critical Areas
Ordinance by reference in the SMP, it has complied with the law. This is not correct. As
determined in the Futurewise case, the SMA controls in shoreline areas. This is not a matter of
semantics. As set out above, there is a significant difference between SMA and GMA
regulation, both in purposes, context and the actual upland and marine environments. The SMA
is about balance, while the GMA is about protection and preclusion of development and
addresses uplands where there is more flexibility in terms of choices to locate new development
and uses. These regulatory standards cannot be reconciled, which is why the SMA controls in
shoreline areas.
The reference in subsection G(I) to "potential ecological functions" is unclear. Under the
law, only probable or foreseeable impacts must be mitigated. See RCW Chapter 43.21C;
WAC 173.26.186(8)(d) (reasonably foreseeable cumulative impact must be considered). It is
inappropriate to have property owners and developers guess at "potential" ecological functions.
This kind of vague standard can be used to prevent reasonable development under the guise that
"something bad may happen." The language should be stricken unless Staff identifies what
"potential" ecological functions they have in mind.
In subsection G(3), there is no basis in the SMA to infer that exempt uses may be denied
if they will cause a "net loss of shoreline ecological functions." The SMA provisions for
exemptions do not have such a limitation. However, under modem regulatory systems, typical
exempt structures such as private docks or single-family residential bulkheads do not have
measurable impacts. See Attachment 6, Pentech Report. See also Pederson comments, quoted
below.
The reference to cumulative impacts and allocating impacts on a cumulative basis mirrors
language in the State Guidelines. See WAC 173-26-186(8)( d). The problem, as set out above, is
that Jefferson County's Cumulative Impacts Analysis is cursory. It is respectfully submitted that
until the County does a better job with its Shoreline Inventory and Cumulative Impacts Analysis,
it should defer adoption of the Draft SMP. There is sufficient time to do so, since the County is
not obligated to complete its SMP update until the year 2011.
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 31
6. Critical Areas Regulations Adopted by Reference
This subsection is patently illegal. The public may properly ask, "What is the point of
revising the SMP, if the Jefferson County CAO regulations are adopted by reference, and the
most restrictive requirements apply?" Once again, the standards for critical area regulation differ
substantially from SMA regulations. Further, there is no showing in any of the documents
prepared to date by Jefferson County, including the Shoreline Inventory, that all areas regulated
by the SMA are "critical areas" as those terms are defined by the GMA.
In addition, by deeming all shoreline areas "critical areas," the County effectively makes
the existing built environment nonconforming. This is a highly disfavored status under the law.
For instance, if discontinued, the use expires. Further, in the Draft SMP, pp.l 0-6, 10-7, it is
specified that non-conforming development must meet current standards if damaged more than
75%, and no expansion'is allowed for commercial structures except in the same footprint. No
change of use is allowed accept via a conditional use permit. Draft, p. 10-8. Any use approved
by a CUP must conform to new requirements. Draft p.l 0-6. No replacement of non-
conforming building or structures is allowed in the Aquatic or Priority Aquatic designations
without meeting new requirements. Draft, p. 10-6. The restrictions in these shoreline
environments are so severe that abandonment of existing uses is likely the only option. Also,
little reliefis provided by allowing "shoreline variances." The criterion for obtaining a variance
is very strict, "showing of extraordinary circumstances" for relief. Draft, p. 9-7.
This approach is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. Planning decisions
must be "consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan." Plan, p. 1-16. The Plan
protects non-conforming uses and allows them to be replaced or expanded. Plan, Goal LNG 8.0,
Plan, p. 3-54. According to the Comprehensive Plan, "a legal nonconforming use may change to
a different non-conforming use of equal or less intensity." Policy LNP 8.7, Plan, p. 3-55.
The current approach set out in the Draft SMP will, in my opinion, not be sustained if
appealed. Further, it isa huge expansion of regulation, the implications of which should be
explained fairly and up-front by Staff to County policy makers and the public. Instead of
incorporating other regulations, such as JCC 18.22, the better approach is to defer to existing
regulations where necessary, such as the County's SEPA Ordinance. The Final Integration
Strategy dated September, 2006, lists some existing regulatory systems that are already in place,
thus avoiding the need to enact extensive new provisions in the Draft SMP.
Article 3. Master Program Goals
The OSF lauds Staff for advising the Commission that the goals set out in Article 3 are
not listed in any order of priority. It is noted that the conservation goal includes the admonition
to "enhance" shoreline resources and their ecological functions. While this is a good goal, it
cannot be made a regulatory requirement.
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 32
In the Economic Development Goal, the statement is made that activities "should not
dismpt or degrade the shoreline or surrounding environment." The OSP agrees with this
standard, with insertion of the words "materially" or "substantially." As set out in the King
County Boundary Review case referenced below, all land development use will have some
impact, and the purposes of state laws (including the SMA, SEP A and the GMA) are to prevent
significant impacts through use of reasonable mitigation and good planning. It is inappropriate
to suggest that immeasurable impacts be prevented when the law assumes such impact will occur
and if they were to be prevented no new development or use could ever happen. This
micromanagement approach simply pushes away property owners and developers, when a
responsible approach to good shoreline planning development and use is what is required. Over-
regulation is a disincentive to encouraging voluntary efforts to both mitigate impacts and
enhance and restore the shorelines.
The OSP questions whether Section III, Historic, Archeological, Cultural, Scientific and
Educational Resources, should be part of the SMP. These elements can be dealt with under the
State Environmental Policy Act. The SMA does not explicitly address historic and ecological
resources.
The Public Access and Recreational Goals are excellent. This is some of the best work of
Staff, and the OSP commends the approach, with one caveat. As set out below, the proposed use
regulations for public access are too onerous. The OSP believes the Commission will have a fair
amount of redrafting to do to match the goals of public access and recreation and shoreline use
with the proposed regulatory requirements. In this regard, the Staff approach is systematically
one of over-regulation, with an undue emphasis on protection of shoreline functions and values.
Once again, the SMA allows "alterations" to the shorelines, and those alterations will have some
impact. The goal is not to prevent impacts per se, but to mitigate significant or meaningful
impacts to avoid "net loss" of important shoreline ecological processes.
The restoration and enhancement goals are also excellent, particularly the goal to provide
"fundamental support to restoration work by various organizations by identifying shoreline
restoration priorities, and by organizing information on available funding sources for restoration
implementation." Draft SMP, pp.3-4. The problem, as set out above, is that the County's work
to date on the Shoreline Inventory is superficial. Without a well thought out and documented
shoreline inventory, which then serves as the base for the restoration plan, it seems that the
language regarding restoration and enhancement has insufficient substance. Without good
information on actual impacts to date, and existing shoreline functions and values, the void is
proposed to be filled by over-regulation as set out in the proposed Draft SMP. The OSP cannot
support this approach. The County needs to put more resources into its Shoreline Inventory,
Cumulative Impacts Analysis, and Restoration Plan, before considering revisions to the SMP.
Only with this information can sound regulatory choices be made.
Turning to Item 7, Shoreline Use, the OSP has reservation with Goal B-4 which requires
that all new development be "consistent with" the Land Use and Rural Element in other pertinent
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 33
sections of the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act. To the extent this
language is intended to layer Critical Areas Ordinance regulation under the GMA onto the SMP,
it goes too far. It is impossible to have well thought out SMA use regulations be "consistent
with" CAO provisions, since the regulatory standards differ. The SMA standard of balance and
reasonable development cannot be reconciled with the protection and preservation standard of
the CAD for critical areas.
The OSF questions whether the Transportation and Utilities and Essential Public
Facilities goal is really required in the SMA, but defers to the Planning Commission. These
concepts are better dealt with under the GMA and the County's Capital Facilities Plan.
Article 4. Shoreline Jurisdiction and Environmental Designations
The OSF has significant concerns with the proposed "official shoreline map." What
comprises the "official shoreline map" is of significant importance. It is obvious that Jefferson
County is enacting new shoreline designations, including Priority Aquatic, which have use
regulations which severely restrict shoreline use and development. Thus, what areas constitute
the more restrictive shoreline environments, including Priority Aquatic, Conservancy and
Natural, becomes of utmost importance. The State Guidelines do not mention a "Priority
Aquatic" shoreline environment, so the basis for this new designation is unknown. Such basis, if
any, should be provided to the public.
In reviewing the drafts handed out at the December 3,2008 meeting, it appears that the
Natural designation in the new Draft SMP is increased to approximately 41 % of the shoreline, in
all respects, in the rural areas of Jefferson CoUnty since Port Townsend has its own shoreline
master program. In reviewing information in the record, under the existing SMP, there is 97,754
lineal feet of shoreline designated "Natural." Under the new proposal, that designation has
grown to 459,180 lineal feet.
The "Natural" designation is extremely restrictive. The OSF believes that the increase in
the Natural shoreline environment is not consistent with the State Guidelines, WAC 173-26-211.
The OSF urges the Commission to carefully look at the proposed new shoreline maps.
Understandably, it is easy to ignore these maps when focusing on the actual use regulations. But
the shoreline designations and use regulations work together, so both need to be addressed.
Article 5. Shorelines of Statewide Significance
Some context is in order before providing specific comments; It has been my experience
that the concept of "shorelines of statewide significance" has been misunderstood by some local
planners. This is not to necessarily suggest that such is the case in Jefferson County, but the
Planning Commission should understand that all areas ofPuget Sound and the Straits of Juan de
Fuca are deemed "shorelines of statewide significance." RCW 90.58.030. This designation does
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 34
not change the balance of the SMA in terms of reasonable use and development of shorelines,
however. Let me explain.
First, the SMA does not elevate the preservation of undeveloped shorelines above all
other SMA goals and policies without adequate justification or basis, even on shorelines of state-
wide significance. This point was emphasized by the Supreme Court in Nisqually Delta Ass 'n v.
City of DuPont, 103 Wn.2d 720, 726, 696 P.2d 1222 (1985). Second, under the SMA and cases
construing its policies, designating a shoreline as being of state-wide significance only "provides
greater procedural safeguards;" it does not prohibit "limited alteration of the natural shorelines"
for reasonable and appropriate shoreline uses, especially the preferred water-dependent uses such
as private residential docks and piers. Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, supra, at 726.
The quoted language emphasizes that the designation of a shoreline as one of state-wide
significance does not eliniinate the balance that inheres in the policy of the SMA between
protection of the shoreline environment and reasonable and appropriate use of the waters of the
state and their associated shorelines. RCW 90.58.020; see also WAC 173-26-176(2); Buechel v.
State Dept. of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196,203,884 P.2d 910 (1994); State Dept. of Ecology v.
Ballard Elks Lodge No. 827, 84 Wn.2d 551, 557 P.2d 1121 (1974). This point is confirmed by
the Comprehensive Plan, which states that "the purpose of the Environmental Element is to
establish goals and policies that, when implemented effectively, achieve a balance between land
development and use activities and environmental protection ...." Plan, p. 5-1.
Subsection 3 of Article 5, Use Preferences, contains some concepts that are not
supportable in the opinion of the aSF. For one, Sub item A(l) states that "when shoreline
development or redevelopment occurs, it shall include restoration and/or enhancement of
ecological conditions as such opportunities exist...." The problem with this section is that it is
stated in mandatory terms. As set out above, restoration and/or enhancement of ecological
conditions cannot be mandated under the SMA.
Subsection 4 introduces the concept of "compatibility with other approved uses."
Compatibility is not a concept found in the SMA and is only vaguely referenced in the Jefferson
County Comprehensive Plan.
Article 6. General Policies and Regulations
The aSF has significant concerns with Article 6. Article 6 is of importance, because
according to the draft, the ''policies and regulations in this article apply to all uses and
developments in all shoreline environments."
Under Subsection 1, Critical Areas, Shoreline Buffers, and Ecological Protection, the first
policy (No.1) states that "uses and developments that may cause a future ecological condition to
become worse than current conditions should not be allowed." The "may cause" concept is too
vague. At a minimum, regulation should be based upon reasonably foreseeable consequences,
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 35
not conjecture. Further, it is not the ecological condition per se that is the concern of the SMA
regulation, but rather, truly critical shoreline functions and values. Also, the language appears to
read out of the law the opportunity to mitigate impacts. It is best that this language is simply
stricken, and the County rely on the next subsection, "Regulations, No Net Loss in Mitigation."
In terms of the proposed mitigation standards, nexus and proportionality are not included.
Without incorporation of these, the standards violate both RCW'Chapter 82.02 and constitutional
standards. Briefly, although a governmental agency can condition or deny a proposal based on
SEP A, the agency must comply with certain statutory and regulatory requirements. Cougar
Mountain Associates v. King County, 111 Wn.2d 742, 752, 765 P .2d 264 (1988). Those
requirements are contained in RCW 43.21C.060, which limits the exercise of substantive SEPA
authority to condition preliminary plat and other land use approvals. See also JCC
Section 18.40.770.
First, a project may be conditioned or denied "only to mitigate specific environmental
impacts" identified in the environmental documents prepared under SEPA. RCW 43.21C.060.
Under this statutory limitation on exercise of SEP A substantive authority, land development may
be conditioned "only on the basis of specific, proven significant environmental impacts". Levine
v. Jefferson County 116 Wn.2d 575,807 P.2d 363 (1991), quoting Nagatani Bros., Inc. v. Skagit
Cy. Bd. ofComm'rs, 108 Wash.2d 477, 482, 739 P.2d 696 (1987). The "specific adverse
environmental impacts" that a developer may be required to mitigate must be directly related to
the proposed development. That is, mitigation measures can only be imposed "to the extent
attributable to the identified adverse impacts" of the proposal. WAC 197-11-660(d). These
identified adverse impacts must also be "significant adverse impacts," as some impacts are
always present in any land use. See, e.g., WAC 197-11-350(2); RCW 43.21 C.060; Maranatha
Mining Inc. v. Pierce County, 59 Wash. App. 795, 801 P2d 985 (1990). The term "significant" is
defined in SEP A to mean "a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on
environmental quality." WAC 197-11-794(1).
Second, the mitigating condition imposed under SEP A must be based "upon policies
identified by the appropriate governmental authority and incorporated into regulations, plans, or
codes which are formally designated by the agency." RCW 43.21C.060.
Third, mitigation conditions imposed under authority of SEP A "shall be reasonable and
capable of being accomplished." RCW 43.2lC.060.
In addition to the limitations under SEP A, there are statutory and constitutional
limitations which apply as well. Starting with the statutory requirements, RCW 82.02.020
prohibits counties from imposing a "tax., fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, on ... the
development, subdivision, classification or reclassification ofland" unless "reasonably necessary
asa direct result of the proposed development or plat."
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 36
Washington's courts have interpreted RCW 82.02.020 to contain a statutory requirement
that local government establish a "nexus" between a restriction on the property and the identified
impact, as well as a limitation that the developer's required contribution to the solution of the
problem be proportionate to his contribution to the problem itself. See Citizens Alliance, Supra. 5
To meet RCW 82.02.020's ''reasonably necessary" requirement, or nexus, an ordinance
or land use decision containing a development condition or exaction must be tied to a specific,
identified impact of a development on a community:
[A condition on development] must "mitigate a direct impact that has been
identified as a consequence of a proposed development" . . . reflects the
legislature's adoption of the "nexus" requirement imposed by case law on
governmental exactions and conditions. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm 'n,
384, U.S. 825 (1987). Simply stated, there must be a nexus, a direct connection,
'between the condition and the original purpose of the building restriction."
Nollan, 483 U.S. at 837. Where the exaction or other condition does not mitigate
an impact of the development, it is an unlawful exercise of police power.
Unlimited v. Kitsap Cy., 50 Wn. App. 723, 727 (1988).
Cobb v. Snohomish County, 64, Wn. App. 451, 467-68 (Agid J., concurring and dissenting in
part) (Internal citations modified); see also Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City ofCamas, 146
Wn.2d 740, 761 (2002); Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Both ell, 124 Wn.2d 240,242-44
(1994).
Addressing constitutional standards, case law establishes rigorous requirements for nexus
and proportionality which have been set forth by the United States Supreme Court and elaborated
upon in Washington. See. e.g., Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm 'n, supra.; Dolan v. City ofTigard,
supra.; Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battleground, 103 Wash. App. 721, 14 P.3d 172 (2000),
affd on other grounds in Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground, 146 Wn.2d 685,695,49
P.3d 860 (2002); Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 520, 958 P.2d 343 (1998) (County
conditioning of approval of a three-lot short plat on the landowner's dedication of road right-of-
way constitutes unconstitutional taking). The reason for requiring the municipality to
5
RCW 82.02.020 places the burden on the local government to demonstrate nexus. See Isla Verde, 146
Wn.2d 755056; Home Builders Ass'n of Kit sap County v. City of Bainbridge Island, 137 Wn. App. 338, 340 (2007).
To do so, a local government "must show that the development. . . will create or exacerbate the identified public
problem." Burton v. Clark County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 521 (1998). This means that a local government must
demonstrate a nexus between the condition and the impact caused by development to legally impose project
mitigation. Nollan, 483, U.S. 837 (1987). See also R. S. Radford, Of Course a Land Use Regulation That Fails to
Advance Legitimate State Interests Results in a Regulatory Taking, 15 Fordham Envtl. L. Rev. 353, 390 (2004)
(local government must demonstrate "a close casual nexus between the burdens imposed by the regulations and the
social costs that would otherwise be imposed by the property's unregulated use.") "It is the requirement of a cause-
effect nexus, not a means-end fit, that offers real protection against the imposition of unjustified or disproportionate
burdens on individual property owners." R.S. Radford, IId. at 391.
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 37
demonstrate the impact of the development is "to bar Government from forcing some people
alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a
whole." Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960).
There are other significant problems with Subsection B. One, the requirement that even
exempt structures be located, designed, constructed and conducted and maintained in a manner
that maintains shoreline ecological processes and functions may not be fully workable and
violates the SMA. In particular, some residential bulkheads allowed to be constructed under
exemptions may have some measureable impact on shoreline ecological processes and functions.
The question becomes protection of property and persons over the environment. The
Washington Legislature has already made this choice in terms of allowing exempt activities,
including development of single family homes on shorelines, and protection through bulkheads.
The aSF believes Jefferson County does not have any authority to require a shoreline
property owner to remove existing bulkheads. Under SMA exemptions for repair and
maintenance of existing structures, existing bulkheads that were legally permitted, and other
developments legally permitted or which predate adoption of the SMA in 1971, can be repaired
and maintained. While the County may be able to "encourage" shoreline property owners to
remove such structures through a redevelopment process, it cannot be mandated. In other
portions of the draft SMA, the Staff uses the terms "strongly encourage" property owners to take
actions such as removal of existing bulkheads. It is hoped that in practice, the concept of
"strongly encourage" does not become a mandate. It is better that this language be stricken.
The aSF also has significant concerns with Subsection C, "Regulations - Cumulative
Impacts." It is stated that "the County shall prohibit any use or development that will result in
unmitigated cumulative impacts." Without a much better Shoreline Inventory and Cumulative
Impacts Analysis than prepared to date, this language when implemented wi111ikely become
wide-open mandate to preclude future use and development. If a property owner demonstrates
through a site specific analysis that there is no net loss to significant shoreline functions and
values, then the County should as a matter of policy agree that cumulative impacts are not an
Issue.
The law is clear that unsupported allegations of future cumulative impacts are not a
sufficient basis on which to deny shoreline applications. In Wriston v. Ecology, a conditional use
permit and variance for a dock was denied by Ecology, in part because of the cumulative impacts
that would be created by the approval of other docks in the area. See SHB No. 05-005, Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Sept. 28, 2005). While Ecology's denial letter did not
explain the basis, Ecology provided testimony at the appeal hearing on its cumulative impacts
theory. First, Ecology felt that population growth could result in growth pressure in Wahkiakum
County as people sought to buy and develop less expensive waterfront property. ld. at p. 15.
Second, Ecology was concerned that an approval would set a precedent that would result in
additional docks in the area, including docks that would require construction of shoreline access
by trails or stairs on lots that do not currently have shoreline access. ld.
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
.r January 21, 2009
Page 38
Although the SHB agreed that the proliferation of structures waterward of the OHWM
should be prevented, the Board held that in order to establish that such proliferation is likely to
occur, there must be a factual basis to support that likelihood. ld. The SHB found such a factual
basis to be lacking in that case. ld. In finding that the "cumulative effects" provision had not
been violated, the Board stated:
In the north shore area at issue, SR-4 runs along the Columbia River in a number
of areas. Thus, docks will not be built in these reaches. In other areas of the
north shore, access to the shoreline does not exist and would be difficult to
accomplish without significant expense and environmental permitting. Some of
the parcels along the north shore appear to be deeper along the shoreline, which
eliminates the need for docks needing variances. The WCSMP also designates
part of the north shore area as a Natural Shoreline, where dock construction is
prohibited. Thus, cumulative impacts are not likely to occur because the land use
pattern in area will not result in additional requests for similar variances.
See ld. As a result, actual analysis of the potential for additional development must be
performed and presented if the denial of a permit is based upon the cumulative impacts of future
development.
Other SHB cases considering the denial of shoreline permits based upon perceived
cumulative impacts are in accord. In these cases, the SHB reviewed the relevant facts regarding
cumulative impacts and then determined whether Ecology's position was based in fact. In Snow
& King County v. Ecology, SHB No. 98-020 (Oct. 20, 1998), which involved a request for a
variance under WAC 173-27-170(3) for a residential pier, the SHB considered Ecology's
allegation that because the proposed pier would be located between two existing piers, it would
become a precedent allowing for increased density of docks on Lake Sammamish. See ld. at *5.
The Board rejected this allegation, concluding:
We find this argument unpersuasive for several reasons. First Lake Sammamish is
highly developed already with hundreds of existing residential docks. '. The SMP
prohibits more than one pier for any residence. KCC 25.16.140(B). Second, it
was undisputed that of the 45-nonconforming lots on the entire lake (having less
than 50 feet of shoreline), only 15 currently exist without a pier. Of these 15,
only eight or nine are deemed potential locations for residential piers. If such
piers were proposed, each would be decided on its own merits. In the instant
case, we are not persuaded that any measurable detrimental effect could result
from a maximum of eight or nine more piers on this highly developed lake.
ld.
Turning to Subsection D, "Regulations, Critical Areas, and Shoreline Buffers," the aSF
repeats its objections to integration of JCC Chapter 18.22, and its incorporation by reference.
[90049-11
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 39
The OSF also repeats is objections to the generic shoreline buffers established in Subsections 5
and 6. There is no factual, scientific, or legal basis for a "minimum buffer" of 150 feet on all
shoreline environments. In addition, there is no basis for the 80% "vegetation retention"
requirement within the specified buffer. As stated above, these types of generic set-asides have
been struck down. See Citizens Alliance, supra.
In Subsection 3, ''Regulations, Exemptions to Critical Area and Shoreline Buffer
Standards," the imposed standards are too limiting. A building area of only 2500 square feet and
driveway of not more than 1100 square feet would mean that long and narrow lots would not be
able to be developed at all. The lot aggregation requirement is also unconstitutional, in my
opinion, and inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan polices protecting and recognizing "existing
lots of record as legal lots." Plan, p. 3-4.
The 30 foot setback from the high water mark is supportable. Setbacks ofthis nature in
my opinion would probably survive legal attack, but I cannot make the same statement for the
150 foot generic shoreline buffer. I do not believe that the 80% of the buffer area between the
structure and the shoreline be maintained in a naturally vegetative condition for non-conforming
lots would pass legal test - it does not.
The water oriented use/development section needs more work. The redrafting should
also deal with the definitions of these terms found at pages 2-42 and 2-43 of the draft. In
particular, it should be explicitly set out that single family residential development which is
exempt under the SMA is deemed a "water related use."
Once again, the OSF does not see the need to include policies for historic, archeological,
cultural, scientific and educational resources in the SMP. Thus, in its opinion, the section found
in the draft at pages 6-8 through 6-11 could be eliminated. This regulation duplicates sections of
the SEP A, and the County's SEP A Ordinance, particularly for historic resources. See Integration
Study.
The policies on public access are excellent, and the OSF commends Staff. However, by
urging and promoting public access, on the one hand, the Commission must ensure on the other
that the use regulations are drafted such as to implement the stated policy. There is no point in
making strong statements in support of public access, yet preclude the construction ~d
development of facilities which promote public access by adopting unduly onerous and
restrictive use regulations. This is the case as set out below, e.g., for beach access stairs. The
OSF supports provision of private community access for single family residential developments
of more than four units, but not public access, as well as the concepts which strongly encourage
private and public community docks, and joint use docks.
Turning to Subsection 4, "Vegetation Conservation," the OSF repeats some ofit~ remarks
already made. For one, the science does not support imposition oflarge vegetated buffers on
marine areas. Two, the SMA does not provide a mandate or authority to compel new uses or
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 40
developments to establish "new vegetation such that the composition, structure, and density of
the planned community resemble a natural unaltered shoreline as much as possible." Further, the
aSF does not believe that the County has authority to mandate that existing shoreline
homeowners maintain vegetation as a "preference" over clearing vegetation to create views or
provide lawns.
The aSF does not believe that under the guise of granting a shoreline exemption, the
County can control or prevent exempt developments or "encourage" retention of natural
vegetation. Thus, under Vegetation Conservation, sub A, "Polices," more drafting is required.
Subsection B, Regulations, Sub 1, the requirement that even exempt uses comply with buffer
provisions of the SMP and JCC Chapter 18.22 must be eliminated. Ifleft in, the language
precludes what State law allows. The County should certainly have in the Draft SMP a goal to
maintain native shoreline vegetation. However, the imposed mandates of a 150 foot generic
buffer, and 80% vegetation retention, are much more than a goal- they are preclusive and
regulatory. The aSF does support the sections of the Draft SMP requiring that shoreline
property owners use innovative techniques where feasible to maintain existing native shoreline
vegetation.
In Subsection 5, "Water Quality and Quantity," the policies and regulations are
reasonably well thought out and drafted. However, the aSF believes that water quality and
quantity can be protected through existing storm water management controls and regulations,
"green development" techniques, and other measures without the need to impose large generic
buffers or vegetation retention or restoration requirements. See Integration Study. See also
Comprehensive Plan, Stormwater Management Policies, pp. 3-25, 3-26; pp. 3-66, 3-67; Table 8-
1, p. 8-2. The aSF also believes the County has authority under shoreline policies to require
malfunctioning or failing septic systems be updated and new systems to be located and designed
to meet all applicable water quality, utility, and health standards. TPe same can be said for
materials that come into contact with water - that they be composed of non-toxic materials.
Because there are existing laws on water quality protection, the aSF questions the need for this
section of the Draft SMP.
Article 7. Shoreline Modification Policies and Regulations
The aSF has concerns with numerous sections of this article. Its policies and regulations
apply to "all types of shoreline modification" and are applied along with specific standards
defined for each shoreline environment. These are in addition to use-specific policies and
regulations set out in Article 8.
I have some introductory comments. The Draft SMP as proposed is the most restrictive
this commenter has seen in his legal career. The length of the document alone is two to three
times that of the existing SMPs for jurisdictions around the State. This does not necessarily
mean that the draft is dead on arrival, but it does caution that care should be taken to ensure that
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 41
there is no over-regulation or duplication. As drafted, there is significant over-regulation and
duplication, in my opinion.
Revising the SMP should not be deemed an opportunity for Staff to put in every
conceivable concept, requirement or policy. The County has significant existing regulatory
programs including its Zoning Code, SEP A Ordinance, and stormwater regulations which deal
with a number of the concerns set out in the SMP. Further, there is a subset of State regulations,
including the State Hydraulic Code and its implementing regulations, which deal with in-water
development. This is layered onto federal regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
and it's implementing regulations. What is lacking is any Staff analysis of the effectiveness of
these existing laws. Staff acts as if no regulations exist, and the Draft SMP must be a stand-
alone document addressing every contingency.
Turning to specifics, commencing with beach access structures, each time the terms
"minimize adverse effects on shoreline ecology" are used in Article 7, the limiting terms
"material or significant" should be included before the word "adverse." As drafted, even
inconsequential or even virtually unmeasurable adverse impacts could preclude development.
The policies encouraging neighboring property owners to share beach access are excellent. The
County also properly requires that applicants proposing beach access structures provide a site-
specific analysis addressing potential adverse impacts.
The aSF strongly objects to the over use of a conditional use permit for shoreline access
structures and many other structures or developments. For instance, when the Commission
reviews Subsection B, "Shoreline Environmental Regulations," Draft, p. 7-2, for most of the
shoreline designations, it will see that a conditional use permit is required. Shoreline access
devices typically are not of such consequence that a conditional use permit should be employed.
Further, access stairs are a normal appurtenance to a single-family home. A conditional use
permit is ultimately issued by the State of Washington Department of Ecology. The aSF sees no
need to bring in Ecology for numerous, relatively routine permitting decisions which are more
appropriately made at the local level.
Addressing Policy 2, while Jefferson County claims to recognize a balance between
access and fragile ecosystems, the aSF believes the Draft policies unfairly burden and take away
from an applicant/private property waterfront owner by:
. Requiring structurally unfeasible and unattainable beach access stair building
dimensions to a large majority of waterfront;
. Unjustifiably placing the burden on a landowner to prove no environmental
impact, without scientific justification;
. Imposing unclear evaluation criteria;
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 42
. Creating unnecessarily high permit costs; and
. Leaving open ended and unclear permit submittal requirements.
For Policy 5, the qualifier ''high'' and "significant" should be added to detennine what is
an inappropriat location due to safety hazards. In the Priority Aquatic environment, public
access is allowed with conditional use permit but private access is prohibited. Private beach
access should also be permitted in the Priority Aquatic designation as regulations 6 and 7 state
they can be constructed waterward of the OHWM if there is no other feasible alternative. Most
areas designated Priority Aquatic are in private ownership.
In Shoreline EnviIonmental Regulation No.2, Aquatic, beach access is permitted as a
conditional use when allowed in the adjoining upland designation. Private beach access should
be permitted outright. In Shoreline Environmental Regulation No.3, for the Natural
environment, private beach stairs are listed as prohibited. Private beach access should be
permitted in the Natural designation because it is a compatible low intensity use, in particular
since public access stairs are allowed. See Comment Letter, Peter Brockman.
Shoreline Environmental Regulation No.5 does not work for a large majority of banks.
There should be no vertical height limit within the slope. The vertical height within the slope
should be the height structurally necessary to access the beach safely. In Article 7.1, Regulation
No. 10, the Draft SMP prohibits beach access stairs if the bank slope where the structure is
placed is "likely to require shoreline stabilization/shore defense works in the future." This
language should be removed because it conflicts with SMA provisions allowing normal single-
family protective bulkheads.
Turning to Subsection 2, "Boating Facilities," which includes boat launches, docks, piers,
floats, lifts, marinas and mooring buoys, there are significant problems. Found within these
provisions are important policy choices made by Staff which must be recognized by the Planning
Commission. For one, the draft proposes that docks and piers should not be allowed where
shallow depths require "excessive over water length." There is no standard for what is deemed
"excessive." Without some redrafting, this section could preclude docks and piers on any bays
or lakes located within Jefferson County, which conflicts with state exemptions for these
structures.
There is a bias against docks, since Staff urges that the Commission establish a policy
that the "proliferation of these docks should be prevented." This approach is not consistent with
the SMA. The courts have ruled that private facilities which provide access for private
individuals meet SMA priorities for public access to the waters of the state, since private
property owners "are part of the public." See, Jefferson County v. Seattle Yacht Club, 73 Wn.
App. 576, 589-90,870 P.2d 987 (1994). The Shoreline Hearings Board noted in a case involving
approval of construction of a dock on Bainbridge Island that:
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 43
Here we are concerned with the building of docks, a generally favored type of
shoreline development, and the impact of allowing this on public access, another
priority item. Of course, these private docks in a limited way improve access -
the Hammer dock in particular, since it is to be a joint use facility [shared by two
property owners].
The Supreme Court long ago declared the construction of private docks under the SMA
to be a beneficial public use of the state's shorelines:
[DJne of the many beneficial uses of public tidelands and shorelands abutting
private homes is the placement of private docks on such lands so homeowners and
their guests may obtain recreational access to navigable waters. No expression
of public policy has been directed to our attention which would encourage water
uses originating on public docks, as they do, while at the same time discouraging
any private investment in docks to help promote the use of public waters.
Caminiti v. Boyle, 107 Wn.2d 662, at 673-74, 732 P.2d 689 (1987) (emphasis added).6
The balance envisioned by the SMA anticipates that there will be some impact to
shoreline areas by development, because alterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines
must be recognized by Ecology. RCW 90.58.020. See, Biggers, P.3d at 22 ("The SMA
embodies a legislatively determined and voter-approved balance between protection of the state
shorelines and development. ... As part of our careful management of shorelines, property
owners are also allowed to construct water-dependent facilities such as single-family residences,
bulkheads, and docks.").
Some balance is in order here. Private and public docks provide significant access to the
waters of this state for the public. Boat launches, docks, piers, floats, marinas and mooring
buoys all encourage recreational use and access. It is acknowledged that there will be some
impacts with construction and use of these facilities, but under modern regulatory requirements,
these are minimal. See Pentech Study, Attachment 6. But the SMA, as set out above,
encourages alterations to the shoreline for priority uses, which include recreational use and
access.
Staff suggests that priorities be set, favoring mooring buoys generally over docks; piers
or floats. The asp does not believe this is a wise approach. Mooring buoys at best serve maybe
one user, where docks, piers and floats can serve many more, without showing there would be
markedly more impacts. The approach by Staff in the Draft SMP at this point is one of only
protection and preservation. The asp does not want to be understood as personally criticizing
6 The DOE Guidelines similarly recognize docks and piers associated with a single-family home as water dependent
preferred uses: "as used here, a dock associated with a single-family residence is a water dependent use provided
that it is designed and intended as a facility for access of watercraft and otherwise complies with the provisions of
this section." WAC 173-26-231(b).
[90049-) ]
Jefferson County Planriing Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 44
the Staff workup in the Draft SMP, but some judgments and balancing must be made if the
citizens of Jefferson County are to actually use the waters of the state for priority uses. Further,
private docks below a certain cost are exempt under the law. See Draft, p.9-4, Exemptions for
Residential Docks.
The Draft, at pA-5, states that the County will identify areas that are suitable for
development and/or expansion of marinas and public boat launches, and "prevent them from
being developed with non-water dependent uses having less stringent site requirements." While
perhaps a sensible approach, precluding owners of private property from developing their land
because it has "perceived public benefits" would violate constitutional principles. In addition,
since the County's Shoreline Inventory needs much more work, it seems premature to designate
any properties off limits for future development.
In terms of development of new marinas, the County insists that "affected parties and
potential partners should be included in the planning process." This commentator has never seen
such a requirement. What Staff believes would be ''potential partners" or "affected parties" is
unclear. The existing application process is set out in the County Code, which implements the
Local Project Review Act, RCW Chapter 36.70B. These laws have adequate provisions for
notice, public comment and participation. The language should be stricken.
It is noted that in the Shoreline Environmental Regulations, almost all of the facilities are
handled as conditional uses. Once again, except for perhaps a marina, there is no point to have
single-use docks, moorages and so forth denominated as conditional uses. This approach is an
expansion of regulation and in the opinion of the OSF unduly delegates the local permitting
process to the State Department of Ecology. The Draft substantially over-regulates mooring
buoys, as policies on their use exist promulgated by the State of Washington Department of
Natural Resources. The State of Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife also requires a
Hydraulic Use Approval for these devices. All the County should do is simply be prepared to
issue a shoreline exemption consistent with state guidelines. To require mooring buoys to be
permitted subject to a conditional use permit in any shoreline environment is excessive over-
regulation.
Turning to private residential docks, the length limitation of 60 feet measured
horizontally from the ordinary high water mark is extremely restrictive. See Draft, p. 7 -10.
Under local conditions as the OSF members understand them in Jefferson County, these
standards would likely preclude any shoreline owner from reaching ''blue water." Thus, it would
be expected that boats would routinely ground and the facilities would be useable only for certain periods of the year under favorable tide conditions. A better approach is to allow docks
to extend to a certain point in relation to the line of extreme low tide, minus 4.5 feet, such as four
feet below -4.5. Other jurisdictions, such as the City of Bainbridge Island utilize this approach.
In this regard, it is interesting that the Shoreline Inventory does not provide any
meaningful information on private dock construction or use. Nor does it conclude that docks
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 45
have been a problem in Jefferson County to date. What appears throughout the Draft SMP is a
Staff prejudice against any new development for many common facilities associated with
shoreline use. If the County is disposed to place severe limits on new development, or
redevelopment, there should be some basis in fact, science and law to do so. Modern regulatory
standards for design of docks, and location and design of bulkheads, and other appurtenances
commonly associated with single family development, ensure that there will be no significant
adverse impacts.
It is noted that the Draft prohibits covered moorage in all of Jefferson County. As the
aSFunderstands the limitation, this would include even the more intensive shoreline
designations, including High Intensity. All that is allowed is covered moorage of 100 square feet
over the overland portion' of the dock or pier. It is not certain that the prohibition against covered
moorage would also apply to marinas open to the public, and the aSF requests that the
Commission clarify this point with Staff.
For the regulations on marinas, the aSF does not believe that the County has authority to
mandate ecological restoration measures to improve baseline conditions over time. This should
be a voluntary requirement.
The aSF has significant concerns with Subsection 7 of Article 7, entitled "Structural
Shoreline Annoring and Shoreline Stabilization.," which commences at p.7-28 of the Draft. It is
noted that Policy No. 1 states that "because protecting ecological functions is a primary goal of
the Shoreline Management Act, the County should take active measures to preserve natural or
unaltered shorelines aild to prevent the proliferation of bulkheads and other forms of shoreline
armory." This view skews the SMA policies, elevating one policy over others, including those
which allow the alteration of the shoreline to provide public benefits and priority on preferred
uses. It also exhibits a strong prejudice against shoreline armoring without analysis whether
existing regulatory systems adequately protect the environment.
Modern systems which mandate better location of bulkheads and shoreline armoring
prevent the horror stories seen in the past, where large fills and seawalls were allowed well
below the ordinary high water mark, with attendant significant adverse impacts:
First, some historical perspective, based on my 18 years as a marine fish biologist
and fishery manager with Washington Department of Fish eries, is useful. Prior to
the discoverY of upper intertidal (mostly in the +6 to + 10 foot MLL W elevations)
spawning by surf smelt, Pacific sandlance, and rock sole in sand/pea gravel
substrates in reaches of many shorelines in the 1970s and 80s, many bulkheads
were built over this intertidal zone without much general public regard for the
value of the intertidal to salmonids or forage species that depend on this zone.
Many shoreline residents did not, not only to protect property, but also to increase
dry land. Regulations and policies were appropriately promulgated to severely
restrict indiscriminant construction of marine bulkheads. This was especially true
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 46
below the Mean High Water (MHW) elevations on beaches with documented
forage fish spawning. It is my understanding that the waterward edge of the
proponents' proposed bulkhead is sited well above the MHHW elevation, near or
above the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM).
***
A rock bulkhead will not eliminate overhanging vegetation, shade, availability of
terrestrial insects, or leaf litter. This is evident from other sites I have visited,
where the bulkhead is landward of the MHHW tidal elevation. As woody
material breaks off in high wind or dies and rots, it will fall down over the top of
the bulkhead. The new bulkhead would allow more vegetation to grow and
actually save the trees (valuable for bald eagle perching) at this. site. I have seen
many other examples of stabilized riparian trees overhanging rock bulkheads
covering the upper intertidal zone. The proposed bulkhead will not result in
"coarsening" of this beach. Because of the setting (vertical concrete bulkheads on
either side), it will remain a ''pocket beach" that continues to collect sand.
Report, April 8,2008, Mark G. Pedersen (former WDFW employee), Kitsap County
Hearing Examiner, Case No. 07-45866.
Because the SMA allows single family owners a protective bulkhead where necessary, it
is unclear under what authority Staff urges that the Commission adopt a policy that proponents
of new shoreline use and development, "including preferred uses and uses exempt from permits,"
should plan, design and locate, and construct and maintain the use/development to avoid any
structural armoring works. Existing SMA and GMA authority does not allow the setback of new'
homes such to absolutely under all circumstances avoid the need for shoreline armoring forever,
although GMA imposed zoning minimizes the need through use of setback requirements. In
addition, it is not understood that the SMA prohibits the protection of property itself without
regard to the threat to homes and appurtenant structures. It is questionable whether the County
has authority to tell property owners of undeveloped shoreline lots that over the next century
they can be expected to donate 50-100 feet of their property for perceived environmental benefits
with no compensation or right of protection.
Many of the policies for shoreline armoring are excellent, including the obligation of a
proponent to prepare a site-specific analysis. As I understood the SMA, I do not believe that
Jefferson County can mandate that other options, such as beach nourishment or "soft bank"
measures, be considered to the exclusion of a "hard" rock protective bulkhead. For some sites
with high wave energy and long fetches, the existing literature demonstrates that "soft bank"
facilities or techniques are not feasible, as Mr. Pederson found:
Regarding the alternatives to bank erosion control, I offer the following
comments:
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
J aIlUary 21, 2009
Page 47
. I have reviewed a number of documents on the subject, including an
Ecology publication: Alternative Bank Protection Methods for Puget
Sound Shorelines (Zelo, et al., 2000). It presents several case histories of
erosi<?n control for sites of various shoreline types and habitat conditions.
In some examples in this publication, depending on site conditions
(generally high energy, steep slopes), rock bulkheads, placement of large
rocks on the beach, revetments, and quarry spalls were chosen for use on
the sites.
. I have looked at the literature and made an investigation as to the success
of soft bank protection methods on locations similar to those of the
proponent in this appeal. One of the experts in the field is Jim Johanesson
with Coastal Geologic Services in Bellingham. He does mostly soft bank
types of protection, mainly beach nourishment on lower profile, low
energy beaches. He did one high bluff project near Semiahmoo in
Whatcom County in 2002. It was a cobble and anchor log control
approach. While it protected the toe, ithad to be repaired at least a few
times in the last five years.
. In terms of soft protection proposals involving beach nourishment, these
have impacts on the beach. In order to construct a berm, the beach profile
is changed. There is disturbance of the beach that can result in turbidity
and there is covering of the existing organisms in the intertidal. While
these are temporary, they are impacts.
. While there has been some success at low energy sites, I don't know of
any soft bank protection projects in high-energy areas that have been
successful in the long term at a reasonable cost for individual homeowner
projects.
Report, April 8, 2008, Mark G. Pedersen, Kitsap County Hearing Examiner, Case No. 07-
45866.
The aSF requests the justification for the prohibitions on armoring in the Natural
shoreline environment found at p.7-30 of the SMP Draft. In addition, there is no need to require
a conditional use permit for these facilities in the other shoreline environments, particularly the
Shoreline Residential and High Intensity environments. There is also a conflict. The proposed use
regulations prohibit shoreline armory to "protect new residential developments." However, the
SMP allows such devices under the exemptions, including new development. In this regard, the
SMA provides that the construction of a "normal protective bulkhead common to single family
residences" is not considered a substantial development but exempt. RCW 90.58.030(3)( e )(ii).
See also Draft SMP, pp.9-2, 9-3. Some thought could be given to allowance of "hybrid"
structures, which is a compromise approach.
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 48
The SMA requires each local master program to protect "single family residences and
appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion." The provisions of any
SMP ". . . shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or
damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion."
RCW 90.58.100 (6) (emphasis added), especially structures built before 1991. Where are such
provisions in the proposed draft? It appears to the aSF that supportive language to protect older
homes is missing.
As an exempt development, a proposed protective bulkhead must be approved if it
complies with provisions in the County's Shoreline Master Program ("SMP").
RCW 98.58.140(1); see also, Biggers v. City o/Bainbridge Island, 162 Wn.2d 683,697-98, 169
P 3d 14 (2007). This is a mandatory provision. Id. See also Advocates For Responsible
Development v. Johannessen and Mason County, SHB No. 05-014 at *9 (2005), citing
RCW 90.58.030(3)(e)(ii) and WAC 173-27-040(2)(c). As the Supreme Court stated in the Biggers
case:
The SMA also recognized there is an important function performed by structures
that protect shorelines. The legislature's 1992 amendments to the SMA further
emphasized this need for certain shoreline structures to provide for the protection
of shorelines. This conclusion is illustrated by the SMA's provisions requiring
prompt adoption of SMP' s provisions requiring prompt adoption of SMPs and
shoreline structure permit processing.
The SMA contains an express ''preference'' for issuing such permits. RCW 9058.100(6).
Thus, the SMA also requires that all SMPs contain methods to achieve "effective" and
"timely" protection for shoreline landowners. Id. SMPs must provide for ''the issuance
of methods such as construction of bulkheads . . .." Id. Permit application to local
governments must be processed in a timely manner. See id.
***
The desirability of some shoreline structures is further evidenced by the
requirement thl:~.t SMPs include exemptions from permitting requirements for
certain structures. See RCW 90.58.030(3)(e). Activities exempted from the
"substantial development" permit requirement include the installation of a
protective bulkhead for a single family home, maintenance and repair of existing
structures, and construction that is necessary for agricultural activities. See RCW
90.58.030(3)( e )(i)-(iv).
162 Wn.2d 697-698.
The regulations for existing structural armoring are over preclusive and would not
survive legal challenge, in the opinion of the aSF. These regulations start at p.7-30 of the Draft.
The proposed regulations state that existing structural shoreline armory may be "replaced in kind
[90049- I]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 49
if there is a demonstrated need to protect public transportation infrastructure, essential public
facilities, and primary structures from erosions caused by currents, tidal action, or waves." Other
requirements apply, including that the replacement structure be designed, located, sized and
constructed to assure no net loss of ecological functions. These provisions conflict with the
SMA requirements for repair and maintenance of existing structures, which is exempt from SMA
regulation in terms of a shoreline substantial development approval. They are not consistent
with the State Guidelines. WAC l73-26-23l(3)(a)(iii)(c). Nor are they internally consistent
with the exemptions found in the Draft at page 9-2.
It is noted that the Draft also seeks to prohibit use of a bulkhead revetment or similar
shoreline armoring to protect a platted lot where no primary use or structure presently exists. In
other words, Staff proposes that a property owner in Jefferson County cannot protect land, only a
structure. If the County is asserting that there are public benefits to allow land to erode to the
point of nothing, then this language effectuates a regulatory taking. It is also inconsistent with
Comprehensive Plan policies for legal lots of record.
Additional significant policy choices are made by Staff in the Draft in terms of the
proposed regulations for new or expanded shoreline armoring. Structural shoreline armoring is
absolutely prohibited on all lakes in Jefferson County and "other low energy environments such
as bays, in accreting marine shores." The OSF questions this preclusive approach without
demonstration that other techniques will be adequate to protect land and property. In the record
submitted to date, such a showing is not made. Further, residential bulkheads are exempt and
allowed.
New structural shoreline armoring is permitted only to protect a lawfully established
primary structure, such as a residence, that is in "imminent danger of loss or substantial damage
from erosion caused by tidal action, currents, or waves." The regulatory standard in the SMA
does not have such preclusive language, allowing "normal protective bulkheads" common to
single-family residences. It is not common to wait to protect a home or property until the risk is
"imminent.,,7 The State Guidelines use the terms "significant possibility of damage."
WAC l73-26-23(3)(a)(iii)(D), and defer to a geotechnical engineer to make the call.
7 The common legal dictionary definition of "imminenf' is "near at hand; mediate rather than immediate;
impending; threatening; or perilous." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 676 (5th ed. 1979). The common non-legal
definition is similar: "about to occur, impending." AMERICAN HERITAGE COLLEGE DICTIONARY 679 (3d
ed. 1993). There is nothing in the definitions that suggests that "imminenf' means "within a certain time frame."
Indeed, something that is imminent could be about to happen within seconds or even years. For example, the City of
Seattle recognized that "global warming represents a clear and increasingly imminent danger to the economic and
environmental health of the world, and to specific qualities of life for the Seattle area. . .." See Okeson v. City of
Seattle, 159 Wn.2d 436,440,150 P.3d 556 (2007) (in reference to a City ordinance mitigating effects of greenhouse
gas emissions). If global warming presents imminent danger, a rapidly retreating shoreline does as well. Thus, the
term "imminent" more appropriately describes something "certain to happen," and the damage to the Strand
Property is certain to happen. See, e.g., Forest Conservation Council v. Rosboro Lumber Co., 50 F.3d 781, 784 (9th
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 50
In the experience of this commentator, the definition of "imminent danger" is very
subjective. This commentator has seen standards requiring that the bank recede to the point of
only five or ten feet from the primary structure before the subjective "imminent danger ofloss"
standard is considered met. The problem with this analysis, as geotechnical engineers will
support, is that loss of a bank or slope is episodic. In Puget Sound or the Straits of Juan de Fuca,
an existing bank can slab off in portions of more than five or ten feet. Property owners should
not be left in a winter storm at 3 :00 a.m. wondering if the next failure event is going to happen,
and the last ten or fifteen feet of the bank breaks off with their home left overhanging the bank,
or, worse, sliding down to the beach or into Puget Sound or the Straits of Juan de Fuca. The best
approach is simply to stay with the language in the SMA for exemptions. If not, the subjective
"imminent danger ofloss" language needs redrafting, if not outright elimination.
What the aSF recommends is that the need for a bulkhead be put in the hands of the
professionals, the geotechnical engineers. The County should mandate commission of a
geotechnical report demonstrating danger to existing structures or properties. With such a report,
the County should then routinely process and approve shoreline exemptions for bulkheads (with .
adequate mitigation), including provisions for the location of the bulkhead at or near the ordinary
high water mark.
The aSF totally opposes the draft language that a "hard" bulkhead is not allowed without
showing that other alternatives are "infeasible or insufficient." The Comprehensive Plan at most
establishes a preference for non-structural methods. Plan, p. 8-24. Those terms have been
interpreted by some jurisdictions as a mandatory requirement that other techniques first be
utilized, then demonstrated to fail, before a hard protective bulkhead is allowed. This is a
dangerous and expensive approach. A better approach is to encourage hybrid structures and
defer to a site specific report if it justifies the need for a new structural bulkhead. In this regard,
the Draft SMP requires extremely detailed information from an applicant. See pp.l 0-3, 10-4.
The standard found on p.7-32 of the Draft, that the County shall require applicants for
new or expanded shoreline structural armoring to "provide credible evidence of erosion" as the
basis for documenting that the primary structure is in imminent danger from shoreline erosion
caused by tidal action, currents or waves" is disrespectful and vague. A geotechnical report in
Washington State must be stamped by a licensed and registered professional engineer. There is
no basis for Staff to second guess these technical reports as to their "credibility." To the aSF's
knowledge, there is no expertise within the Department of Planning and Community
Development of such depth to allow Staff to determine for themselves what is deemed
"credible." This is extreme micro-management.
The requirement found at p.7-32 that the new or expanded shoreline armoring be
designed according to applicable U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' requirements and/or State
eir. 1995) (finding that some actions may constitute a taking because they pose high risks of certain or immJnent
injury).
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 51
Department ofFish and Wildlife aquatic habitat guidelines is over kill. For one, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' requirements are for large breakwaters and jetties, not residential bulkheads.
Two, the WDFW guidelines are just that - guidelines - which do not have the force and effect of
law. The better approach is to simply require the State licensed professional geotechnical
engineer to consider and consult these guidelines where applicable.
Article 8. Use Specific Policies and Regulations
The aSF has significant concerns with Article 8, starting with the agricultural use
policies. The aSF notes that Staff urges that "new" agricultural use and development should
preserve and maintain native vegetation between tilled lands and adjacent water bodies.
According to Staff, the width of the native vegetation zone "should vary depending on site
conditions with the overall goal being to limit clearing or repairing corridors." The aSF repeats
its concerns with generic set asides and buffers, and questions why new agricultural activity
should be prohibited in the Natural Shoreline environment. See Draft, p.8-2. RCW 90.58.065
provides that existing agricultural uses on agricultural land cannot be restricted. ''New
agricultural activity" is vague enough that it could include rotation of crops, which we trust is not
the intent.
Going on with my comments on agricultural use, the Draft, at p.8-2 under subheading C
(Regulations), imposes essentially the same buffer as set out for all other uses. This language
conflicts with the policy set out above for "variable" buffers. The requirement that new
agriculture conform to the ISO-foot buffer standards in Article 6 will inhibit the achievement of
the widely held community values of sustainability and local food production. It also does not
follow the directive of Policy 1.A.7.; "Existing and new agricultural practices are encouraged to
use best management practices to prevent erosion, runoff, and associated water quality impacts."
Currently, Jefferson County uses BMP's to mitigate the adverse impacts of existing agriculture,
achieving improved water quality with smaller, smarter buffers. There is no reason this approach
cannot also work for the new agricultural practices.
The Vision Statement in the County Comprehensive Plan describes a ''healthy,
diversified, and sustainable local and regional economy... which is compatible with and
complementary to the community." Another principle encourages "a degree of flexibility and
autonomy for local communities to address their own unique needs." Fostering local agriculture
is a significant community value in Jefferson County. Residents are encouraged to support the
Farmers Market and in turn local farmers. In the section of the Vision Statement entitled "The
Comprehensive Plan and Our vision," there follows, "The Comprehensive Plan which follows is
a statement about the future. We, the Board Commissioners, in adopting this Plan, are projecting
a future in which the essence of the rural nature of Jefferson County is retained, while
accommodating new growth and development in traditional community setting and specific
designated areas."
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21, 2009
Page 52
There is nothing more essential in retaining the traditional rural essence of Jefferson
County than its history of agriculture. New agriculture is the future. The restrictions on new
agriculture in the Draft S'MP run counter to Jefferson County's community goals as envisioned
through its comprehensive planning process.
Turning to the specific use regulations for commercial uses, which start at p.8-8 of the
Draft, these are overly broad - particularly for the High Intensity shoreline environment - and
conflict with Comprehensive Plan policies. There is no necessity to apply a policy that
commercial development "should be located, designed and operated to avoid or minimize
adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions and processes." For the highly built
environment within Jefferson County's urban areas, relocation is not a viable choice in most
instances.
The aSF does not understand the approach to try to set priorities, mandating that water-
related commercial uses should not displace existing water-dependent uses, and water enjoyment
commercial uses should not displace existing water-related or existing water-dependent uses. So
long as the proposed commercial use relies upon the water for its viability or utility, these
choices should be reserved to individual property owners. The aSF sees no way to require under
the SMA that commercial development "should be visibly compatible with adjacent non-
commercial properties." The SMA is not a design review process, nor is the Shoreline Hearings
Board a Design Review Commission. This language should be stricken.
The proposed environmental regulations essentially prohibit any meaningful commercial
use in the Priority Aquatic, Aquatic, and Natural Shoreline environments. In the Conservancy
environment, non water-dependant and non water-related commercial uses/developments are
prohibited, except for very small scale low intensity recreational/tourist development uses which
may be allowed with a conditional use permit. In the other shoreline environments, only water-
'oriented use and development is permitted; non water-oriented commercial uses are only allowed
as a conditional use. In the opinion of the aSF, these requirements are overly restrictive and
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Washington State is facing significant economic
challenges. This is not the time to enact new regulations making it more difficult to open
businesses which can create family wage jobs. In lieu of prohibitions, the aSF urges allowance
of commercial uses with careful environmental analysis and study.
Turning to the specific use regulations for water-oriented use/development, the aSF does
not believe that the County has authority to mandate that on parcels where existing waterooriented commercial uses are located, "any undeveloped and substantially unaltered portion of
the waterfront not devoted to water dependent use shall be preserved." Draft, p .8-10. This also
conflicts with Comprehensive Plan polices for legal lots of record.
There are a myriad of problems with the regulations for non water-oriented use/
development under the heading "Commercial Uses." For one, the aSF does not believe that at
least in the High Intensity shoreline environment, non water-oriented commercial uses can be
[90049-1]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 53
outright prohibited, unless the property owner is essentially ''held up" by having to provide a
"significant public benefit in the form of public access and/or ecological restoration." The aSF
also believes that the requirement for a mixed use development, that 80% of the shoreline buffer
area be restored to provide shoreline ecological functions and processes, is not legally
supportable.
The Draft, at p.8-11, states that the County can require an "alternative design" for the
"optional mixture of uses and activities." This makes no sense. A property owner or developer
should be able to choose what is considered optimal, without having to second guess themselves
by a second alternatives analysis. This requirement is unduly onerous, and should be eliminated.
Addressing the Forest Practice specific use policies and regulations, the aSF questions
whether the County has authority under the Forest Practices Act to impose a 30% limit on the
harvest of merchantable timber over any ten-year period in the natural and conservancy shoreline
designations. The aSF does not believe that the County can require a conditional use permit for
forest practices in the Shoreline Residential and High Intensity environments then they exceed
the 30% limit in any ten-year period standard.
The specific use regulations for industrial and port development have a number of
problems. Starting with policy No.3, the aSF does not believe that the County has authority to
require that industrial and port development "should be visibly compatible with adjacent non-
commercial properties." This standard is impractical and probably impossible to meet. In
addition, what is considered ''visibly compatible" is vague. Under the specific use regulations,
industrial and port development is prohibited in the Priority Aquatic, Aquatic and Natural
environments. This may be overly restrictive. In the other environments, such use is allowed as
a conditional use. For these types of development, the aSF agrees that a conditional use
approval is the appropriate approach, in lieu of a shoreline substantial development permit.
However, the aSF does not understand why uses and development that are not water-dependent
or water-related are prohibited, if they occur in conjunction with an industrial or port
_development. In particular, there may be industrial uses that are not water-dependent per se, but
must be located in close proximity to the water either to send or receive product and materials:
Turning to the specific use policies for regulation, the aSF commends Jefferson County
for recognizing that public recreation and public lands is a preferred use ofthe shoreline.
However, under the case law, private recreation facilities are also deemed to be of priority and
given preference under the SMA. At this time the State of Washington is closing a number of
State parks. To fill this void, the County should consider policies which strongly encourage the
promotion and development of private recreational uses, as these facilities will take pressure off
of those remaining public parks and public access areas which remain open.
In terms of the specific use regulations, the aSF does not understand the prohibition on
non water-oriented recreation in the Natural Shoreline environment. This could be preclusive
enough to even outlaw a small picnic area or use. There is absolutely no basis to prohibit non
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 54
water-oriented recreation in the Shoreline Residential and High Intensity environments. For one,
the line between non water-oriented and water-oriented recreation is not always clear. Two,
recreation is recreation, and it is a priority use under the SMA.
Addressing the residential use policies, the aSF disagrees that residential use is not a
water-dependent, only a preferred use of the shorelineJ. The Draft does not consider residential
use a preferred use unless it is "planned and carried out in a manner that protects shoreline
functions and processes to be consistent with the no net loss provisions" of the SMP.
Essentially, this approach makes single-family residential use a regulated use, when it is exempt
from SMA permitting requirements. Under the Staff's approach, any new shoreline construction
by the owner of a shoreline lot for his or her own use would have to demonstrate that the
proposed home "protects" shoreline functions and values. There is no such requirement in the
SMA.
In addition, it appears Staff believes that they can require that residential use and
development be ''properly managed to avoid and prevent cumulative impacts associated with
shoreline armoring, over water structures, shoreline runoff, septic systems introduction of
pollutants, and vegetation clearing." Once again, this simply takes exempt activity and
essentially makes it subject to SMA permitting requirements under the guise of "administering"
shorelme exemptions. As set out above, the Shoreline Hearings Board rejected this approach
when invalidating the SMA Rules.
The aSF does not believe that Jefferson County can require a conditional use permit for
construction of a single-family residential home in the Natural shoreline environment. This
provision conflicts with the SMA sections which exempt such development. In this regard, the
aSF believes that "exempt is exempt." Thus, the general prohibition on single-family residential
development by a lot owner unless approved as a conditional use in the Conservancy designation
is illegal.
Turning in more detail to the regulations for primary residences found in the Draft
starting at p.8-27, the aSF can find no language in the SMA giving the County authority to
prohibit residential development under circumstances where it can ''be reasonably expected to
require structural shoreline armoring during the useful life of the structure or one hundred (100)
years, whichever is greater." This language should be stricken.
Article 9. Permit Criteria and Exemptions.
The aSF has significant concerns with the County's approach and the Draft SMP
treatment of exemptions from Shoreline substantial development permits but these have largely
been set out above in its detailed comments. The major point is that under the SMA, the County
cannot require that an exempt facility be "consistent with the policies and provisions of this
program." The provisions of the SMP include use regulations. By applying the use regulations,
Jefferson County impermissibly turns an application for an exemption into a permit.
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 55
The aSF has concerns with the exemption for residential bulkheads. In the Draft, page
9.2, it stipulates that if a bulkhead is deteriorated such that "an ordinary high water mark has
been established by the presence and action of water landward of the bulkhead, then the
replacement bulkhead must be located at or near the actual ordinary high water mark." In
practice, this commentator has seen this type of standard applied under circumstances where a
bulkhead immediately fails. It is inappropriate to have a bulkhead fail, then have regulators take
the position that the ''New'' ordinary high watermark is much further up the beach.
The aSF agrees that when the County issues a building permit, there is no need for a
statement of exemption for a single family residence. However, this may not mean much, since a
written exemption is required for any "clearing and ground disturbing activities.". (Draft, p. 9-6)
The aSF has significant concerns as to the Variance Permit criteria. For one, no
allowance for variation or change of use is allowed. (Draft, pg 9- 7) Two, any alteration or
expansion of non-conforming structures, including single family residential homes, is handled
under the variance procedure. For exempt facilities such as single family homes, alterations
should be allowed. Third, reasonable use exceptions are handled as variances. This is
inappropriate. This approach will simply expose the County to regulatory taking claims, since
the variance criteria are so strict. The County must enact in the SMP a standalone provision for
issuance of reasonable use exceptions.
Article 10. Administration and Enforcement
The aSF notes that the minimum permit application requirements set out in pp. 10-3, 10-
4 of the Draft, are extremely onerous. In particular, it would be expensive for applicants to
provide information as to existing land use contours and intervals "sufficient to accurately
determine the existing character of the property." In addition, provision of a description of the
"existing ecological functions and processes effecting, maintaining, or influencing the shoreline
at/near the project site" will be expensive. It is respectfully submitted that the Planning
Commission should work with staff to come up with application requirements that differ
between a major and minor proposal.
The aSF is very concerned with Section 10.8, which places the burden of proof on the
applicant throughout. This means the onus is placed on the applicant to determine what
environmental designation their property is to be regulated under, a complex and expensive site-
specific scientific judgment process, all for the privilege of finding out what uses are or are not
allowed~
Turning to non-conforming development and uses, this is a key provision, since under the
draft proposal, essentially all of the built shoreline environment in Jefferson County will be
turned into a non-conforming development if the 150 foot marine buffers and vegetation set
asides are adopted.
[90049-1 ]
Jefferson County Planning Commission
January 21,2009
Page 56
It is noted that non-conforming structures, "other than non-conforming single family
residences," cannot be expanded or enlarged without obtaining a variance, or be brought into
conformance with the new requirements. These provisions do not provide as much protection to
existing single family homes as might be thought. For on~, the Draft requires conditional use
permits for single family homes in a number of the shoreline environments. In such case, the
existing residences are required to be brought up to the new requirements. Where enlargements,
expansions or additions are allowed to existing single family homes, they cannot extend water-
ward of the "existing residential foundation walls." (Draft, 1 0-8) In addition, the alterations or
additions cannot "adversely affect critical areas." If the new buffers are imposed, these will
likely be deemed critical areas, thereby precluding any expansion or alteration of any existing
single family homes. This section requires a substantial amount of work in my opinion.
The Comprehensive Plan has a goal, LNG 8.0, to "support the continued existence and
economic viability oflegally established land uses which become nonconforming...." Plan, p. 3-
54. Existing commercial and industrial uses "should be allowed to expand or be replaced...."
Policy LNP 8.3, Plan, p. 3-54. The Draft SMP violates these provisions. Policy LNP 8.9 allows
replacement of a destroyed non-conforming structure, but the Draft SMP does not, imposing a
"75% limit." Once again, there is an inconsistency.
Thank you for your kind attention to these comments and the enclosures.
Very truly yours,
DENNIS D. REYNOLDS LAW OFFICE
~9~~
Dennis D. Reynolds
Attachments
cc: Jim Hagen (OSF)
DDR/cr
[90049-1 ]
Canadian Manuscript Report of
Fishenes and Aquatic Sciences No. 2680
2004
PROCEEDINGS OF THE DFOIPSAT SPONSORED MARINE RIPARIAN EXPERTS
WORKSHOP, TSAWWASSEN, BC, FEBRUARY 17-18,2004
Editors: J.P. Lemieux\ J.S. Breonan2, M. Farrele, CD. Levings4, and D. MyersS
146029 VictoriaAvenue
Chilliwack, BC
V2P 2T9'
2.King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks
20] S. Jackson Street, Suite 600
Seattle, W A 98104
~isheries and Oceans Canada
OceaosIWatershed Planning and Restoration
Habitat and Enhanceil1ent Branch
Ste 200, 401 Burrard St
Vancouver, BC
V6C 384
~isheries and Oceans Canada
Science Blanch,
West Vancouver Laboratory
4160 Marine Drive
West Vancouver BC
V7V IN6
s.Puget $ound Action Team
Office of1he Governor
P.O. Box 40900
Olympia, WA
98504-0900
CMinister of Supply and Services Canada 2004
Cat No. Fa 97-410000E ISSN 0706-6473
Correct citation for this publication:
Lemieux, J.P., ;Brennan. J.S., FauelJ, M. Levings, CD., and MyeIS, D. 2004. Pnv-ii1lW' of the DFOIPSAT
~ Marine Riparian Expms Workshop, Tsawwassen. BC, February 17-18,2004. Can. Man. Rep.
Fmh. Aquat. Sci No. 2680. viii + 83p.
II
Table of Contents
Abstract " ................ ........ ............... .............. ..... ............................... ................................................. v
Resume' ............ ..... .....-....... ............................ ................. ....... ....... ......... ..... ... ..... ........... .............. ..v
Preface...... .................. ....... ............... .............................................................................................. vii
Executive Sll111mary .................. .........._........... ........... ....... ....... .................. .... .... ............ ............. viii.
Acknowledgem.ents ................... ... ....._._.............. ................................................. ......................... ix
Introduction............ .................... ........_........... ........ ........................................ ....:..... ....... ....... .........1
Overview of Research and Thoughts on the Marine Riparian as Fish Habitat in British
ColUmbia, CD. Levings and T. Rmnannk. ....................................................................................3
Riparian Functions and the Development ofManagem.ent Actions in Marine Nearshore
Ecosystems, J.8. . Brennan. ....... .....--.............. ............... ...................................... ........ ..................8
Discussion (Session. I; Lev.ings and BJennan combined) . ................ ................. ..... ..... ......... ........21
Physical Processes Affecting the Marine Riparian Zone and Associated Classification.
Rationale;.. J. IIarper. ............ ............................... ......... ....... ........................................ ............... ..22
Editors' Summary. .......... ..... ..........._........ ......... ......... ............................................. ..... ..............24
Discussion........ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........ ..... ..... ........ ..... ........ ...............24
Fish Habitat Values ami Functions of the Marine Riparian Zone, K.L. Sobocinski et al.............25
Discussion........ ......................... .......................... ........................................ ............. ................. ...31
Forage Fish Spawning Habitats, D. PentiDa. ...............................................................................32
Editors' Summary .................... ................. ..... ...... ............... ....................................................... ..32
DiscussiOn .......... ................... ........._............... .............. ....... ........................ ........... ....... ...... ...... ..33
Other (non-fisheries) Ecological FlIIlCtions and Values of the Marine Riparian Zone,
S. Simenstad. ........ .......... .......... ....................... ................................................. ............ ............. ....34
Editors' SUinDIary . ................. .......................... ............................................... ........... ............ ......34
Discussion. ......... ................... ................. ........... ......... ... ............................... .............. ........... ...... .35
Potential for Terrestrial Vegetation to Influence Nutrient Subsidy to Non-estuarine
Marine Environments in TemperateHcosystems: Summary Background for Thinkitig
about Management and Research Approaches, J.P. Lemieux. ....................................................36
Discussion............ ............... ................... ......... ..... ................................................... ................ .....41
The role of Oceanographic Processes in the Marine Riparian Zone ............... ..............................42
(a coastal engineer's perspective), M. Larson. ............................................................................42
Discussion.......... ..................... ............................. ................................................... .............. ...... .54
ill
Likely Scaling of Basin Area with some Marine Riparian Zone Functions, G. Hood. ...............55
Editors' Snmm Al)' .... ................... ................... ..............................................................................5 7
Discussion ............... .................. ..................... ...... .... ................................................................... .57
Current Marine Riparian Setback Standards Used by DFO in Be, M Farrell. ...........................58
Current Standards for Marine Riparian setbacks and Buffers in Washington State,
D. Myers. ............. .................. .........._.......... .........:...~......................................... ............... ..... .......63
Editors' Summmy: Current Standards by Jurisdiction (all authors combined.). ............................64
Requirement for Use of Best Available Science, D. Myers. .......................................................66
Editors' summary .................... ......_............. ........... ............... ...... ........ ......... ..... ........................ ..66
Breakout session 1 .................. ........_...................... ........................................... .............. ......... ......67
Group 1 ........ .... ........ .............. .............................. ....... ............................ ........ ..................... ....... .67
Group 2 ...... ........... ................. .~..................... ... ........... ............ ............... .... .......... ......... ......... ..... .67
Group 3 ...... ...... ..... ......... ....... ........_.............. ..... ..................................................................... .... .68
Discussion, plenary session 1 . ........................ ....... .................................. ................................... .68
Breakout session 2 ..................... ..................... ..... ....... ............................ .................................... ....70
Group 1 ................. ................. .... .................................................................................................. 70
Group 2 ............... .............. ..... ........._..... .......... ......................... ............... ....... .............. ......... ......71
Group 3 ............ ..... ................... ............................ ....................................................... .................71
Discussion, plenary session 2 .............................. ..... ............................... ....................................72
Next Steps, M Farrel and D. Myers. ............................................................................................ 73
Appendix 1. Biographical Sketches of Workshop Speakers................... .......... ~ ................... ........74
Appendix. II. List of Workshop Participants .................................... ...... .......................................78
Appendix m. Breakout Session Questions Posed to Workshop Participants...............................79
Appendix N. Breakout Session Group Mem.bers ... ..... ........ ............. ......... ....... .......................... .80
Appendix V. Workshop Agenda........................... ............... ......................................... ................ .81
IV
Abstract
Lemieux, J.P., Br~ J.S., Farre1l, M., Levings, CD., and Myers, D. 2004. Proceedings of the
DFOIPSAT sponsored Marine Riparian Experts Workshop, Tsawwassen, BC, February
17-18,2004. Can. Man. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sm. No. 2680 83p.
Through cooperation between Washington State's Paget Sound Action Team (pSAT), and
Fisheries mid Oceans Canada (OFO);. a workshop was convened in February 2004 to address the
state of scientific Im0Wl~ for m~gfug the riparian areas of mar.in:eshurelines. By
assembling a group of expert pt4lCtiticmers, the w<ttkshop was intended to define current
knowledge. and manag_ent appI'oaChes, and solicit interim management advice for these areas
pendingfntore study. Presenters snmmarized current knowledge about ecological attIloutes and
proceSses'.of marine riparim (Ma) areas, as wen as cu:rrent management guidelines for assessing
develQp1itent proposals relevant to the MR. in Washington State, British Collimbia, and Alaska.
Breakout groups allOwed participants to review and supplement this information, and to
recommend severali$tioos to m~'ge and increase knowledge of marine shorelines in these
jurisdictions. A bio'pl1,~ cl~c:ation system fot marine shorelines was identified as an
important priority for development; othtr priorities included a marine version of standardized
curves produced by the FotestEc.osystem. Management Assessment Team. (FEMAT)in 1993 for
freshwater riparimt areas. These CDiVeS represent ecological attributes as a function of landward
distance from shore and $eIVe as guidelines for offSetting disturbance and development from
shorelines. Additional priorities iIicbJded improved outreach tools, and the peer-reviewed
publication of marine riparian iesemd1 and management perspectives.
Resume"
Lemieux, J.P., Brennan, J.S., Farren, M., Levings, CD., and Myers, D. 2004. Proceedings of the
DFOIPSAT sponsored Marine Riparian Expert Workshop, Tsawwassen, Be, February
17~18, 2004. Can. Man. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sa. No. 2680 83p.
Fruit d'une cOllaboration entre laPuget Sound Action Team etP&hes et Oceans Ganada, un
atelier a ete orga0is6 en tevrier 2004 pour discuterde retat actuel des connaissances scientifiques
concernant la gestion des zones ripariennes Ie long des cotes maritimes. Mettant en presence
plusieurs experts, l'atelier a permis de decrire I' etat actuel des connaissances et les approches de
gesti'on presentement en vigueur tout en sollicitant des conseils pour la gestion temporaire de ces
zones en attendant que des etudes snpplementaires soient effectuees. Les divers orateurs ont
resume les connaissances actuelles concematit les attributes et les processus ecologiques
caracteristiques des secteors riparieos maritimes ainsi que les directives de gestion actuelles pour
}' evaluation des projets de developpement susceptloles de toucher de tels secteUrs dans }'Etat de
Washington, en Colombi.-Britanniqoe et en A1aska99333. Les groupes de discussion mis sur
pied ont permis aux participants d" examiner et de completer les infonnations presentees et de
recommander one serle d'actions visant a mieux CODnmtre et a mieux gerer les zones ripariennes
maritimes dans ces regions. Les participants ont convenu que la mise en place d'un systeme de
v
classification biophysique des systemes ripariens et Ie developpement d'une version maritime
des courbes normalis6es produites par IaForest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team
(FEMAT) en 1993 pour les secteurs ripariens dulcicoles etaient des priorites importantes. Ces
combes montrent comment varient une sene de variables ecolpgiques en fonction de 1a distance
a la rive et servent de guides pour compenser l' eifet des perturbations et des developpements qui
smviennent a terre. L'ameJioration des outils de sensibilisation et la publication de documents
de synthese revus et approuves par ]a communaut6 scientifique constituent 6galement des
priorites.
VI
Preface
These proceedings were composed from abstracts and extended abstracts received from authors
prior to the workshop, and were augmented by additional information conveyed in presentations.
Notes were taken during qaestion and'answer sessions and highlights of the discussioo were
captured in a synoptic foon. All summaries werecireulated to original presenters, who were
given opportunity to ,eview content relevant to their talks, and suggest changes tQ improve the
accuracy of the proceedings. Infonnation contained. in the 'Discussion' and 'Editor's Summary'
sections is therefore the best inte1p.t~()D. by the editors, who take respoDSlbility for any
statements made therein.
vii
EX<<UDve Snmmstry
Oil February 17-18, 2004 a workshop was held in Tsa.wwassen, British Columbia (Be), Canada,
with the intent of reviewing and advancing research and management in 'marine riparian' areas
of the northwest coaSt ofNortb: America (pacific Northwest). The meeting was sponsored by
Fisheries and Oceans Canada and thePuget Sound Action Team. (pSAT), Washington Sate
(W A). The worl.csb:op had two primary go'81$.: to assemble a body of experts to speak on various
biological or physical processes knoWn to occur in the marine riparian (MR), and to stimulate
discussion about best available smencefor its m1J11~ement There was an effort. to establish not
only what knowledge and approaches emrentIy exist for management, but also to define which
issues WCl'e primarily outstaDding, as wen as approaches for their investigation. Participants also
addressed. research approaches, potential collaborators, and funding resources.
TheMR was recognized as a dynamic ecotone e~ding both landward and seaward from the
high water level of marine shoremies;the exact extent of that area was subject to substantial ,
discussion. There was some recoguitiQIl that upland areas are inextricably linked to the MR, but
also that the relative importance of"ce from shore would vary by each of the main
ecologica.1.functions attnbuted to maline riparian areas. Functions were held to be emerging
features for which management g98ts.coold be set, and were g-enerally identified to be the
fonowing: water quality, and pollution abatement, organism habitat, termin formation and
stabilization, aesthetic values, and tegulation of elemental and energy flUx.
Relating to these functions were an may of mana&ement priorities that varied by degree of
urbanization in the referenced area. fnthe highly developed regions ofPuget Sound, W A and
the Strait of Geor~ Be, city p1mri1ine guidelines and legislation toward regulating land
management practices on private property were of foremost concern. Shoreline armouring and
modification as wen as upland vegetation removal were the most cited issues in urban areas for
which more information was needed.. Tn more remote areas management concem:s were being
driven by development effoots on wildemessvalues, and terrestrial wildlife needs. Habitat for
fish species was recognized as ail aitiibute of concern common to almost all agencies, in both
urban and remote areas. Literature referring speCifically to the MR. was recognized to be
deficient, though many participants :tilt that extrapolating from an abundant freshwater riparian
literature should provide ma.nagement guidelines in lieu of better information. It was suggested
that reference in such cases be direcIed toward lakes and large rivers where possible, as they
might more closely reflect the qualities inherent in most non-estuarine marine situations.
Setback distances for development and maintenance of vegetation in the MR were inherent tools
already being used by most management agencies; better scientific information to support
setback recommendations for each of1he marine riparian functions was a common request from
workshop participants. The development of nomographs was identified as a management
priority (nomogmphs in this case are the simultaneous plotting of % effectiven~s for multiple
ecological attnbutes as a function of distance from shoreline). Some importance was also placed
on developing science-based guidelines for buffer lengths in addition to widths in order to
viii
promote their effectiveness. The most desired management tool was identified as a shoreline
mapping system that would include bo1h biological and physical attributes, providing the basis
for m$1agement prescriptions. Theideal system was also thought to include information at a
variety of scales so that it could be used for local as well as regional planning. A variety of
outreach strategies was identified to facilitate public education and engagement in MR.
managemmt. It was suggested that public involvement might iD1prove research funding via
increasing pressure toward legislators and senior public servants at various levels of government.
Various funding possibilities were discpssed, but the overnding theme was to focus on those that
could promote 'cross-border' ~on between agencies in Canada and the United States.
This was seen not only to be a desirable feature from an ecological standpoint, but also
favourably viewed by many funding agencies. Interagency collaboration was also indicated as a
mech:mi!m'l. to safeguard against insfitntional fwlrline cuts.
Acknowledgements
The workshop was the product ofhard work and innovative thinking from all of the participants.
Funding and support were provided by the PUget Sound Action Team, Office of the Governor,
Washington State, and by the Habitat and Enhancement Branch of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Special thanks are due to Dr. Steve MacDonald (DFO Science Branch) for moderating sessions
on both days, and to Beth Piercey (pFO Science Branch) for assisting with registration. The
Steering Committee conceived, organized an implemented the entire workshop.
Members of the Steering Committee
The workshop was conceived and scoped by: Jim Brennan (King County Dept Natural
R-esources, W A), Melody Farrell (lTtSheries and Oceans Canada Habitat and Enhancement
Branch, Vancouver Headquarters), Colin Levings (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Habitat
Scienct; West Vancouver Laboratmy), and Doug Myers (Puget Sound Action Team, Office of
the Governor, W A). JeffLemieox acted ex officio on the committee to organize and iD1plement
the workshop~ and to produce the proceedings.
IX
Introduction
The genesis of this workshop was the demonstrated need of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Habitat EDhancement Staff to have a sound volume of scientific investigation. as th~ foundation
for management actions when considering marine shorelines. Habitat manAgers at Fisheries and
Oceans Canada have long recogni7P.id both terrestrial and aqua11<} components of marine
shorelines to be importantCOinponent$ of:fish habitat; through the Pacific Science and Advisory
Review Committee (PSARC), formal advice was requested regarding scientifically defensible
in:formation to guide g{Wern:attce ofsboreline development proposals. The ptitnary ooncer:ti in
this re~d has been the protection of fish habitat. Levmgs and Jamieson (2001) provided the
advisory report in this case, wherein: they acknowledged a paucity of scientific information on
marine riparian functions and setback distances required for protection. Among several of their
recommendations was the ereatimt of an expert workshop to compile CUITent information on the
best available science for marineriparlan (MR.) issues. Because Washington State is currently
updating a number of coasta1landuseprograms the Pu.get Sound Action Team (pSAT) bas
participated with Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in the PUget Sound IGeorgia Basin
Task Force. wherein workshop dj~on began. DFOHabitat Enforcement Branch (M. Farrell)
initiated workshop creation by invitiDg J. Brennan, C. Levings and D. Myers to form a steering
committee.
The workshop was designed to gain consensus regarding the state of knowledge for the
management of marine riparian areas, and to identify and prioritize research questions and
approaches. On February 17-18.2004 the workshop was held in Tsawwassen, BC. Canada.
convening many of the scientists and 1IiR1lRgers who are conducting research or ml\JlRgjng MR
areas in the Pacific Northwest. WOIkshop participants were invited to attend from four different
sectors: research institutions. consulting finns. non-governmental organizatimis. and resource
management agencies. All invitees were identified as expert professionals working with MR
themes. who would be capable of contributing to workshop objectives and applying or
disseminating workshop information.
The workshop was designed toaccmnplish. three explici1;,overarching goals:
1. Summarize best available science on marine riparian ecosystem functions and val~,.
2. Recommend approaches for fUrther research of inherent ecological functions in the MR
3. Provide expert opfuion and preJim.inary recommendations for provisional setback .
standards or other management strategies to protect MR habitat
The methods used to reach these goa1s were the following:
1. Presentation of information on the various functions of the MR
2. The review, SUlIIlilaty. and discussion of the rationale for current marine riparian
management approaches and setback standards in Washington. BC, and Alaska
3. The definition of data deficieoc.ies in the MR. with the production of a list of research
questions and opportunities for collaborative research
4. The discussion of 'expert' renwnmendations or provisional advice for managing the MR.
based on 'best available science'
1
,
First day presentations were ordered to present information leading from general to specific
topics, and were divided into fom main sessions: .
1. Introductory talks to establish concepts, functions, and definitions of the marine riparian
zone
2. Exploratory talks on specific functions and data deficiencies in the MR.
3. The effect of scale
4. Rationale for current managemeut guidelines in the three participating jurisdictions
(Washington State, British Colombia, and Alaska)
The Second day was stmctured to allow participants to forin three smaller breakout groups
wherein they discussed a series of questions focusing on two primary issues:
1. The ex:mrination of cmrent management approaches for the MR, and the sum loiowledge
ofbest available science/experience to justify the approaches (morning session)
2. Definition of data gaps for. understanding and managing the MR., including exploration of
relevant funding mid collaboration opportunity to address deficiencies (aftemoon session)
Following each session, all participants (appendix ll) gathered in a plenary session to review the
findings of each group, ask questions;. and provide comments. The proceedings editor
summarized each plenary sessiQB, as well as. the discussion period fonowing. all presentations.
This proceedings SU1D.IIUlrizes the presentation and dialogue that occurred during the workshop,
including the most common and most important themes. Recommendations are given that
identify activities likely to provide the most useful information for developing scientifically
informed management decisions fOr marine riparian areas.
LITERATURE CITED
Levings, cn. and Jamieson, G.S. 2001. Marine and estuarine riparian habitats and their role in
coastal ecosystems, Pacific Region. CSAS Research Document 2001/109. Fisheries and
Oceans Canada.
http://www.dfo-mDO.gc.calcsaslCsaslEn~di~hlResearchYears/2001/2001lO9e.htm
2
Overview of Research and Thoughts on the Marine Riparian as Fish Habitat in British
Colombia
Colin Levingsl and Tamara Roman~
IFisheries and Oceans Canada
Science Branch,
West Vancouver Laboratory
4160 Marine Drive
West Vancouver BC Canada V7V IN6
2131 Montrose Ave
Toronto Ontario
CanadaM6J 2T6
A. WHAT IS THE MARINE RIPARIAN ANYWAY AND WHY ARE WE INTERESTED
IN IT?
Scientific data on the ecotone between the land .and the sea, the marine riparian zone, are scarce
in the northeast Pacific, and fish habitat managers are dealing with uncertainty when assessing
these areas in relation to forestry,mbao development, and other industrial activities. This
ecotone was called the supralittoral mnge in the classical mterti.dal ecology studies conducted
near Nanainto, British CoIU1i1bia (DC) by Stephenson (1949) and this term is well established in
the ecologicalliteratore. However because the vegetated area immediately above the high tide
line is commonly called "marine riparian" by habitat managers, we will use the latter term for the
purposes of this papet~ and restrict our considerations of the marine riparian zone to areas
seaward of the brackish water habitats in estuaries. In British Columbia, marine riparian habitat
is found in coastal areas where the amnnal average salinity is > 25 %0, which likely accounts for
the majority of the 21000 km of coastline in BC.
As pointed out by Richardson et aI. (1997), transitional habitats between the sea and land are
often ignored because of the different backgrounds oflnarine and terrestrial biologists; however
transitional habitats such as the marine riparian are important for species and ecological
processes that span the boundary. A umnber of different criteria have been used to define the
marine riparian zone. Identification of the marine riparian zone by hydrologic and botanical
3
criteria that are used in freshwater habitats is difficuJ.i because of certain fundamental
differen~ especially salinity, and between oceanographic and limnological processes.
The presence of an adjacent body of water that is subject to tidal action is the most important
criteria to identify the marine'riparian. For a given elevation above chart datum (OD.), the
average frequency of immersion can be estimated for a particular site on a beach using the
standard tidal prediction equations 'that the Omadian Hydrogtaphic Service (CHS) uses. The
equations are internationally accepted and based on astronomical events, namely distance of the
earth to the'sun and moon. For example, at the elevation of the marine riparian at Tsawwassen
(3.8 to 4.0 mOD.), tidal computations predicted about 10-20 % of the high tides in 1995
reached or exceeded these elevations (Levings and Jamieson., 2001).
According to the definitions used by CHS hydrographers, the marine riparian is at the land-water
interface at the higher high water, mean tide mark (HHWL T), the average of aU the higher high
waters from 19 years of predictions. Therefore, the shor.eline on CBS charts is shown as
HHWL T but in practice, it is usually best determined in the field from the vegetation and
driftwood.. In m()st; B.C. ports, the talige of the predicted annual tide is ~ 10 Cl1l. However, the
influence of stoDnS (periods sborter1han a year) or El Nino (return period longer than a year) are
not included. storms ean raise mCasnredsea levels by 30 to 50 CD1 above predictions for a day or
so. Two EI Wmos in the past 2() yeas (1982/83, and 1997/98) have raised the sea level 30 em ,
above prediction for the entire winter (pees. comm. Bill Crawford, CHS, December 1999).
Marine riparian veg.on includes numerous species of grasses, sedges, shrubs, herbs, and trees
found at or near HHWL T. Since 1IUiDy plants along the shoreline (except for halophytes) are
limited. by the presence of salt water, their seaward growth into the middle intertidal zone is
restricted.. For coastal trees such as cedar (Thujaplicata) or hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) found
well aboveHHWL T wetting of the soil by salt water may be deleterious to the plant but the
presence of the vegetation nmy still be important for stability of the upper beach habitat. These
species extend into 'the backshore zone, here operationally defined as part of the marine riparian.
On sandy beaches, dune grass (Elymusmollis) and shore pine (Pinus contort a) are known as
species which stabilize shifting sand. In areas where smf and wave action is a major force, the
seaward limit of satt spray has been proposed as an indicator of the landward extent of marine
processes (Howes and Harper, 1984). On the open coast of California, Barbour (1978) found
that the salt spray reached at least 80 m inland from mean tide.
B. POSSmLE ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF THE MARINE RIPARIAN FOR FISH
ECOLOGY AND SOME UNKNOWNS
Provision of shaDow water living space
Several species of salmon fry are adapted to use very shallow water, often only a few em deep,
at high tide, on beacheS immediately seaward of marine riparian vegetation. This is likely an
adaptation to avoid deep water predators. What is the role of the vegetation in maintaining the
natural beach slope, which tends to maximize the area of shallow water?
4
Food web
Figure 1 shows a highly simplified and schematic food web diagram, suggesting. that a variety of
_....,1... n..:l.. . --:,1 . d 1':_1. th .,.. . de .tal f1
cuwi,Op~ pnmcil.ay insects an ,cnl~~, may wm.e manne npan1JD Vl3. ' .. tri.. ,OW to
aquatic org=mlmllS including migratory fish. This diagram. is based purely on literature data from
a variety of sources and most linkages need to be' quantified by detailed investigations. The
linkage'between arthropods and vegetation was receJltly shown by Romanuk mid Levings
(2003). '
Spawning function
Surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiousus) (see Lee and Levings, submitted) ,and sand lance (Ammodytes
hexapterus) (see MSR.M, 2003) are two species which spawn and incubate their eggs in substrate
onbigh elevation areas of beaches. Herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) and numerous non-
commercial speGies such as eottids tcndto spawn lower in the intertidal. Marine riparian
vegetation might have a direct or1ndireet influence on incubation suCCess for these species but
studies on these topics are scarce in Be.
Sediment stability and water quality function
Sloughing and.mass wasting of fine sediment and suspended solids onto beaches and :fish habitat
maybe accelerated on shores where vegetation has been removed. High. sediment loads and
excess turbidity can affect fish babitat productivity at all elevations of the beach and the material
can also be 1:raDsported alongshore by currents.
Salt soil or spray fundion
Some vascular plants that characterize the marine riparian are halophytes that are adapted to salt
provided in the soil or via airborne particles (Barbour, 1978). Salt marshes are known fish
, habitats (e.g. Macdonald 1984) but 1he importance of halophytic shrubs in the context of fish
habitat is not known.
c. FACfORING THE MARINE RIPARIAN INTO COASTAL PLANNING
Perhaps because of perceived analogies with "true'? riparian ecosystems in freshwater, habitat
man~ have focused on a need for linear buffers or leave strips or reserves as management
guidelines for the marine riparian. .Given the assumption that the marine riparian zone is
important for species and ecological pocesses, variation: in geomorphology will likely require a
system. that takes different shoreline types into accoun.t. An alternate methodology would be to
develop management plans for specific water bodies using ecosystem based management
(EBM). as has been done for nine estuaries in B.C. (WjlJ1amR and Langer, 2002). There is scope
for integrating marine riparian guidelines with "bay-wide management plans" but the process of
developing guidelines and schemesshou1d be done in a landscape context and EMB. GiVen the
ecological gradient from estuarine to coastal conditions, it would be logical to link the plans in
an integrated scheme:
5
LITERATURE CITED
Barbour, MG. 1978. Salt spray as a microenvironmental factor in the disnibution of beach plants
at Point Reyes, California Oecologia32: 213-224
Howes, D.E. and Harper, J.R..1984. Physical shorezone analysis of the Saanich Peninsula British
Columbia Min. Environment Tech. Rep. No.9. 42 p. Victoria, H.C
Levings, CD. and Jamieson, G.S. 2001. Marine and estuarine riparian habitats and their role in
coastal ecosystems, Pacific Region.. CSAS Research Document 2001/109. httt>:/Iwww.dfo-
mpo.lZc.calcsasICsaslEn2fisbJResearch 'YearsI2001!2001 I0geJitm
Lee, C.G. and Levings, C.D. 2004. [mreview). The effect of desiccation on surf smelt
(Hypomesus pretiosus) embryo development and hatching success. Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, West Vancouver Labotatory.
Macdonald, AL., 1984. Seasonal use of the nearshore intertidal habitats by juvenile salmon on
the delta front of Fraser River estuary, British Columbia. M.Sc. thesis. University of Victoria,
Victoria, British Columbia .
Romanuk, T.N. and Levings, C.D. 2003. Associations between arthropods and supralittoral
ecotone: dependence of aquatic and terrestrial taxa on riparian vegetation. Environmental
Entomology 32:1343-1353.
Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM), 2004. Documenting Pacific sand lance
spawning habitat in Bayn~ Sound arid the potential interactions with intertidal shellfish
aquaculture. htt1J:/ /srmwww.gov.bc.calrmdlcoastallsouthislandlbayneslindex.htm
Richardson, AMM, S~ R., 8Ild Wong, V.1997. Translittoral Talitridae (Crustacea:
Amphipoda) and the need to reserve transitional habitats: examples from' Tasmanian
saltmarshes and other coastal sites. Memoirs of the MuSeum of Victoria 56:521-529.
Stephenson, T A. and Stephenson, A. 1949. The universal features of zonation between tide-
marks on rocky shores. J. Ecol. 37:289-305.
Williams, G.L.and Langer, O.E. 2002. Review of estuary management plans in British
Columbia. Can. Man. Rep. Fish. Aqoat. Sci. 2605. 57 p.
6
40
30
r
10
Figure 1. Simplified and schematic food for fish aspects of the marine riparian. Secondary
. consumers based five most abundant taxa in pit trap data from Romanuk and Levings (2003)
(Howe Sound) and'Lemieux et at (2004, unpublished, Albemi Inlet). * indicates strong evidence
of food web preference; + indicates some evidence of food web preference; - no data available
on food web preference in the northeast: Pacific.
7
Riparian Functions and the Development of Management Actions in Marine Nearshore
Ecosystems
Jim Brennan
King County ~b4ent of Natural Resources and Parks
201 South Jackson Stree4 Suite 600
Seattle? W A 98104
As scientists and resomce managers move away :from smaller scale investigations and
mAt1~eenient strategies (~.g., single species or discrete habitats) toward ecosystem man~gement,
the recognition and an improved understanding of linkages between systems. is needed.
Understanding temporal and spatlaI scales, within which ecosystem processes, structure, and
functions operate, iscritic:ai in determining the appropriate sca1e(s) for analySis, and
implementation of mHlJl'lgeJnentactioits. Althon3h the'level of attention toward marine
nearshore ecosystem.s has increased in:recent years, the focus has been on the aquatic
environment andtlle tip.arian area$~ to lIUltiBe waters have only recentlY been identified
as an integral part ofJi..m(jre'~. The tnmsitional areaS between. aquatic and
tertestlia1 envitoiunents. commotdy catted "ecotones", are important eCologically due to their
unique structure and functions in ~ of plants, fish, and wildlife (among.other ecosystem
seiViees) in bo1h environments. Marine'riparian areas are distinct eco~stems, which mt1uence
the health and integtity ofnearshotemarine systeins and are also influenced by their proximity to
marine' waters. In other words, 'I:11eJ:g: are mutual influences, such asth-eexcbange of nutrients,
energy, temperati:lre, and moisture 1bat contribute to how each of these systems operates
independently andconectively. However, 1he processes, stttlcture, and functions of marine
riparian.areas are pOOrly underst004 becsuse they are not well studied. Information on the social
and ecological importance of freshwater riparian: systems is abundant and clear, while studies of
marine riparian systems. are sparse and ~ throughout the literature. Many coastal areas
have abeady experienced significant modification, .degradation, and fragmentation of riparian:
areas as a result of human popuIatim growth and demands for access, commercial, residential,
and in:fi:astmcture development. IIuman population growth in coastal areas has increased
exponentially in recent decades and is expected to continue on this track in coming decades
(Good et alI997; Culliton 1998). This will undoubtedly have an effect on coastal resources and
require coastal resour,ce managers to develop an improved understanding of these systems and
new approaches for management.
The development of management actions is commonly based on our knowledge of ecosystem
functions and benefits. Therefore 1he development of successful management approaches and
management actions for maintaining or enhancing ecosystems requires a scientific foundation.
8
",
'-,
'"
.}
In an attempt to advance our understanding of marine riparian systems and contribute to the
development of management recommendations, I provide a brief review of riparian: functions
and benefits, suggest management approaches that could be used, and offer a short list of
mammement actions. Based upon my review of the scientific and resourcetn~n8gement
literature, these recommendations are likely to be effective for maintaining or restoring marine
riparian functions and nearshore ecosystem integrity.
MAlUNE RIPARIAN FlJNCDONS- A REVIEW
FreshWater riparian areas have beerrslmtied intensely in recent years because of their critical
functional relatiODShips with stream and wetland ecosystem:s. While they are generally
understood to be tbeupIandlterrestrial component of the interfiwe (that part of the contfuuum)
between terrestrial and 3Q1:U1tic ecosystems, many authors uSe a definition of riparian that lacks
8BY t.eference to tidal waters. This seems to be more of a reflection of the' study area, or
experience of the investiptor, rathe:tfhan a definition of ecological characteristics. However,
the National. Research Council (NllC)made a point of includi:i1g marine-estoarine shorelines in
their definition of riparian areas (NRC 2002). They defined riparian areas as follows:
Riparian areas aretransitionalbel;weenterrestdaland aquatic ecosystems and are
distlligtJished by gmdients in biophysical conditions, ecological processes, and biota. They
are areas tlirough whlch surface and subsurface hydrology connectwaterbodieswith their
adjacent uplands. They include1hose portions ofte.rrestrial ecosystems that significantly
influence exclnm:gesof energy aildmatter with aquatic ecosystems (i.e., a zone of influence).
Riparian areas are adjacent to pt'RI;iDia:1, intermittent, and ephemeral streams, lakes, and
estuarine-marine shorelines (NRC 2(02).
While marine riparian systems have not been subject to the same level of investigation as
freshwater systems, and subsequently receive much lower levels of attention and protection,
increasing evidence suggests that riparian systems serve similar functions regardless of the
salinity oftbe water bodies they border. Desbonnet et al (1994) conclude that the functional
mechanisms that apply to inland riparian areas should be similarly applied to coastal areas. They
point out that marine and freshwater riparian zones serve almost identical pUrposes. A review by
Brennan andCulverweU (unpubJisbed, in review) resulted in similar findings. Using the most
commonly described functions of fi:eshwater riparian systeinS as a tenip1ate for comparison,
marine riparian systems appear to provide similar fimctions in addition to other functions unique
to marine nearshore ecosysten1s. These functions include: Water quality/pollution abateIilent;
Soil stability and Sediment control; Wildlife habitat; Microclimates; Shade; Nutrient inputs; Fish
prey production; and, Habitat st:ructure (e.g., large wood). In addition to these ecosystem
services, there are a number of social values supported by marine riparian areas, includiJig
cultural, human health and safety, and aesthetics benefits.
Water Quality
The degradation of urban waterways is directly linked to urbAt1i73fion and has been exacerbated
by the lack of adequate storage, treatment, and filtration mechAt1i!mls for runoff. The major
pollutants found in runoff from urban areas include sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding
substances (i.e., organic compounds), road salts, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons,
9
pathogenic bacteria, and viruses (U.s. EPA 1993). Many CODt~m'nanf.q bind to sediments,
which, when suspended, constitute the largest mass of pollutant loadings to receiving waters
from. urban areas (U.S. EPA 1993). Typiea11y, clearing and grading is followed by the
installation of impervious surfaces such as roads, buildings, sidewalks, and pmking lots. Water
. collected.in stormwater systems, sewage, and from. industrial sources,may or may not be treated
and contains varying levels of silt, waste, and chemical constituents that could otherwise be
absorbed, or removed by allowing for infiltration, detention, and absorption by soils and
vegetation.
The use of riparian areas for pollution abatement is well documented (e.g.; Phillips 1989;
Groffinan et al. 1990; Desbonnet et al1994; Lorance et al. 1997a, b; Knutson and Naef 1997;
Rein 1999; Wenger 1999). In additiOD;. vegetated buffers are known to be'b0tb. efficient and cost
eifective for redl1eingpo1lutaI1ts ftOliI np1an:dso1U'CeS. In an analysis of multiple soil types foood
in several states al<>Jig the Atlalitic coast, Phillips (1989) found that a 91 m (300 foot) vegetated
buffer area would provide sufficient filtration for nonpoint pollution concerns around estuaries.
Clark et al. (1980) recommended 80 foot miniIilum . buffers for slopes of 20% with slight erosion,
and 150 foot mininnnn buffers for 300./dslopes with severe erosion for controlling agricultural
runoff. Lee and Olsen (1985) fo-undtbat the majOrity of nitrogen loading in estuarine lagoons
(70-90%) and resultant algal blooms,and eutrophication resulted from upland residential
development andappJiGation of herbicides and pesticides. In. addition, 3number of studies
provide evidence that link declines in seagrasses (ie~, Zostera spp.) and changes in species
composition to degrllded waterqwl{i1J associated with shoreline development (_ Short and
Burdick 1996; Penningset al2002). In order to resolve these problems. recommendations,
included m'~ntain1n'g and replacing .c systems, reducing furth<< development, and a
requirement for natUIaI vegetatioo butters. Howevet, the detenninationof appropriate buffer
widths to. provide pollUtion abatement functions will require some basic knowledge of multiple
environmental conditions, including soils, vegetation, hydrology and other factors.
SoD Stability
V ~getat.ion affects bo1h the surficial and mass stability of slopes in significant and important
ways, ranging from .mechanical reinforcement and restraint by the roots and stems to
modification of slope hydrology as a result of soil moisture extraction via evapotranspiration
(Gray and Som 1996). Vegetation, once established, provides a self-perpetuating. and
increasingly effective permanent erosion control (I{ittredge 1948; Menashe 1993). Soils, slope
height and angle, drainage, and other factors are also very important in determining soscep1:l'bility
to erosion. However, for an shorelines, and particularly those in areas with steep and eroding
bluffs, native vegetation is usually the best tool for keeping the bluff intact and for minim,7.ing
erosion (Broadhurst 1998). The loss or removal of slope vegetation can result in increased rates
of erosion and higher frequencies of slope failure. This cause-and-effect relationship can be
demonstrated convincingly as a result of many field and laboratory studies reported in the
technical literature (Gray and Sotit' 1996). DisttJd>ing the face or toe of a bluff or bank can cause
destabilization, slides, and cave-ins (Clark et al. 1980). Surface vegetation removal and
excavation both increase the chance of slumping, which results in imperilled structures, lost land,
a disruption to the ecological edge-mne, and increased sedimentation to the aquatic environment
(Clark: et al. 1980).
10
Sediment Control
Thecontml of sediments .entering waterways is one of 1he most commonly identified functions
of riparian areas in both freshwater ami coastal riparian studies. Most disGussions of sediment
con1ro'l are addressed in the funCtional mechmlimls of pollution abatement and soil stability
provided by riparian butTers. Since most pollutants associated with. st011llwater are adsorbed to
sediments (Karr and Schlosser 1978);. uapping Sediments. also removes a certain percentage of
the ponutant load carried in slll~nmoif (DesbOnnet et al. 1995). Pollutants that adsorb to
sediments~ and therefore can be cd1'dvelytteated by riparian. vegetation, inelude mQst fonns of
nitrogen and phosphot'llS; hydrocarbons, PCBs, most metals, and pesticides (Karr and Schlosser
1971,1978; Lake and Morrison 1977; Lee et al. 19B9.; Zirschky et al. 1989)(Desbonnetet al.
1995). In addition to 1hevarious po1bmp1ts associated with sediments, tinesetfunents can have a
dramatic effect on. aquatic org;misms~ Siltation can clog 1he breathing apparatus (ie. gills:) of
fishes and inverte~ inbibit proper respiratory function in eggs and larvae (Sliffocation), alter
substrates, and can result in burial ofbenthic orgalliSDls. Siltation and erosion controls have long
been recognized as best managemt$t practices for developIilentprojects regardleSs of their
proximity to a water body. The mostcmnmon reco1ilJUendations made for silt alid erosion
C01itroI in the technicalliteratme aretu'mil1imi7P. vegd3tion removal in the area being cleared,
majntaiit vegetated buffers, detain JUilOff on site, and provide water quality treatment
W'ddlife Habitat
Healthy (ie., intact and functional) riparian systems along marine shorelines support abundant
and diverse assemblages of wildlife. Por example, in our review of the 335 wildlife species
known to inhabit aU ofKii1g Coumy,. Washington (King County 1987; Kate Stenberg, personal
communication)~ we identified 263' wildlife species (9 3Jl1phibians;5 reptiles; 192 birds; 57
mamm~lR) known, or ~ed to have ail association with riparian habitat on marine shorelines
in Puget Sound This repreSents 78.5 percent of all (335) wildlife species fOlilld in King County.
Many wildlife species are dependent upon riparian areas for theirenme life cycle, with
requirements for feeding, bteedin& Idbge, cover, movement, migration, and climate'that are
intricately interwoven :futo the ecologieal balance of riparian structure, functions, and processes.
Other wildlife may only depend on riparian areas during a specific life stage, fQr limited periods
during ~ migrations, or simPly as a migration corridor. However, regardless of the
timing, the availability and conditim ofriparian habitat can be a determining factor in their
survival. Wlldlife habitat requirements in riparian syStems are complex and have received a
significant amount of review and analysis. For example, Knutson and Naef (1997), Desbonnet et
al. (1994), and Wenger (1999) have ~rormed extensive literature reviews to determine buffer
widths required to maintlrin riparian functions for wildlife. For Washington State~ Knutson and
Naef (1997) determined that the avemge width reported to retain the riparian function for
wildlife habitat was. 287 feet (88 meters). In their review of the literature on wildlife habitat
protection, Desbonnet et aI. (1994) show recommeIidations of 60-100 meters for general wildlife
habitat, 92 meters for the protection of significant wildlife habitat, and 600 meters for the
protection of critical species. UnfOrtunately, there has been little discussion of, and even less
effort to preserve marine riparian areas for wildlife species in PugetSound, or elsewhere. This
has resulted in a dramatic loss and fragmentation of riparian habitat and associated wildlife.
11
Mierocli:liaate
Riparian plant and animal coIiununities are greatly influenced by marine waters, especially those
communities immediately adjacent to marine waters, by temperature and moisture regUlation,
tidal inundation, wind ~e;. and saltspray. Marine littoral communities are, in turn,
influenced by riparian condition.1'he interaction of these two systems creates an ecotone, a
unique transition zone from a marine system to an upland ecosystem. that supports a diverse
assemblage of plants and wildlife.
The greatest influence of marine waters on riparian communities is temperature, keeping lowland
areas cooler in the summer and wanner in the w:ii1teJ-~ Temperature and moisture are also
regulated by the amount of vegetative cover on the land. Together, these factors contribute to
microclimates upon which fish and wildlife depend, especiatlyc1imate-sen:sitive species sueh as
amphibians. Even the quality of the soil (biologi~ chemical, and physical properties) is
influenced' by climate, thereby inOuencing conditions for both plants and animals.
Shade
For freshwater systems, shade plays an. important role for regulating water temperature, which
can intluence the survival of aquatic organisms-(Besdleta et al. 19a7). Unlik.e the influence on
small streams and rivers, a shaded fi:iD;ge' along.coastal or estuarine waters is not likely to have
mueb influence- on marine water tempe:ratures. However, solar radiation (which leads to
increased ~'and desiccatkm:) has 100gbe'en recognized as one of the classic limiting
fitctors for upper:intertidal orptim1. mid plays an important role indetennining distn"bution,
abundance, and species OOlfiposition (Calvin and Ricketts 1968; Connell 1972; and others).
Foster et aI. (1986)~ in their literal...~U'eviewofcanses of spatial andtempotal patterns fu
intertidal communities found that 1hemost commonly ;reported factor respOlisl"ble for setting the
upper limits of intertidal animals is desiccation. Although the influence and importance of shade
derived-from shoreline vegetation in 1hePUget Sound nearshore ecosystem is not well
understood, it is recognized as a limiting factor to be considered and has prompted investigations
to determine direct linkages- between riparian vegetation and marine org;in;~s. One such link is
the relationship betWeen- shade and swf smelt, a common nearshore forage fish found throughout
the Puget Sound basin (see Penttila 20t)1).
Nutrient Inputs
One of the characteristics that make estuaries so productive is that they act as sinks for nutrients
derived from upland and marine soorces. Estuarine ecosystems have a functional dependency on
capturing and processing organic matter to support detritus-based food webs. Furthermore, this
function is dependent upon the right kinds and appropriate levels of organic nutrient input. The
primary source of nutrients in the system is derived from primary producers (i.e., aquatic and
terrestrial vegetation, phytoplRnkmn). Alterations of intertidal and subtidal areas by dredging,
:filling, diking, ovetwateJ: structures, and shoreline armoring have had a dramatic impact on the
sources of manne wetland and other aquatic vegetation (i.e., eelgrass, algae). Likewise; upland
development has greatly reduced the amount of vegetation and nutrients available to the marine
system. In their assessment of shmdine armoring effects on selected biological resources in
Puget Sound, Shreffler et al. (1994) noted that increased beach erosion caused by shoreline
12
armoring. can convert the beach :from a system that shows net accumulation of organic matter to
one that shows net loss of organic matter on an annual or seasonal basis. Organic matter is
essentially stripped from the beach, or no longer accumulates as a result of the increased energy t
lowering of the beach profile and loss ofintertidal area due to the placement ofarmoring. Their
assessment also illustrates that armoring results in a direct loss of riparian vegetation, alterations
of sediment input, deposition and retention, nutrient flux, species assemblage shifts and
ultimately, negative effects on aquatic ~i!ml~ sach as forage fishes, sa1moni~ clams, crabs,
and other invertebrates. The loss of organic matter, shifts in species assemblages, and reductions
in benefits of shoreline vegetation: as a result of shoreline atmoringhave been identified in
nUIilerous studies and reports (see Sobocinski 2003; Broadhurst 1998; MacDonald et aI. 1994;
and Kozloff 1974; for ~mies ami references). Yet, little attention, and fewer studies have
attempted to quantify the cumulative impacts of such losses.
Fish Prey PnHIuetion
Although a number ofstodies have identified functional linkages between riparian areas and
marine aqiJatic systems, a limited Dmnber of studies have established direct linkages between
speeificprey resources derived fromrlparian vegetation and marine fiShes. A number of studies
have identified the divemity, abundance, and distribution of insects in marine environments
(Cheng 1916), someOCGUttingh1li1'lbdsofkilonieters offshore (Harren and Holzapfel 1966) and
serving as prey to some of the most mdikely teleost predators (e.g., midwater fishes, such as
myctophids [1antemfishesD (Craddock 1969). Of the dietaIy studies of marine fishes that were
reviewed for this rep0If, it appearstbat salmonids may benefit most from rip.arian vegetation.
. The direct input of:insect prey from riparian vegetation for salmonids in freshwater systems has
been wen documented. However, the importance of insect fallout from riparian vegetation in
juvenile salmon (and juvenile' and adult cutthroat trout) di~ in the marine environment is just
being realized and may play an impmtant role in early marine survival.
The success of salmon feeding in sbaDowestuarine and marine areas may have an important
influence on the early marine groWth and survival of the fish utilizing these areas for rearing
(pearce et al., 1982). Snc.cessful feeding and growth depends upon the availability of preferred
prey in the right space and time. In 1he nearshore environment, dietary stUdies of juvenile
salmonids have been sporadic, bot have shown interspecific differences in prey selectivity, and
intraspecific differences in space and time. However, for those species of salmonids (i.e.,
cuttbr()~ trout, chinook and chum salmon) known to be most dependent upon shallow nearshore
waters, insects derived from the tdit;Strial environment appear to play an important role in the
diets of these species (Brennan and Biggins unpublished data, in review).
Several studies have shown that chum salmon prey on terrestrially derived insects in northwest
estuaries. Simenstad (1998) found 1hat summer chum collected in Hood Canal preyed upon
insects. In the central Puget Sound Basin, Cordell et aI. (1998, 1999a,b) found that insects were
a dominant prey item in chum stoDlaChs and consisted of chironomid fly larvae, pupae/emergent
adults, dipteran flies, and spiders. The predominance of insectst especially chironomids, found
in these studies is similar to results of chum salmon diets from other estuarine sites (Congleton
1918; Nortbcote et al1979; Shreft1eret al. 1992; Cordell et al. 1997; Fresh et al. 1979).
13
Juvenile chinook salmon have also been shown to prey upon insects in the Puget Seund
nearshore and other estuaries in Washington State. Insects were identifie.d as a significant
dietary component ofjuveni1e chinook collected off of Bainbridge and Anderson Islands by
Fresh et al. (1981). Miller and Simenstad (1997) found that insects (cbironomids and aphids)
were the most important prey items for juvenile chinook at created and natural channels in the
Chehalis River estuaIy. Studies by ConIell et al. (1997, 1998, 1999~b) have shown sinillar
results in juvenile chinook salmon diet stndies, but have also shown prey species variability
between years and seasons studied in die Duwamish and Snohomish River estuaries. The .
importan&e'ofinsectsinjuvenilec1rinook diets is also supported by studies in the: Fraser River
estuary (Levings et aL 1991, Levfugs et aI. 1995)~ the Nisqually estuary (pearce et al. 1982), the
Puyallup' RiverestoaJ:y (Shreffler et at 1992), the Nanaimo estuary (Healey 1980)~ and the
NusquaIly Reach 8l'ea.ofPuget Sound (Fresh et al. 1979). More recently,juven11e chinook
salmon stomach contentS analyzedtmm beach seine samples collected throughout King County
shorelines in Central Puget SOUnd indicate a preMnrinance of terrestrial insects in their diet
(King County, DNRP~ unpublished data).
Habitat StructluelLWD
Riparian vegetation and larg~ woody debris (L WD) provide a multitude of functions in both
aquatic ecosystems and riparian fotestS. One of the primary roles of vegetation and LWD is
habitat structure~ The role and importance' ofL WD in freshwater lotio systems has been well
dooumented and,has led to increasing efforts to utilize L WD for bank: stabilization and habitat
restoration (e.g., VIDF9/ 1998; JA~. and StypuIa 1993). Coarse woody debris is also an
important part of estuarine and oceanic habitats; from upper tidewatet of coastal rivers to the
open ocean.surfaceand the deep sea: lloor (Gonot et al. 1988). The ecological functions of
riparian vegetation and' wood in the estuarine environment are much the same as those in
freshwater systems, but matiy oftbe wildlife species, and most of the fish species that have direct
and indirect dependency upon riparianfonctions are diff'erent. Stmctura11y, L WD provides
potential roosting, nesting, refuge, and foraging ()pportunities for wildlife; foraging, refuge, and
spawning substmte tOr fishes; and, foraging, refu~ spawning, and attachment substrate for
aquatic invertebrates ai1d algae in 1hemarinelestoarine environment. As the source of this
material has diminished, the maily flmctionsprovided to fish and wildlife have likely dimini~hed
as wen. The importance ofL WD to aquatic orf?l1limng is variable and highly dependent upon its
location. Logs high in the intertich'dmay beeome imbedded and alter deposition patterns of
organic litter, or beach wrack (vegetation derived from both aquatic and upland sources), and
sediments that support diverse assemblages of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates. Logs may
also become waterlogged and provide substrate in intertidal zones. Vegetation and woody debris
also provide refugia for fishes. In addition, L WD that is dropped onto beaches from adjacent
riparian areas, or is deposited during high tides, has an influence on sediment transport and
deposition. Some logs are transient:, while others may become imbedded and serve as effective
traps for sand and gravel As sedimeo1s accumulate, back beaches, berms and spits may be
created, which are typically colonized by dune grass, beach rocket, and other plants tolerant of
the conditions found in this zone (Le., halophytes). The logs retain moisture that becomes
available to dune plants and plays an important role in their establishment and survival.
14
MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
Lands next to the water are ftmdamen1al to the livelihood of many species of plantS and Animals,
including humans (NRC 2002). Despite recent advancements in science and the development of
new assessment, restoration, educational, and other manag~ent tools, coastal areas lack
adequate protection standards and continue to be degraded. Human poptdation growth and
poorly designed oroUlJI'e3Ulated development practices have taken a serious toll on marine
nearshore resources. While much wmk bas been done to advance our knowledge of the
functions and b'e.nefits of riparian aieas for streams and wetlands, resource managers have
neglected the ecological itnportanceof.marine riparian: ateas-. For example, although
Washington State has recogJIi7.ed tbeecological importance and social values of shoreline areas
(ie., Shoreline Management Act)~ marine riparian vegetation and associated functions are not
specifically recognized, or protected. Much worlc needs to be done to advance our knowledge
and improve m;:im~emelit of marine tip.arian areas as part of coastal management strategies.
Numerous approaches have been developed for resourcemanag.ement, and while the followfug
list is not comprehensive, it identifies some of the important approaches that will be needed for
improved management of marine riparian areas. 0
1) First, resource managers must recognize that riparian systems are an integral part of
marine nearshore ecosystem&. The varied functions and benefits must be identified and
evaluated at the appropriatetcmpotal and spatial scales. In addition, mAnagers must
recognize problems associated with the modification, degradation, and fragmentation of
marine riparian areas. This involves an understanding of the implications and
consequences of Dianagement actions or inaction.
2) Inventory and assessment is essential to understanding the extent and composition of
marine riparian areas. Many of the tools used to map and evaluate riparian areas could be
transferred from studies of freshwater ripariaIi systems.
3) Best available science should be used to guide development of management actions and
policies.
4) A multidisciplinary approach should be used in any management strategy. Due to the
complex nature of marine riparian systems, no single discipline would be qualified to
provide a complete understanding of functions and benefits.
5) Managers should use long-temJllarge--scale perspectives to address the scale and
complexity of marine riparian systems.
6) Public education and outreach should be incorporated into the management strategy to
achieve public recognition and support for management actions.
7) Develop a "toolbox" of appiuacb.es to increase knowledge and develop effective
management actions. It is unlikely that any single tool will result in successful
management of natural resoun:es. In addition to approaches listed above, the use of
models, research, and emerging technologies should be considered for advancing our
knowledge and improving management actions and outcomes.
MANAGEMENT ACfIONS
Management actions involve the application, or implementation of the various strategies
developed for m81lagmg coastal ecosystems and resources. The goals and objectives of
management actions should seek to protect and restore riparian areas to maintain and improve
15
ecologicid functions for improving sqsbIinability and productivity for the benefit of current and
future generations. There are many alterna1ives to protection and restoration, including active
creation, reclamation, rehabilitation, mitigation, replacement, enhancement, mid naturalization
(NRC 2002). Passive approaches ate also effective and include removal of human disturbances
and curtailing land use activities that prevent recovery. In general, however, multiple actions
taken in concert are most likely to result in successful outcomes. In addition, a precautionary,
more conservative approach should be taken when faced with uncertainty. The most commonly
.' used management actions are listed below.
1) Fill the ~lbox" and use multiple tools for evaluating, regulating, and restoring riparian
areas. Data gathering to:fill gaps in knowledge and inform other actions is an important
:first step. for detemrining ~gprlate" defensible actions.
2) Use regulations to limit, or p.Rvent degradation and loss of riparian functions and
benefits.
3) Enforceregulations. Regul-.ions are useless unless management agencies have and are
willfug.to usefhe auth'01ity1o'pmt~ct riparian areas.
4) Use buffers. Buffers are an etli.cient and cost-effective tool for protecting uplandlriparian
and aquatic ecosystems. A buffer is defined as a horizontal distance separating a coastal.
feature or tesonrce from hlJ1llan activities and withinwbich activities are typically
regulated or controlled (i.e.,.Iinrited) in order to protect there&ource or minim17.e the risk:
ofereating a coastal hazatd. BUffers widths are typically based upon. the desire to
maitttaina healthy "separation zone" and, are determined by their functions and benefits.
S) Use setbacks~ While not as ~e 3S' bufCers, setbacks do provide some measure of
protection. A setback is c:lefined as a distance landward of some coastal feature (e.g.,
OHWM) within. which certamtJpes of stmctores or activities are prohibited (NOAA
1998).
6) Identify and protect lmdistodJedmarine riparian areas. Depending upon their condition,
these areas may serve as a id"Cilt;ncc for deVeloping an improved understanding of marine
riparian functions and, if intact, provide for functions lost in distuibed areas.
7) Restore marine riplirian. areas whenever and wherever possible. Considering that there
are many restotation opti~ as stated above, a long-term and large-scale approach
should be used to aehieve reStmation goals.
8) Develop and implement pubficedUcation and outreach programs that recognize and
restore marine riparian areas. Education, outreach and public involvement is critical to
the acceptance, participatiOtl; and compliance with other management actions.
In consideration of past practices and the impending threat to coastal ecosystems from human
population growth in coastal areas, immediate actions are needed. Marine riparian areas need to
be accotmted for in resource management planning from the local to national scale. This will
require large-scale collaborative efforts and the, dedication of resources by management agencies.
In addition, protection and restoration actions will need to occur at all temporal and spatial scales
(i.e., from local to regional-scale projects over extended periods of time. Further neglect can
only result in additional degradatiOD and loss of marine riparian and neprshore marine
ecosystems.
16
LITERATURE CITED
Broadhurst, G. 1998. Paget Sound nearshore habitat regulatory perspective: A review of issues
and obstacles. Puget Sound/Georgia Basin Environmental Report Series Number 7.
Cheng, L. (Editor). 1976. Marine insects. Elsevier Press, New York.
Clar~ J., Banta, J.S.,and Zinn, J.A 1980. Coastal Environmental Management guidelines for
conservation of resources and protection against storm haz8rds. Council on Environmental
Quality, washingtoti, D:C.
Congleton, J L. 1978. Feeding p:dfetmJ of juvenile chum in the Skagit River salt marsh: In: Fish
Food Habits Studies. lit Pacific Nmthwest Technical W()rkshop~ Workshop Proceedings,
Washiilgton Sea Grant, WSG-WO-77-2. Edited by C.A. Simenstad and S.J. Lipovsky.
University of Washin~ Seattle.
Cordell, J.R., Tear, L.M. Jensen K.,. and Luiting, V. 1997. Duwamish River Coastal America
restoration and reference sites: Results from 1996 monitoring studies.. Fisheries Research
Institute publication FRI-UW-9609. University of Washington School of Fisheries, Seattle.
Cordell, J.R., Higgins,'H., Tanner, C.,and Aitkin, JX. 1998. Biological status offish and
invertebrate assemblages in a ~e wetland site, Spencer Island Fisheries :Research
Institute publication FRI-UW-98&5'. UniversityofWashingtoli School of Fisheries, Seattle.
Cordell, J.R., Tear, LM., Jensen, K. and Higgins, B.A. 1999. Duwamish River Coastal America .
restoration mid reference sites:. Results from 1997 monitoring studies. Fisheries :lesearch
Institute publication FRI-UW-9903. University ofWashlngton School of Fisheries, Seattle.
Cordell, J.R., Tanner, C., and Aitkin, IX. 1999. Fish assemblages and juvenile salmon diets at a
breached-dike wetland si~, Spencer Island, Washington 1997-98. Fisheries Research Institute
publication FRI-UW-~05. University of Washington School of Fish eries, Seattle.
Craddock, J.E. 1969. Neuston fishing. Oceanus 15:10-12.
Desbonnet, A, Pogue, P., Lee, V., and Wolff, N. 1994. Vegetated buffers in the coastal zone: A
snmmary review and bibliography. Coastal Resources Center Technical Report No. 2064.
University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography, Narragansett, Rhode Island
Desbonnet, A., Lee, V., Pogue, P., Reis, D. Boyd, J. Willis, J., and Imperial, M. 1995.
Development of coastal vegetated buffer programs. Coastal Management 23:91-109.
17
Foster, MS., DeVogelaere" A.P.,HmoId, C., Pearse, J.S., and Thurn, A.B. 1996. Causes of
spatial and temporal patterns in rocky intertidal communities of Central and Northern
California Volume 2. U.S. Dept Jnt OCS Study MMS 85-0049. '
Fresh, KL., Rabin, D., Simenstad, C., Salo, E.O., Garrison, K.. and Matheson, L. 1979. Fish
ecology studies in the Nisqually Reach area of Southern Puget Sound, Washington. Fisheries
Research Institute publication FRI-UW-7904. pniversity of Washington ,s~hool of Fisheries,
Seattle.
Fresh, KL., Cardwell, RD., and Koons, R.R. 1981. Food habitats of Pacific salmon, baitfish,
and their potential competitors and predators :in the marine waters of Washington, August
1978 to September 1979. Washington Department of Fisheries Progress Report No. 145.
Seattle.
Gonor, JJ., SedeR J.R. and Benner, P A 1988. What we know about large trees in estuaries, in
the sea, and on coastal beaches. In From the Forest to the Sea: A Story of Fallen Trees. Edited
by C. Maser, R.F. Tarrant, JM. Trappe, and J.P. Fr:mklin, USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech~
Rep. PNW-GTR-229.
GrofDnan, P.M., Gold, AJ., Husband, TJl., Simmons, RC., and Eddleman, WR. 1990. An
investigation into multiple uses of Vegetated buffer strips. Final Report NBP-9044,
Narragansett Bay I?rojecl University of Rhode Island, Department of Natural Resources
Science, Kingston, Rhode Island
Harrel, J.C., and Holzapfel, E.P. 1966. Trapping air-borne insects on ships in the Pacific. Part 6.
Pacific Insects 6: 33-42.
Healey, M.C. 1980. Utilization of the Nanaimo River estuary by juvenile chinook salmon,
Onchorhynchus tshawytscha. Fishery Bulletin 77:653-668.
Karr, J.R., and Schlosser,IJ. 1977. Impact of nearstream. vegetation and stream morphology on
water quality and stream biota. U.s. Environmental Protection Agency publication EPA-
600/3-77-007. Washington, D.C.
Karr, JR. and Schlosser, I.J. 1978. Water resources and the land water interface. Science 201:
229-234.
Kittredge, J. 1948. Forest influences: The effects of woody vegetation on climate, water, and
soil, with applications to the conservation of water and the control of floods and erosion.
McGraw-Hill, New Yark.
King County. 1987. Wildlife Habitat Profile. King County Open Space Program, Deparbnent of
Natural Resources, Seattle, W A
18
Knutson, KL., and Naef, V L. 1997. M3nagementRecommendations for Washington's Priority
Habitats: riparian. Washington Dq,aatwent ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia.
Kozloff, E.N. 1974. Seashore Life ofPoget Sound, 1he Strait of Georgia, and 1he San Juan
Archipelago. University ofWashiDgton Press, Seattle.
Lee, V., and Olsen, S. 1985. Eutrophication and management initiatives for 1he control of
nutrient inputs to Rhode IslandcoastaJ lagoons. Estuaries 8:191-202.
Levings, CD., Boyle, D.E., and Whitehouse, T.R. ]995. Distribution and feeding of juvenile
Pacific salmon in freshwater tidal creeks of 1he lower Fraser River, British Columbia. Fish.
Manag. Ecol. 2:299~308.
Levings, CD., Conlin, K. and Raymond, B. 1991. Intertidal habitats used by juvenile chinook
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) rearing in 1he north arm of the Fraser River estuary.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 22: 20-26.
Lorance, R.R., Vellidis, G., Wauchope, RD., Gay, P., and Bosch, DD. 1997. Herbicide
transport in a mAnaged riparian: furest buffer system. Transactions of the ASAE 40: 1047-
1057.
Lorance, R., Altier, L.S., Newbold, J.D., Schnabel, R.R., Goffman, P .M, Denver, J.M, Correll,
DL., Gilliam, J.W., Robinson, J.L., Brinsfield, RB., Staver, K.W., Lucas, W., and TOdd, A.H.
1997. Water quality functions ofriparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds.
Environmental Management 21: 687-712.
Manashe, E. 1993. Vegetation Management A guide for Puget Sound bluff property owners.
Shorelands and Coastal Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology
Publication 93-31. Seattle.
Miller, J.A. and Simenstad, CA. 1997. A comparative assessment of a natural and created
estuarine slough as rearing habitat fur juvenile chinook and coho salmon. Estuaries 20: 792-
806.
National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Riparian areas: Functions and strategies for
ml\1lagement, Report of 1he National Reseai:ch Cmmcil. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
Northcote, T.G., Johnston, N.T., and Tsumura, K.. 1979. Feeding relationships and food web
structure of lower Fraser River fishes. Westwater Research Center Tech. Report 16.
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
19
Pearse, T Af Meyer, J.H.,and BoomerltR.S. 1982. Distribution and food habits of juvenile
salmon in the NisquaIly es1:uarylt Wasbin:gton, 1979~1980. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Technical Report. United States Depadment of the Interior, U.S. Fish and W'J1dlife Service
Fisheries Assistance Office, Olympia, Washington.
Pennings, S.C., Stanton, L.E., and Brewer, J.S. 2002. Nutrient effects on the composition of salt
marsh plant COIIltnunities along the Southern Atlantic and Gulf cOasts of the United States.
Estuaries 25: 1164-1173.
Penttila, D.E. 2001. Effects of shading upland vegetation on egg' survival for summer-spawning
surf smelt, Hypomesus, on upper intertidal beaches in Northern Puget Sound. In Proceedings
ofPUget Sound Research, 2001 Conference. Edited by the Puget Sound Action Team,
Otympia, WA
Rein, F A 19~. An economic analysis of vegetative buffer strip implementation. Case study:
Elkhotn Slough, Monterey Bay, California. Coastal Management 27: 377-390.
Ricketts, E.F., and Calvin, J. 1968. Between Pacific Tides, 4th ed. Stanford University Press,
St3nford, CA.
Sbreft1er, 'OK., Simenstad, CA., and Thorn, R.M. 1992. Juvenile salmon foraging in a restored
estuarine wetland. EstlJaries 15:204-213.
Shreftler, DX., Thom, aM., and MacDonald, K.B. 1994. Shoreline armoring effects on
biological restl11rces and coastal ecology in Paget Sound. Coastal Erosion m9l1agement
Strategy. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
Simen:stad, CA 1998. Appendix A: Estoaiine Landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of
Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions. In Hood Canal/Eastem Strait
of Juan De Fuca summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan, March, 1999. University of
Washington School of Fisheries,. Seattle.
Short, F.T., and Burdick, DM. 1996. Quantifying eelgrass habitat loss in relation to housing
development and nitrogen loading in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estuaries 22: 730-739.
Wenger, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent and
vegetation. Office of Public Services and Outreach, Institute of Ecology , University of
Georgia, Athens.
USEP A 1993. Coastal nonpoint pollution guidance. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office ofWet1ands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington, D.C.
20
DISCUSSION (SESSION 1; LEVINGS AND BRENNAN COMBINED)
Questions were taken after bo1h presentations were given in the first session. Discussion
. regarding the nature of food webs in the sopralittoral zone included questions about the nature of
detritus, as well as an interest in any documentation regarding microorganism activity in the
seaward snbstrate~ There was also interest in the relative role of insects in beach detritus.
Detritus was identified as potemiaDy any decaying material, but that constitutiiJ.g typical 'wrack' .'
was thought to be the most common.. There was indication that some 1iteratore regarding
microorganism. distribution :in beach soils does exist. A question was asked about invasive
species in the marine sopralittoral zone, and the presence of introduced plant species was
indicated in both Howe Sound and in Barkley Sound, BC. The nature of the former was
regarded to be of a planted natme, and incbided RngliSh ivy and holly, whereas the latter were
ident.ified as escaped species, established around the Sound, and likely further. Purple loosestrife
and Spartina spp. were identified as taxa that are invasive and established in the'MR of the west
coast of North America:.
It was noted that it is important to be able to distinguish the relative role of upland areas in
estuarine from non-estoarine areas in contnlmting terrestrial arthropod subsidies to marine food
webs. Further discussion snggested 1hat known life histories of fish species could be used to
work this out, and 1bat another ci[)proacb. would be to induce a disturbance in one or other of the
systenIs, coupled with diet observations to examine any possible . change.
A question was raised about the eifecIs. of vegetation buffer strips on grOlDld water flow in the
MR., and it was said that to examine this issue a study is currently being conducted in the Hood
Canal by the United States GeolOgical Survey.
It was noted that the dissection of the MR into several different zones is a useful exercise but that
the MR also needs to be considered in a holistic sense in order to account for multiple. processes
occurring across differeiIt sub-zone&. Lastly, there was an enquUy regarding the known intrusion
of seawater into upland soil strnctores to which no one could provide any known reference.
21
Physical Processes Affecting the Marine Riparian Zone and Associated Classification
Rationale
John Harper
CoasIal and Ocean Resources Inc.
214 -9865 W. Saanich Rd.
Sidney, BC V8L 5Y8
The ''marine riparian zone" is taken as that area:from approximately the elevation of mean high
water level to the limit of fully-developed terrestrial vegetation (after Levings and Jamieson
2001). A Variety of atmospheric, teuestrlal and marine processes affOOt (a) the extent of this
zone and (b) the associated assem:bbaP of veg.on. Near the coast, terrestrial vegetation
communities. are modified by marine jitoCesses, creating a unique coastal vegetation ftiiige '~r
transition zone.' Unmodified terr~ assemblagc$ are represented as. part ofbiogeoclimatic
regiOllS" in British COlumbia, but thecoastaI:fringe of the Diati.ne riparian is poo:r1y characterized
Substrate is considered one of fhe:V-,~~'~ factors in detenninin:g marine riparian vegetation
wheremcky. shorelineS are stable bDtfiica11y have poorly developed soil;, sediment shorelines
may have 'bt#erdeveloped soil Ji~butcan be unstable, depending on wave exposure and
other coastal processes... Wave exposiJrc levels at the shote are very important in detetmining the
marine riparian height and width whete high exposure shores typically have high and wide
marine riparian: zones and low exf1OSllL'e shores typically have very narrow zones. Wave
exposure is seen as the key factor ~g terrestrial vegetation overhang,.of the intertidal zone.
Coastal stability is also an importalit factor influencing. marine riparian:. Rapidly eroding,
sediment shores are dominated bymass-wastingprocesses{slides, slumps, surface wash) and the
marlne riparian is typically bare. Sediment shotes eroding at lesstbatt 30cmlyr may develop
parttalto complete ve~(jn covcrinthe marine riparian; erosion may often be episodic,
however, with resttltilig temporal arid spatial variation in the marine riparian vegetation. Stable,
soft sediment shorelines often have the most stable vegetation community. Accretional shores
typically have unique oolonizing assemblages that may be modified by episodic changes in
sediment supply and accretion rates.
A physical classification framework is, developed as a focus for discussion (see below).
Important factors included in this trial classification are: biogeoclimatic region, substrate type,
coastal relief, wave exposure and shoreline stability. The classification defines physical units to
which vegetation assemblages or profiles (based on observations) would be assigned. Such
biophysical units can be mapped and might be useful as a resource management or public
awareness tool.
22
Biophysical ClassifiGation of Marine Riparian/or Discussion Purposes
Substrate Relief
~ ." sare
High
Med
Low
High
Moo
Low
High
Bedrock
Low
High
High
Med
Low
Sediment
High
Low
Moo
Low
M.ttdifi...., . ,'. ..fl................
'. '. , ..~ ........ll"'T~
. ." ers. _1:"........ .\;IV JiLL AUp....
Stabili
Siable
.Stable
S1a1:Jle
S18tIle
Stable
$~t~
EmS1ona1
Stable'
EroSional '
Stable
Ems.ioI1a1
S~J~
Sti!bte
A~
~
d~'i
,.~~~
A.~~..1.. .
~"'~~":>:
Riparian
(Jj
Veg.
Cover
Bare
Partial
Heavy
Bare
Partial
Heavy
Veg..
Overhang
no
some
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
some
some
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
Mass-Wasting
none
none
none
none
none
none
slides
slides/smface wash
slides
slideslsurfuce wash
slides
smfacewash
none
none
none
none
none
none
3
4
5
6
7 Bare
8 Partial
9 Bare
10 Partial
11 Partial
12 Heavy
13 Partial
14 Heavy
15 Partial
16 Heavy
17 Heavy
18 Partial
1 Harper, I.R, Austin, W.T., Morris, M.C., Reimer P.D., and Reitmeier, R 1994. A biophysical inventory oftbe coastal
resources in Gwaii Haanas. ContractR.eport by Coastal & Ocean Resources Inc. of Sidney, BC for Parks Canada,
Calgary, AD.
EDITORS'SUMMAlty
The clasSification regime given at the end of the author's abstract is a typical example ofthe
approach advocated in his presentation. The extent to which the existing Biogeoolimatic
Eoosystem ClassificatiOn (BEe) can be used as a template for shoreline classifications is
mdmown, though the DEC apprQach was: clearly identified as an: important fdunework for
consi~on. The autborrepQrted1fiat1he westcOast of North America.has a variety of
shotetine, suh~ m.ptittcipa1lJ-1O the tectonic and glaciaHy indUced geologic'diversity
found in thewestem CotdilIeras. Since.substrate is one of the primary fitctorsdetetnrinfug
'types' m the BEe classifidon systIm1, the geologica.1. history of the west coast was implicated
as the _esis. of sbOteliDe biop.hy.si~l diversity. The author reported that extensive shoreline
mappittghas been petf'ooned. in BC" Wasmngton State, and in Alaska, though because of the lack
of a good anmogqe:(or BEe in the US, that particular classification approach has not been used
there. Intertidal 'biobands' were UUhl:ated to beusefi:d classification features consisting.of the
lichen and associated eoJQ1ii~Tlg:ftota*sident on rocky shores between the terrestrialveg~on
fringe ami tb-eso-called 'stormbigJrwater lirie'. These can be'videotaped during.flight and later
inventoried. The claqification system. likely has a diverse array of applications but includes the
additional featote ofbeing able to-indicate shoreline erosion and accretion potential, fi1ci1itating
safety and hazard assessment dmingshoreline development.
LITERATURE t:J'J'JW
Meidinger, D., and Po.Pu', J. 1991. Ecosy.stem.s of British Columbia. Province of British
Columbia Special Report Series DO. 6. Victoria, British Columbia.
DISCUSSION
There was discussion about an existing classification scheme for biophysicai classification
further inland and whether it eould be applied to the coastline (e.g., the BC Biogeoclimatic
Ecosystem Classification system; see Meidinger and Pojar 1991). The indicated systeIil was
thought not tohaV'e considered, the special conditions at the shoreline, and to be therefore largely
inapplicable. Terrestrial vegetation mapping systems are appropriate models for a biophysical
MR classification system, btJt would have to be modified to. address the specialized vegetation
. and process combinations of marine riparian areas. Examples include extensive dune systems or
very wide spits.
There was some discussion regarding rules to probibit building in the MR, especially when high
rates of erosion are present The question referred specifically to the author's doctDnentation of a
situation in Cook Inlet, Alaska, where warehouses and residential buildings were sited
dangerously close to an obviously erosion-prone bank. The response indicated that Mother
Nature appropriately took care of such cases. It was then said that local landowners were well
aware of the problems and that many buildings had been periodically moved away from the cliff
face.
24
Fish Habitat Values ad Functions of the Marine Riparian Zone
K.L. Sobocinski, J.R. Cordell, and CA. Simenstad
University of Washington
School of Aquatic and FisheIY Sciences
Wetland Ecosystem Team
Seattle, W A, USA
A m~or premise tbat some species and life history types of juvenile salmon require specific
estuarine nursery habitats is poorly substantiated by evidence that these habitats contribute
disproportionately to individuals that survive to recruit to adult populations. While the brqader
contnD1itions of estuaries to the production of certain species and life history types of Pacific
sa:1.mon is, somewhat established, the relevance of discrete estuarine habitats is 1lDI'eSOlved. A
critical issue is whether "habitat dependence" can be interpreted from. either juvenile salmon
abundance or their diet composition when found associated with particular estuarine habitats.
The estuaries and neaIShoremarine shorelines ofPUget Sound are the rearing gJ,'ounds for seveml
species ofPaoific salmon, including seveml stocks of endangered Chiliook sa.hmm. Present
understanding of juvenile Puget sOund Chinook salmon feeding ecology indieatesthat they
.c. . ....... ~~...~_n. l.._____:_ . . . . th . h.lar .
Lotage on' estt:Jaritle :mverteU!~ UIIJliWy, lJWV\i.uung plSClvorous asey reac' . get SIZe.
Relatively little is known about feeding of juvenile coho salmon and cutthroat trout in their early
marine'residence in Paget Sound Most regional juvenile salmon diet data is biased in that it was
collected within estuaries, near river mouths and along shorelines relatively early during
outniigration.
Results from diet analySis- of Chinook, coho, and CUUhroat collected along Puget Sound marine
beaches suggest important food web linkages between the SD1al1est juvenile Chinook salmon and
nearshorebentbiclepibenthic habi_ characterized by their feeding early in the year on
herbivorous polychaete worms and other eelgrass. associated invertebrates (Figure 1).
Terrestriallriparian insects were pllllirinent in Chinook of larger size classes later in the year, and
fish dominated the prey of the largest Chinook salmon. Numerically, insect prey were dominant,
though by weight, marine benthic and planktonic prey were of more importance. Planktonic taxa
such as hyperiid amphipods and decapod larvae were also Common Chinook prey. We note that
the ecology of planktivorous salmOll in Puget Sound is poorly known, and that plankton biology,
predator-prey inter8ct.ions, oceanography, and other environmental conditions need to be better
studied and integrated in order to understand fluctuations in these fish.
Alteration of much of the Puget Sound .shoreline by human activity and development has
probably affected production of tenesbjal/riparian and shallow water benthic/epibenthic prey for
juvenile Chinook salmon, and future habitat restoration efforts should take this into account A
25
study comparing biota at paired beaches{with and without shoreline modifications) showed
benthic invertebrates, such as talitrid amphipods, insects, and collembolans to be significantly
more ab1Jnd~t at natma1 beach stretches. The insect assemblage in nearshore vegetation,
measured withfidlout traps, is higbiy diverse, including over 100 taxa. This study showed taxa
richness to be higher at natural beach sites than at the paired sites with shoreline armoring.
Dominant taxa included: chironomids, other diptemns, talitrids, homopterans, coleoptetans, and
coHembolans, all important juvenile sabnonid prey.
The relative -proportion of sahnODid prey orieinatfn}J in marine shoreline vegetation and the
supratidal zone is unknown. However, shoreline annoring interrupts biotic processes and
decreases abundance and taxa richness in both benthic infannal invertebrate and insect
assemblages in the supratidal zone. The impacts to fish of shoreline modifications are most
profound when they are installed below MHHW (likely reduced foraging opportunity) and where
baekshore vegetation has been removed (reduced input of insect prey). The large scale
cumulative impacts of shoreline modifications and the associated removal of shoreline
vegetation are also unknown, but could adversely affect salmonid rearing in nearshore marine
Mmmm. . '
In determining the importance of the marine riparian zone to foraging salmonids, several data
gaps exist
· Habitat occupation versus dependence
. Point of origin of terrestrial insects
. Bioenergetics of common salmonid prey items
. ~ons between species
. Cumulative impacts of large-scale habitat loss
26
100%
c: 80%
.e
:I:l
i
E 60%
.....8
~.g
1 40%
's:
&
';It 20%
0%
<9Omm 9O-109nm 110-129mm 130-149mm 150-169mm 170+mm
n=101 105 114 61 17 12
6 empty 5 7 2 2 0
7~ 90-109 110-129 130-148 150-169 172-320
mean 81.4 99.9 119.2 137 158.7 216.8
100%
c: 80%
.e
:=
i
E 6()DAi
0
g 0
~ 0
"C:
1)
E 40%
~
C)
;/! 20%
OOAi
<9Ormn 90-109 110-129 130-149 150-169 170+
n=85 188 92 26 4 14
o empty 5 2 1 1 0
72-89inm 90-109 110-129 130-149 155-162 171-354
mean 83.4 98.7 119 135.1 160.3 223.4
. Teleostei .ClJripedla II Homoptera-Hemlptera
. Hyperiidea II Decapod lane . LepldoJjtera
. Mysid-Euphausld-Shrimp . other CIUstacea II other Insecta
. Gammaridea . D1ptera . POlychaeta
. Copepoda II Psocoptera . p1ant matter
. Q;b~ . HyrnertOliera . other
Figure 1. Diet CODiposition (gravimetric) of Chinook salmon collected along P1.iget Sound
marine beaches for 2001 and 2002, from King County, W A study.
27
1i
a>.
.0 'i:j.
;i
~~
';::
s>o~
0 113
(!) c)o
';I. u
~5
0,.
Is
N .........0
0 Sit
0 0
N .II: N '
r! lJ
m
E
:::::: 0- 6'8
f!! II)
0 0 ::::: - '"'
- m 'ifj
z :!:: E
';I. f!! - 0- S
C. C II)
Q$ .c:: - 0
::I 1i. ... o.s
(IJ 0 <:)
.' .. N.a
a-"tS
0 ai
:;::
'c .... .
0)' t'
c
- ~g
c .Y co
m c l+-l~ N
'c 0 o-
m - ~~
0 c. ~
(!) "C: C
m 0
'#. 1ii 1i. "Se
'c II) CD, g ~
-
(IJ c c.
~ "C 'C ' ~6
m m
II) E E.
-
. II . o'fA
..... N
0 ~b/)
0
N ~
~~
o is
0 ~.s
z ':14'
'#. ~i
o ~
1'[
';I. ';I. ';I. ';I. ';I. ';I. ~ ';I. '#. ~ ~ ~ ..fn
g 0 0 0 0 (0 0 0 0 0 0 ~a
0) CD .... co 10' V (f) N ..... o'i
..... 1)
uomsodwoo % '... bO
~~
'0
r;;.s
a~
.... p.
~='
LITERATURE CITED
AttriIl,MJ.,Bilton,D.T.,Rowden,AA,Run<D.e, SD., and Thomas,R.M.1999. The impact of
encrwiclrment and bankside development on thebabitat complexity and supralittoral
invertebrate' cmnml'lnmes of the Thames Estuary foreshore. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
FreshWater Ecosystems 9:237-247.
Beck,M. W., Heck, KL. Jr., Able,K..W., Childers, DL., Eggleston, D.B., Gillanders, BM.,
H:a1pem, D., Hays, C.G., Hoshino; K.., Minello,T. J., Orth, RJ., Sheridan, P.F., and Weinstein
M.P. 2001. The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine
nurseries for fish and invertebrates.. BioScience 51:633-641.
Braziero, A. 2001. Relationship betWeen species richness and morphodynamics in sandy
beaches: what are the underlying Cadms? Marine Ecology Progress Series 224:35-44.
Brodeur, RD. 1989. Neustonic feeding by juvenile sa1monids in coastal waters of the Northeast
Pacific. can. J. Zoo167:1995-2()U7.
Brodenr,RD. 1991. Feeding ecology of and food consumption by juvenile salmon in coastal
waters, wi1h implications for early ocean sUrvival. PhD. Dissertation, University of
Washington, Seattle.
Carefoot, T. 1977. Pacific Seashores. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Colombi:ni, 1., Aloia, A., Fal1aci, M., Pezzoli, G., and Chelazzi, L. 2000. Temporal and. spatial
use of stranded wrack by the macrofauna of a tropical sandy beach. Marine Biology 136:531-
541.
Emmett, R., Lianso, R. Newton, J., Thorn, R. Homberger, M, Morgan, C., Levings, CD.,
Copping, A., and Fidnnm1> P.2000. Geographic signatures of North American west coast
estuaries. Estuaries 23:765-792.
Flemer, DA, Ruth, B.F., and Bundrick, CM. 2002. Effects of sediment type on macrobenthic
infaonal coloni7ation of laboratory microcosms. Hydrobiologia 485:83-96.
Healey, M. 1980. Utilization of the Nanaimo River Estuary by juvenile chinook salmon,
Oncorhyncus tshawytscha. Fishery Bulletin 77:653-668.
Healey, MC. 1981. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: The life support system. Estuaries.
4:285.
Koch, H. 1989. The effect of tidal inundation on the activity and behavior of the supralittoral
talitrid amphipod Traskorchestia traskiana (Stimpson, 1857). Crustaceana 56: 162-175.
McCune, B., and Grace, J.B. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MJM Software Design,
Gleneden Beach.
McGwynne, L., McLachlan, A., and Furstenburg, J. 1988. Wrack breakdown on sandy beaches-
-its impact of interstitial meiofaona Marine Environmental Research 25:213-232.
29
Moulton, LL. 1997. Early marine residence, growth, and feeding by juvenile salmon in northern
Cook Inlet, Alaska. Alaska Fish. Res. Bull. 4:154-177.
Nordstrom, K.F. 1992. Estuarine Beadaes. Elsevier Applied Science~ New York.
Pennings, S., Carefoot, T., Zimmer, M, Danko, J.P., and Ziegler, A 2000. Feeding preferences
of supralittoral isopods and ampbipods. Canstd.ian Joomal of Zoology 78: 1918-1929.
Peterson, M., Comyns, B., Hendon, J., Bond, P., ami Duff., G. 2000. Habitat use by the early
life-history stages of fishes and crustaceans along a changing estuarine landscape: Differences
between natural and altered shoreline sites. Wetbmds ECology and ~em~ 8:209-219.
Polis, G.A., and Hurd, SD. 1996. Linking marine alid terrestrial food webs: Allochthonous input
from the ocean supports high secondary productivity on small islands and coastal land
communities. Amedcan Natoratist 147:396-423.
Russel, R.W., and Wilson, J.W. 2001. Spatial dispersion of aerial plankton over east-central
Florida: aeolian tranSport and cOasdine concentrations. International Journal of Remote
Sensing 22:2071-2082.
Schoch, G.C. 1999. Untangling 1hecomplexity ofnearshore ecosystems: E"amining issues of
sca1in:g and variability in benthic comm'onities. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR.
Shimek, R.L.1992. North Beach high intertidal biota in the area of proposed beach
modifications: sediment innl1'jl1:t and beach-wrack or drift biota. In Larger work submitted to
King COunty Metro, Seattle. Parametrix, Inc., Seattle. pp. 1-67.
Simenstad, CA, Fresh, K., and Salo, E. 1982. The role ofPuget Sound and Washington coastal
estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated functiori. In Estuarine
Comparisons. Edited by V. Kennedy. Academic Press, New York pp. 343-364.
Simenstad, C.A., and Cordell, J.R. 2000. Ecological aSSessment criteria for restoring anadromous
salmonid habitat in Pacific Northwest estuaries. Ecological Engineering 15:283-302.
Simenstad, C.A., Detlrier, M.N., Levings, CD., and Hay, D.E. 1997. The terrestrial/marine
ecotone. In The Rainforests ofHDine. Edited by P.K. Schoonniaker, B. VonHagen and E.C.
Wolf. Island Press, Washington, OC. Pages 149-188.
Simenstad, C.A, Miller, B.S., Nyblad.e, C.F., Thotnburgh, K., and Bledsoe, LJ. 1979. Food web
relationships ofNorthem Puget Souod and the Strait of Juan de Fuca: a synthesis of the
available knowledge.. Fisheries Research Institute, College of Fish eries, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington..
Spalding, V.L., and Jackson, NL. 2001. Field investigation of the influence of bulkheads on
meiofaunal abundance in the foreshore of an estuarine sand beach. Journal of Coastal
Research 11:363-370.
Thorpe, J.E. 1994. Salmonid fishes and the estuarine environment Estuaries 11:76-93.
Zimmer, M., Pennings, S.C., Buck, T.L., and Carefoot, T.R. 2002. Species-specific patterns of
litter processing by terrestrial isopods (Isopoda: Oniscidea) in high intertidal salt marshes and
coastal forests. Functional Ecology 16:596-607.
30
DISCUSSION
There was interest in possible ecological advantages of adding rip-rap in front of armoured
bulkheads to mitigatetlie loss of shallow water. It was said that in some places primary
prodnctiVi.1J might be elevated because of rip-rap placement (though sandy beach has been
shown to be superior in this fashion(e.g. Pomeroy and Levings 1980)); it was'said tbatrip-rap
. migb.t alSo provide good habitat mrpereh and cottid species. uilder these conditions, though
generally speaking the m~orityof authors doing research in this field haveiridicated that the
placement. of rip-rap has an ovendl negative impact on nearshore marine habitat.
There was some doubt expressed about the' strength of infer.ence that can be made :from fish
catches at any given site, given tl1e mobility of most species; specifically, whether catches imply
species-habitat dependence. Discussioo indicated 1liat pink and chum salrtton :fry are. confined to
the nearshore marine habitat upon leaving freshwater environments, but that prey availability is
not necessarily tile fimtor responsible mr thiS. However, it was noted that available data
indicates terrestrial arthropods are ~hwt components of fry diet, and that terrestrial prey
items are associated with nearshore aieaS,. where they are deposited. There was indication that
the present study sampled at several tidal heights to encompass tidal latitude, and that there have
been no observed differences in eatthper unit effort among different species, of salmonid fry in
thisrespeot. It was also said that Chinook, salnion ~e especially opportunistic, with data
suggesting that Chinook diet reflects natural abundances of prey species and Chinook life history
stages.
LITERATURE CITED
Pomeroy, W M., and Levings, CD. 1980. Association an:d feeding relationships between
EOf!ammarus confervicolus (Stimpson) (Amphipoda, Gammaridae) and benthic algae on
Sturgeon and Roberts Bank, F:raser River estuary. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.,37: 1-10.
31
Forage Fish Spawning Habitats
Dan Penttila
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
PObox 1100, LaConner, WA 98257
The occm:rence of a "marine riparian" forest corridor along the backshore zone of a marine.
beach may be a significant positive babitat-qualify element for summer-spawning populations of
the surf smelt (Hypomes7lS), an ~logically-important "forage fish" in the Paget Sound basin.
Surf smelt deposit their dem.w....esive eggs on the surfaces of sand-gravel'beaches,
generally: within the ~w.ost oniHhird of the intertidal zone. Eggs deposited during the
summer mo11ths are vubierable to mass mortality from desiccation and tb.e.tmal stress during their
two-week incubation period. TheO\:Cwlence of shade on the uppermost beach from: overhanging
treeS' appears to increase the.surviVal,Q( surf smelt spawn incubating in the beach substrate
beneath lheut, COlllp$ld with spawn deposits in adj8cent sun--exposed loCations. While
doctu:fiented surf smelt spawning sites 'are protected by regUlation :from the effects of shoreline
development, the preserwtion andfotrkstabIisblilent of shading marine riparian forest
corridors,. very vulnerable to shoreline development activities, are only just now being explored
as c<>nceptS of rational s'ho1reline ntamteement and mitigation. It should be made clear that
overhanging vegetation-induced s1Jadc' appears not to. be a factor in the survival rates of surf
smelt eggs,. or the eggs of the PacifiG sand lance (Ammodytes)~ that happen to be deposited on
upper intertidal beaches in the :ran-winter months, when the threat of excessive thermal. stress is
low. .
LITERATURE CITED
Penttila,. D.E. 2002. Effects of shading upland vegetation on egg survival for summer-spawning
surf smelt on upper :intertidal beach in Puget Sound In 1>rOceedings of the Puget Sound
Research-2001 Conference, February 12-14,2001, Bellewe, W A.. Edited by the PUget Sound
Water Quality Action Team, Olympia, W A
EDITORS' SUMMARY
The author's presentation indicated die distribution of surf smelt to be widespread, to Alaska, but
that spawnin.g locations are very poorly documented in Be. The particular substrate in which
surf smelt spawn was said to be only 5,000 years old, inferred from the developmental age of
sand types after accretion: events on the North American west coast. It is thought therefore that
the shoreline dependence of this species has evolved very recently, but that the adaptive
significance of the development of1his life-histmy strategy is not well understood. There was
emphasis on the importance of shade being restricted to summer versus winter spawning
populations, but that even in sunmiernon-shaded beaches are sometimes populated with viable
32
(. .
eggs. For example, beaches with constant wave action were said to facilitate the burying of surf
smelt eggs several em below the beach surface, were shade, moisture' and temperatu:Ce regimes
assumedly facilitate egg survival. Exeessive organic detritus on beaches was said to be a known
deterrent to egg survival, perhaps via inducing asphyxiation by reducing gas exchange across egg
~. .
DISCUSSION
The role of detritus on beaches and:its incoxporation into beach soils- was queried. The author
stated that detritus does integrate with beach soils but that it might not play important roles
where surf smelt are spawning. The m;ijority oflitte.r input was said to come in the fall and
seems absent during either the winter or sommer spawning periods, suggesting that it is an
unimportant factor. It was also le.ibakd that .vegetation might not be important to beach sites
that harboured winter spawning ado1ts, due to their apparent independence from shaded habitat.
The incubation period for surf smelt eggs was identified to be 4-8 weeks.
There was some iDterest in the knowledge of population ecology of surf smelt; whether specific
spaWning stocks had been identified in British Columbia, and what their spatial distn'bution
might be. The author replied that there was insufficient documentatien to comment on this topic.
There' was further discussion about smf smelt conservation and the impOrtance of a biophysical
mapping regime proposed by John Harper, given that substrate are important factors. The author
noted that evaluation of surf smelt habitat should take into account the fact that even on beaches
with vegetation, viable eggs are often detected in non~shaded locations. Discussion then referred
to existing evidence about the effecIs of ultraviolettadiation on egg viability, which was said to
be unstudied. However, the author noted that repeated observations of viable eggs haveb-een
made seVeral em below beach surfaces, indicating 1hat radiation might not be the most important
factor.
Discussion ensued about Puget Sound and shoreline habitat loss, where it was stated that 65% of
the shoreline in the central PS area has already been armoured. A final question was asked about
seasonal variation of surf smelt fecundity, which was said to be unstudied. However the author
noted that observations indicate sOnuner spawning populations deposit higher numbers of egg~
but also experience much higher mCJItality [it was unclear from comments which life history
stage mortality was being referred to].
33
Other (non-fisheries) Ecological Functions and Values of the Marine Riparian Zone
Charles A Simenstad
Wetland Ecosystem Team, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
University of Washington, Seattle, W A USA
Direct and indirect ecological functions of marine riparian shorelines should not be constrained
by a limited focus on just support of ij:nportant fisheries resources, such as juvenile salmon.
Natural marine riparian shorelines not only-provid. unique habitat for non-fisheries associated
species and other ecosystem ~ such as provision and decomposition of organic matter
sources antecedent to n~ore c:letrifus;.basedfood. webs, but also constitute fundamental
ecoto'iie ele.Dients oflarul-margin lan"~s. As.J.and,.watet ecotones, .they are the site of
transiti01iat, steep-gmdients in the ftuxo! material, c;nergy and organisms between the upland
and ne8rshotelai1dscapeeIemei1ts. Thus, sOIIie of1he fUnctions of the adjoining kmdscape
elements ate equaUy contiDg~ on the integrity of this ecotone. However logical and intuitive
these mnctionsmay 00, and how :rnucb: value we may allude to them; we lack scientific evidence
that doc'lJ.1itents the sttetl~ of ~g processes within and. across this eootone. Wh:iIethe
ntiU hypothesis-Ho: there is no SigjJifi.i:ant diflBrence in fundamental ecosystem processes in
the absence of a marine riparian ~em--can probably be rejected with little uncertainty, we
lack th'ekrtowledgo,n~ to estabtish which and'how much anthropOgenic change in marine
riparian attnoutes Cf):iIstitutes a significant deterimation in function. Evidence in support of
'management criteria and tools requitts.plicit experiments and monitoring, the opportunity for
which could be' effectively implemented thro~ many of the nearshore restoration initiatives
now emerging in the' Pacific Notthwadregion.
EDttORS' SlJMMA&Y
The author identified the MR to be among the stronger examples of ecotones, by exln1>iting sharp
changes in species composition arid physical attributes over short distances. The MR was said to
contain dynamic and diVerse features m"intained by constant distmbances, including rapid
recruitment aDd moIality of species and popu1ati~and associated shifts in conditions. Because
of its exceptionally sharp gradients in both abiotic and biotic variables, theMR was indicated to
be composed of several interacting elements that lend themselves to identification at different
scales, including elemental cycles that ate both internal and eXternal in nature. Primary
production was: identified as an important internal feature, supported by evidence of the origins
of organic carbon, indiCating autochlbonous rather than allochthonous cycling. Habitat for all
estuarine species, including those of a non-commercial interest, was said to be influenced by
detrital pools created during primmy production. The entrainment of organic matter by nearshore
transport cells was suggested as one important featote influencing the spatial distribution of
biological activity in the aquatic component of the MR. Processes external to the aquatic
environment were indicated to be primarily those induced on the aquatic by the terrestrial
34
component, including sediment, W'3t42', nutrient, temperature, moisture modulation, and organic
matter input in the form ofIitter fall and arthropods. Sediment movements from upland sources
toward the waterline were said to exist across a natural range of scale from chronic, high
frequency and low intensity toepisodic~ low frequency, and high intensity events. Water fluX. to
the shoreline was suggested to be responsible for non-estuarine delta features, meso-sCale low
sa:1inity plumes, the export of some fJ.pes. oforganio materials, and various forms of nutrient
mediatiGa Structural alternation of tile shoreline was indicated to produces the following
effects: Loss of littoral sediment, waveref1ection and scouring, hydrological impacts, lo$S of
riparian vegetatiOn, passive erosi~ and various forms of cumulative impact resulting ftdin
combinations of these factors. Beach lowering and the alteration of rates of organic matter input
and processing were implicated as two important consequences of these impactS. Additionally,
modification of terrestrial components can produce known barriers to organism dispersal both
along and away from the MR. .
Cultural use of the shoreline was said to be prevalent among aboriginal peoples, including its use
for transportati.on, habitation, foraging and materials gathering. Modern day analogues for many
of these values exists, and the use of buffer zones help to len:d at least the impression of integrity
to an area that embodies an array ofimportant values for most humans.
DISCUSSION
In contrast to terrestrial ecosystems subsidizing marine systems, the extent to which marine
environments can subsidize teIrestrial systems was ask<<l about It was indicated that there were
papers'showing that in. riverine envllumAents marine-derived nutrients originating in salmon
tissues had been shown to influence forest growth, but that isotope evidence for this dynamic in
strictly marine environments was miuing. Studies by G. Polis and others (e.g. see Polis and
Hurd 1996) were referred to, wbieh apparently have shown the influence of marine productivity
on tropical oceanic island communities was significant. This was thought to be a special case
because it involved the activity of ttaltstdal biota foraging in the nearshore environment and did
not indicate any marine-borne mechanism that could promote terrestrial productivity independent
of activity from the terrestrial system..
LITERATURE (;ITlill
Polis, G.A., and Hurd, SD. 1996. I.inking marine and terrestrial food webs: allochthonous input
from the ocean supports high secondary productivity ori small islands and coasta1land
communities. Am. Nat.147: 396-423.
35
Potential for Terrestrial Vegetation to Inftuence Nutrient Subsidy to Non-estuarine Marine
EnviroDlD:ents in Temperate :Ecosystems: Summary Background for Thinlring about
Management and Research Approaches
Jeff Lemieux '
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Science Branch,
WestVancouverLaboratoIy
4 160 Marine Drive
West Vaucouver Be Canada V7V IN6
After temperature and moisture, nutrient availability tends to be the most important factor
regulating the developJ;i1entof teaestiial ecosystems~ Plants play important roles in regulating
the :flew of elements in ecosystems, and can serve as both inhibitorS and promoters of nutrient
subsidy between adJ~t~. In the context of aquatic-terrestrial interfaces, where. mass
and water flow tends, lobe, from upW sources wward water, vegetation com1b:lllu.ties have the
potential ta,intercept.andmodify~ds' moving on and through the soil surface, but also to
coiitributenutrients in thefbim. of alfdChthonous input (litter fall and secondary cOnsumers,
mostly inthefonn oftettestrial attIutJpods). The fonnercase is. most relevant under
circumstaneesof a1ithropagenic ittfIOeilee when upland vegetation has been cleared and birge
amounts of foreign waste, fert.i:liYAa", and other products are befug shed. Vegetation CODllilunities
have the ability to mitig;iW the movement of such materials by directly absorbing compolJ11ds
into plants 1brough grOWth (uptake),:by influencing soil structure such that it better binds certain
componndsto soil pmti:cles (sorption), and by promoting the development of decomposer
communities 1I1at can: 8bstttb and modify soil compounds (sevetal biochemical processes,
including denitrificati011)~ By prohibiting nutrient transfer to aquatic systems under these
circumstances plants prevent excess nutrient loads, which can be overtly toxic to some
orpnimns. and can: al10w others to undergo competitive release and domiimte a biological
community. Typical examples of 1hisare found in aquatic systems that have become' eutrophied
and have consequently experieaced a'signiticant reduction in species richness (pennings et al.
2002;D'Avanzo et aI. 1996). Desbmmet et al. (1995, 1994) and Weng.er (1999) provide a good
review of the literature docmnentiog the use of vegetation to mitigate such effects.
Typically, phosphorous and nitrogen are the primary nutrient elements of concern in upland
runoff, because of their prevalence in fertilizers, sewage and to a lesser extent in detergents
(Desbonnet et al. 1994). These two elements are also the two most commonly cited nutrient
limitations to production in ecological systems (Schlesinger 1997). Phosphorus is a key element
36
beeause of its role in the energy transfer system of almost all living organisms, and its role in
other ubiquitous structures like cell membranes. Nitrogen is a critical component of most protein
synthesis. Both phosphorous and nitrogen exist in several common chemical forms with
different solubility, bindiDg and uptake properties. These different forms .should 1herefore differ
in their response to 1he intlnen:ce of soil and vegetation variables. Despite these differences,
most vegetation'buffers have been shown to be effective at reducing levels of total phosphorous
in soils (see Wenger 1999). The primary known mechanlmt1 for phosphorus removal from water
sources is via binding and restriction to soil particles. However, unless phosphorous is taken up
into plants and exported offsiteby liUerfall, or by anthropogenic harvest, soils should eventnally
become saturated by excessive phosphorous inputs, and begin to leak their contents at higher
rates. For this, reason, vegetation eoiDmunities should not be relied on as the sole tool for
manag;l'lg phosphorous ruDO:ff into aq.uc systems (Wenger 1999). Nitrogen is a slightly
different case in that there exists aprewlent biochemical pathway in soil ecosystems which ,
converts nutritive nitrogen forms to an inert, gaseous form: denitrification can result in net export
of nitrogen to the smrounding atmOsphere (Schlesinger 1997). However, it should also be
possible to ~ 1hese kinds of mechanisms~ There is some indirect evidence that this occurs
under extreme conditions, such as experimental application of sewage doses to the forest floor
(Jordan et al. 1997).
Perhaps because of the different ways in which they are processed, reported rates of phosphorous
removal :from surface and subsurface waters are slightly lower for similar buffer widths when
Compared against those of nitrogen (see Wenger 1999). Soil variables known to affect uptake
rates in plants and soil'mitigation' processes like sorption and denitrification include soil
moiStute, soil age, tempemtnre, panmtmaterial, pH, and available carbon content. These factors
are likely influenced by a variety ofeovironmental factors including the particular species in a
plant assemblage as well as their age structures and smrounding topography. Other important
nutrients that have received lesser study in this regard include potassium, sulphur, labile
carbohydrates, and the so-called cmiCi"ODutrients' such as calcium, and several other kinds of
metals (Schlesinger 1997).
NlJTl(JEN'f SUBSIDY POTENTIAl.. OF TERRESTRIAL TO MARINE SYSTEMS ON
THE NORTHWEST COAST OF NORTH AMERICA
In conditions under which anthropogenic nutrient input is negligible, terrestrial vegetation has
the potentially opposite role in influencing aquatic systeDis: that of a subsidy donor rather than
inhibitor. Terrestrial plants on average shed over 500/0 of their annual carbon accumulation
(Barbour and Billings 2000) and thus are capable of influencing aquatic systems when bordered
by them. Temperate, fresh-water lobe systems are well-known examples of this; because they
are bordered by relatively productive forests that continually recharge running waters With fresh
litter input (e.g. Vannote et al. 1980; Naiman and Sibert 1979). Because of this estuaries are
quite rich in organic content, receiving large amounts of upstream runoff that has undergone a
significant amoutttofbiologica1 processing. A study.ofthe Nanaimo River estuary on southern
Vancouver Island, for example, estimated the annual carbon input from upstream forests to be
roughly four times the total annual productivity for the entire estuary (Naiman and Sibert 1979).
37
The case for non-estumine mariDe shores is less clear. In temperate coastal ecosystems, forests
definitely possess the capacity to enrich aquatic systems, if carbon fixation rates can be used as a
good measure. Some estimates of conifer forest ANPP (aboveground net primary productivity)
on the temperate west coast of North America range around 1800 g C/m2/yr (Franklin and .
Dymess 1973). Bl ~.1ropica1 wet broad-leaf forests have been reported to average
around 800 g Clm Iyr, while estimates for wetlands, boreal forests, and culti'Vated farmland
values are 1300, 430, and 760 g CJm21yr, respectively (reported in Schlesinger 1997). Some
partial-system marine estuary estimates from the west coast of North America range from 237-
68Sg C/m?'/yr, with variation d1ielarge1y to vegetatiOl11ype and location in the estuary
(Nj~himura et at 1996). One reported open ocean NPP estimate is 130 g C/m2/yr, while coastal
zoIies. are estimated by the sameaothor to be nearly doubletbat at 250 g Clm?-/yr (in Schlesinger
1997). Whether 1he shoreline increase is due to the effects of estuaries alone or is influenced by
nOJ1-riverme ter:restdal subsidy is~c1~. Increased pelagic activity at shorelines is also likely
to affect this figure. Marine productivity enhancement due to the influence of terrestrially borne
nutriem loading is potentially si8Jrifi.t, but its ~ation will require the determination of
some difficult information. This includes 1he decay rate and fate of plant and arthropod material
under a variety of shoreline and back$h<<e conditions. It also includes the deterIni1uition of
nutrient liniitation in the marine nearshore system, as well as the nutrient use efficiency of
prevalent primary producers.
OC13 stable isotope evidence from Washington State indicated that autochthonous cycling is
relatively more important to marine carbon fixation diaD. 'allochthonous input, including cases in
both estuarine andnon-estuarine marine conditions (Simmenstad et al. 1985). Still, there is an
unspooified role for ten~ia1 inputto noo-estuarine coastal marine conditions that should be
further quantified to understand :its specific role in littoral and supralittoral environments. The
influence of terrestrial subsidy on marine processes should be greatest in areas ofhighly
reticulated coastline where ratios of shoreline length to water body area are high, where water
depths and volumes are reduced, and where tidal evacuation of nutrient inputs is incomplete.
, These conditions are typical of many areas in the inside passage from the southern coast of
British Columbia through to the Gulf of Alaska.
EFFECTS OF DISTURBANCE
Nearly the entire area of Vancouver Island' has been antbropogenically aforested in the last
century byindostriallogging; a trend that is increasingly prevalent with decreasing latitude
(National Geographic Society 2003). Thus, any realistic consideration of terrestrial subsidies in
southern Canada and the lower 48 United States needs to consider the effects of forest
disturbance. In this region, depending on the particular site, late-sera! 'marine-riparian' forests
are dominated by various mi:xtores of Douglas-fir, western red cedar, western hemloc~ and Sitka
spruce (pojar and M~non 1994). Because ofdle dynamic and exposed nature of many
shores, vegetation is often additionally composed by species that are either distorbanee
specialists or indicators of exceptiomiDy poor growing conditions (pojar and Mackinnon 1994).
These often include various decidnoos species such as red alder, big-leaf maple, willows and
various concurrent shrub and herb Species such as .sala[ Influence of disturbance-oriented
species is often heightened after industrial clearcottiIig, especially when no action has been taken
to promote immediate post-harvest c::onifer regeneration. As a common example, red alder
38
stands typically give way to conifer regeneration somewhere around 40 years, post-harvest in
coastal areas of western North America (e.g. see Balian 2001). During this period such
regenerating forests have 1he ability to contnbute relatively high. nitrogen loads tbrougb.litterfall
due to relatively high foliar nitrogen content when compared with conifers (e.g. see Richardson
et al. 2004). TJ:tis is true too because young trees typically.allocate a disproportionate fraction of
NPP to the photosynthetic apparatus, and because typically stand-level NPP is slightly bigher in
younger, rather than older forests (Mer et a12000; Harcom:be et al. 1990). However, any
model of litter input from terrestrial vegetation must also consider tree heightand the conditions
in the backshore that facilitate wind-driven traIlSpOrt to the water.
The initial replacement of evergreen conifer trees by broadleaf deciduouS also means that annual
timing oflitterfaU input changes from a relatively ubiquitous supply to a seasonal pulse, and that
woody residues have a much shorter'residence fimeott the forest floor and on beaches. Lower
C:N ratios in deciduous boles as well as lower lignin COIltent means that terrestrial decay rates
are much higher for most deciduous species when CODipared against evergreen. conifers (e.g. see
Edmonds et al. 1986). Some autb.orshave implied1hat large, persistent woody structures on
coastal beaches were once much more prevalent than: they are now, and that their roles in
retaining wrack detrims and providing shade for detrltivore COIilmunities must now be
significantly altered (Maser and SedeR 1994; Stembridge 1979); others go on to claim that tree
boles play important roles in deep-Sea foodwebs (fmner 1977; Jones et al. 1976; Kodata, 1958).
Too, it has been suggested that larger and older forest structures bordering beaches should have
important consequences to shorelinepbysfugrapbical development, including dune formation,
and that certain plant species miglltbeparticu1atly dependent on unique moisture conditions at
beach-forest edges (Maser and SOOelll994; Stembridge 1979). All of these factors in some
fashion can be implicated as nutrient changing events brought on by changes in forest structure
following disturbance~ Of course there are many site-dependent pennutations of alternate
vegetation development following disturbances, but many of the dynamics listed above are
factors that should betaken into consideration when thinking about consequences to nutrient
supply in and from the marine-riparian zone.
LITERATURE CITED
Acker, SA., Harcombe, P A., Greene, S.E., and Harmon, M.E. 2000. Biomass accumulation
over the first 150 years in coastal Oregon spmce-hemlock forest. J. Veg. Sci. 11: 725-738.
Balian., E. V. 2001. Stem production dynamics of dominant riparian trees in the Queets River
Valley, Washington. M.Sc. thesis, U. Washington, Seattle.
Barbour, M.G., and Billings, W D. (Editors). 2000. North American terrestrial vegetation, 2nd
ed., Cambridge University Press.
D'Avanzo, C., Kremer, J.N., and Wainright, S.C. 1996. Ecosystem production and respiration in
response to eutrophication in shallow temperate estuaries. Mar. Ecol. Frog. Ser. 141: 263-274.
39
Desbonnet, A., Lee, V., Pogue, P. Reis, D. Boyd,. J., Wtllis, J. and Iniperial, M T. 1995.
Development of coasta1 vegetated. buffer programs. Coastal Management 23: 91-109.
Desbonnet, A., Pogue, P., Lee, V. and Wclff, N. 1994. Vegetated buffers in the coastal zone - A
summary review and bibliography. Coastal Resources Center Technical Report No. 2064.
University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography. Narragansett, RI.
Edmonds, R.L., Vogt, DJ., San.dberg. D.H., and Driver, C.H. 1986. Decomposition of Douglas-
:fir and red alder wOod in clear-eutifugs. Forests 13: 469-481.
FrAnklin. J. F. andDymess,C.T. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. U.SDA
Forest Serv., Gen. Tedm. Rep. PNW-8.
"
Harcombe, P.A., Hannon, ME. andGreene S.E. 1990. Changes in biomass and production over
53 years in a coastal Picea sitchensis-Tsuga heterophylla forest approaching maturity. Can. J.
For. Res. 20:1602;"1610.
Jones, E.B.G., Turner, R., Furtado~ S.E., and Kuhne, H. 1976. Marine biodeteriogenic organisms.
I: LigDicolous fungi and bacteria and wood boring mollusca and crusctacea. Infemational
Biodeterioration Bulletin 12: 120-134.
Jordan, M.F., Nadelhoffer, K., and Fry, B. 1997. Nitrogen cycling in forest and grass
ecosystems Urigatedwitb: ~-emiched wastewater. Eool. A:ppl. 7: 864-881.
Kodata, H. 1958. eeDulose-decomposing bacteria in the sea. In Marine wood boring and fouling
org,miRmS. Edited by DL. Ray. Univemty of Washington Press, Seattle. pp. 332-341.
Maser, C. and Sedell, J. 1994. From the Forest to the Sea: The Ecology of Wood in Streams,
Rivers, Estuaries, and Oceans. St. Lucie Press.
Naiman, RJ~ andSibert,J.R. 1979.Detrltus andjuvenile salmon production in the Nanaimo
Estomy. m. Importance of detrital carbon to the estuarin~ ecosystem. J. Fish. Res. Bd .
Canada 36:504-520. .
,
National Geographic Society. 2003. Pacific Suite: Clayoquot Sound. National Geographic
Magazine 203:104-127. '
Nishimura, D.J.H., Levings, CD., andLesard, J. 1996. Productive indices and probability
curves as tools in the management of coastal and estuarine fish habitat. Draft Report, Habitat
Science, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, West Vancouver, Be.
Pennings, S. C., L. E. Stanton, and J. S. Brewer. 2002. Nutrient effects on the composition of
salt marsh plant communities along the Southern Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United . States.
Estuaries 25: 1164-1173.
Pojar, J., and Mackinnon, A. 1994. Plants of coastal British Columbia. Lone Pine.
40
Richardson, J.S., Shaugbnessy, C.R.., and Harrison, P.G. 2004. Litter breakdown and invertebrate
association with three types ofleaves in a temperate rainforest stream. Arch. Hydrobiol. 159:
309-32S.
Schlesinger, W.H. 1997. Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change. 2nd ed. Academic
Press.
Simmenstad, CA, and Wissmar, R.C. 1985. ~13C evidence of the origins and fates of organic
carbon in estuarine and nearsborefoodwebs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. %2: 141-152;
Stembridge, J.E., Jr. .1979. Beach protection properties of accumuIated driftwood In
Proceedings of the specialty conference on coastal structures 79. ASCE/ Alexandria, Virginia.
1979 March 14-16: I OS2-1 068. :Reprints available from: Coast Environmental Resources
Institute, 1695 Wmter Street S.E., Salem, oregon.
Turner, RD. 1977. Wood, mollusks, and deep-sea food chains. Bulletin of the American
Malacological Union 1916: 13-19.
United States Dept. Agriculture. 1988. From the forest to the sea: A story of fallen trees. USDA
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-G'flt.229 htto:/lwww.fs.fed.uslnnw/pubshrtr229
Vannote, RL., Min~haJJ;G.W., Cummins, K.W., Sedell, J.R., and Cushing, C.E. 1980. The river
continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 37: 130-137.
Wenger, S. 1999. A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer wi~ extent and
vegetation. Office of Public Services and Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of
Georgia, Athens.
DISCUSSION
There was discussion regarding soil type diversity on the west coast, which was identified as a
possible factor in regulati:ri.g teirestrial input to marine systems. NO' speCific indication of the
range of diversity could be given, other than it probably being considerable due to the range of
parent materials available for soil fonnation in the western Cordilleras. Other discussion focused
on the author's statements about the possible role of large wood on beaches in creating so-called
habitat islands. The current versus past source for woody debris on marine shores was discussed
in light of observation that current pieces most often have chainsaw marks and are likely of
smaller diameter now. The role ofroot wads was indicated as another possible feature that has
been lost in modem-day woody debris input, which would have served to anchor pieCes more
firmly to one single spot Habitat islands were identified as moisture, shade, and possibly
nutrient enclaves for organisms living in the probably harsh conditions of th~ marine intertidal
and supralittoral zones. A question was raised about the efficacy of a reported 1 Sm setback
requirement for septic fields to control nutrient input to the MR.. No definite answer was
available from the audience.
41
The role of()ceanograpliic Processes in the Marine Riparhm Zone
(a coasf1il engineer's perspective)
Max Larson, MSc., P .Eng.
Coastal Engineer
Triton ConsultanJs Ltd.
3530 W. 43rdAvenue,
Vancouver,
British Columbia
V6N 3J9
A primary consideration in the establishment of productive supralittoral marine riparian habitat is
the freqnency, duration and~ of its inundation by the sea It is the coastal engineer's role
to quantify physical. processes within the coastal zone to provide a sound footing for the design
of engineering works and for 11lakmff good environmental planning decisiritts. Since the author
has no'professional eXpertiSe in ecology, the present paper deals with those aspects of the
. ". that ' 'fi },' . . . dard ......_...4..., .... . 1..-':.' . t:"\ri--.'f-f";";...
npanan zone . . . &reqqanti.. 1; "IC'UStng stan . ~UIl engmeenng teewU:ques. ,<UWu.LLJ'llLg
those physical parameterS that can be computed with relative confidence will lead to an
improved detinition of the minitnmn riparian buffer width required for prodUctive habitat
purposes. The inland extent of sea effects can be estimated by computing the varioos water level
components shown in Fig. 1.
The riparian zone falls between the oJfshore, which is genetally of interest to the mariner, and
the uplands which a:re of interest to everyone else. Since nautical charts are the moSt extensive
source of offshore bathynietric data, it is importalit to understand how the vertical datum of th~
charts (Chart Datum, CD) relates to vertical datum. of the upland tOpOgraphic maps (Canadian
Geodetic Verticall:>atum, CGVD). Chart Datum on Canadian charts is a tidal datum settoLower
Low Water Large Tides (LL WL T) which is the average of the lowest low waters, one from each
of 19 years of prediction. Chart DatIon on US charts (and US portions of Canadian charts) is a
tidal datum that is vertically higher corresponding to the average of all lower low waters.
Canadian Geodetic Vertical Datum corresponds roughly to Mean Water Level (MWL). Chart
datum slopes between charts and experience has shown it to be a major source of error in coastal
work.
42
a..
I- ::)
:i 2
:JI :l I Itl ~I I t;1 ~I
>; I ~
~ I > 1::1 -' ~I ~I ~I - ~I ~I
a.. ~::! ~
"'S _
rn I >-'1 'C/) II II ~I -' [ -' I
~ I 2 I I I I
~ IWO I I I [
Z.....
"""": -
f I I~~ I -I [ [ I
I IOU I I [ . I
J:::)
,." ...J
....# I.L I [ I I
I I [ [
I I I I g
I [ I I "+:S
~ tf'1
.... "
I I [ I 0
1a
" ~
51 I I ~
t:: .~
~I I I Ji
"d
>1 I I !
S;
~I I I I j
btl
01 I I I ~
a::
.......
;n I I ..0.
'\. ~
., ~ l6 '
~
0
.....
~I I I 1'\1 '6
0
C)
~I I ~ ~[ i~ -
.~
01 I ~ ~\~[ \ .21
II. ~ .CI:l
II>>J I I ~ ii, g\ \ ~
-
I I >[ VI 21 \ ~n
C) (J) C
,.... - ..
....., - V ....
~
Tidal elevations such as higher high water mean tide (HHWMT) and higher high water large tide
(HHWL T) are referenced to chart datum and are computed by applyi1igtheir definitions to
predicted tides using Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) measured tidal constituents or
constituents inferred over much wider areas using numerical tidal models such as that shown in
Fig. 2. '
The:frequency that predicted water levels are at or Dear HHWLT is quite low. Figure 3' shows
frequency curves fot four locations in DC. The.cm:ves are normalized with respect to CHS
published values ofHHWL T. For aD foUr locations; tidal water levels are higher than 900.4 of
HHWL T less than one week per year. Note that the generation of similar curves based on
different seaso~ years, daylight/dark hours, etc. is a straightforward exercise using speCialized
coastal engineering tOols.
Other components affecting water level include wind-induced storm. surge, barometric sorge,
ENSO, wave setup" global climate change and geophysical processes such as isostatic rebound
To'provide some indication.of the magnitude of these effects, water level measurements< from
- .- . . .... ,.. "" -_. -... ~"'. . '4_.. ..... . _ _ .. . ..)Ie, ' ... _ . .'. . ^
rumt i'U&Ul8OIl tl~.') W ..GWl} wep" uom:mea ana: assesseu ill a smmar manner W UIa1 uone lOT
tidal predictions (Fig. 4)~ It is clear that actoa1 water levels are higher than predicted tides, but
that water levels are still higher than HHWL T (in this case 5.1 m CD) less than 10 hours per
year.
ThA tfiff'P.t'Pnp.P. ~. nrPl'1ir.tPJI:smd mPJll:l11rM unatP.l" Ip.vp.lc:r: SIt Pnint A tlcinQiln UTP.I"P. p.nmnntpn
A ~
and analyzed statistically to provide an indicator of the frequency and magnitude of these effects
(Fig. 5). This rather preliminary analysis indicates that a I Di surge in the Strait of Georgia might
be expected once eveJ:Y 10 or 20 years (and not necessarily at high tide).
With the exception of the west coast of Vancouver Island, wave conditions are relatively mild in
most Be waters. Figure () shows the distribution of measured significmit wave height and peak
period at Halibut Bank (in the centte of1he Strait of Georgia). Note that significant wave heights
were measured higher than 2.0 m fOr only 67 hours (less than 0.1 percent of the time).
The way that such offshore waves are modified as they approach the riparian zone can be
simulated using standard wave transformation numerical models such as that shown in Fig. 6.
The marked way that wave heights and directions are modified, particularly in the vicinity of
obstructions, is critical in detemriniog the wave energy incident to the shoreline. Wave models
such as this can be used in conjunction with water level (and current) models such as that shown
in Fig. 7 to map the limit of innnd:tfion.
44
I
I
r
I
I
r
f
r
r
I
I
I
f
I
I
Figure 2. Vancouver Island, British Columbia, showing spatial variation ofM2 tidal height
amplitude.
Ar
"1'-'
I
I
r
r
I
I
r
I
I
I
r
r
r
r
I
I I
r g I
...:
I ~I I I r
I II ~ 1 /I I I r
I I<~'-~II I I J
~ ~ ~'i
. H d' ~ r:::.
I 1+ ++ +1/ I I r
I I I I I . r
I r It) I
QI
'0
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I e I
I I I I :... r
~
....
I I I I I "0 I
c
.,g
I ~ I I ~
u.
-
I I I I . I J r r1:l
~
I I I I I .. r 0
;: 8
I I I I I I .!
R
I I I I I ~
Q)
I I I I 0
In ~
I lID I ~
0
I I I ~.
.:s
I I I CD
....
..3
I I I I I I I 1/ I I ~'
',=
I I I I I I r I I 0
. '1 ~
-
I .. .".. "1.........1.,,... ......1.""....1... ....1.....""1""".,, ~ I ~
....
.. ...... ......... ~
I ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 I F-.
0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0
ClIl CO .... CD It) l') N .... rf")
I .meA.tad S.lnoH I i
....
~
I I
I It) /,
an
r hi I
1 I ~II r
r s ."'=1; I
.....
- It)
I I fll I
I I jll r
r :so. (II) I
c 8
a &ri
r I ~II r ~:
r [ III r ~
. +t
. .S
r L. N r U'
o. p..
~-g &ri I
r lfiJl I fI.l'
0
- ~
E
I I I - r 0
Q ~
(J'
I or; , r _ f
It) .3 ......
r ] I ... I () ~
s ~
~ .....
r I I-il I 0
l>'\
9
I :::J' .... r n
III &ri
III ~
II
"'"
I I I r cE
J:1
r I I ou
....
o -
..r:l '..
~ ~
I .. I
'+1
I I I );I'
s
0
....
I I I u.
0
...
lID Q.
I I ..j I In
~
0
I I ...
"0
e
I r g
"': as
.Y
r ' ""I'" I ~
~ It) 0 It) 0 It) 0 It) 0
(II) (II) N N ..... .....
~
I t.lBA Jeer SlnOllJ ~X31O A:>>uenba.J:I I a
~
i'
I
-
...
o
'C
GJ
n
E
::s
--
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .~
I ~
I .~
I ~
g
I ~
I 1
I ~
I J:f
e
r t
I ~
I .~
I ~
:a
~ I ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~
.... ~ .... ~ .... .... (~);'ns nWJo~ n n n n n n I ~
I ~
00
~
g
o
~~
\
1\ . I I I I I ,. I I I [I I .
I 1\1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I
\;
\
\
\
~
\
IIII~ III I IIIII
I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I
! I I I 1\1 [ I I I I I I I
""1
\
\
1
.,
~.~
~.
1111111~~11111
I I I I I ! ! !'j! ! I I I
I , I
8
~
o
~
0
CDUlCD
NOPlO 0
1""f~t'->... 'r"'I
0\....~1""f Ul 0 0 0 0 0 Ul
CDU)PlU) 0 0
I"- 1""f 'r"'I
0
.
.. .. .. cr.
.. .............. ~
- I I I - C'l 'r"'I 0 0 0 0 ...
I --- II) 'r"'I 1""f
- - 1""f 'r"'I
r-I iii iii .~ 0 cd
"tj. . '60
ft\... ~ ~. j OCD l=;
~. N N ...{ - c3
54 GJ GJ . ... '11) 0\ ... 1""f M 0 0 Ul
GI -iJ .... .rt .. r:: an U) ~
oil' a r:: ... PI 0 M M 'j
aHHU o .rt
HCDlod rot ..aJ
lilt'-> = l7.l
9t.~ .~ g .... .s
.LJ La In \0 In N In n tt\
.;4 E-I E-I Id 0 CD 0 C'l 'r"'I r-I I:"'- .S
E-I'tS'U: &oJ ... ... "0
C'l Pl 0
" .' CD ro . 0 'C
CD .rt .rt rot U) - II)
l:l.
.....IHIH~ "i1 ~ 0\ C'l I:"'- ~
Ii-f .rt ..... 0 CD CD
..... 0 0 .. 0 I:"'- ... N ('I) 0\ 8-
& ,: .: ..... ft. ,n ..... .~ ~
CD ~P.a 0 N N tn
fi
At ti.I IQ .rt ~
." .p Ul
OJ r:: r:: CD i> 0\
i oo::t
a .rt .rt ! ('I) 0\ N 0\ 0 0 (Y)
..... III III 0\ (Y) N 0\ Ul ....
M ... M CD ~
II r:: r:: CD 0 1""f r-I M rrj p
s::~~;:: ... ,
o .rt ..... 0 a:
..... .p .aJ .....
E&&E M CD N 0 0 0 M i
N 0 0\ N
I"- 0 CD Q
0 (Y) ... l:"'- i
CD II II) CD
.a.g.g~ PI ';1
. v v,y ...' "0
0'tS80 0 M 0 0 0 Ul a
PI M ...
IH .rt ..... 'tS r-I M N :i
o 'ftI ftl .rt 0 ('I) Pl 8
Or-l
J.l1> :. N ~
~IH~ a
'g U 1H ~
J.I 0
:Zi J.I CD iii Ul 0 I:"'- 0\ 0 ... PI CD .s
CD ~ ... PI Pl ... \D \D an M 0 rtJ
~1~j .p r-- Pl U) Pl N ... :a
.p 0 0\ ... Ul M M .j
~E-I II) M \D
.p:2i
... !2: 0 :>:
irot ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tQ
.... AI .....aJ . M an 0 an 0 an 0
0.8 ft.-&ii 0 . . r-I \0
0 0 M M N N C'l ~ a
PI 0 ..... -
iii: ...... CD 0
ro:I: E-I ....
~
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I~~~::~~~~~~;~~~~W.~~~. ,
. .r.
I~
I ~
. I ~
I i
I .~
I~
I a
, ~,
I~
~
I ~.
I ~
I ~
11
r i
I ..c
. 0
~
I ~
r g
'J:!
r ;a
's:l
r ~
E;
/. is-
Cf-I
o
ej
:1
'it
'./:3
~
1=l.
rn
o
lI'l
r-
~
....
J::t.t,
The runup of a 2.0 m high wave on various types of shoreline can be computed for various
foreshore. slopes as indicated in Fig. 8. The differences in nmup between the various shoreline
types are primarily attributable to the dissipation of wave energy into the seabed as the wave
~l;;;'-oGS '-. ""t.... .c__t._. 'T'L';' ...#.;..... ...c.. ~......:- ~..=. '......:".. _...-...~.,......~gh..,..._<:o~.:-lam&..,.,
II: .... ~_............~. ..,_'_.....c~.v VU:b:1i1!reJ~J'~'"'''''''' '~." ._ ~. . b'
of an additiooal roughness faCtor. .
The final oceanographic coinponeDt of Fig. 9 is 1he effect of shorelin,e evolution. Baekp:ound for
~~~~~~~:"'S~~.m.1he~~'hN!"p' Ste~.~;~~_J..~~~c~.:== :;-~~~!~!:c=
. . ~.........:........:..,........,.": ........... ........~....,....,~..... ""., "........ .,.
www;.stiwaidsliiricentre~bc..Ca. This documem'descn"bes the vanousshorelii1e'iy.pes that: are .
typiGaI oftbe Be coast such as sandy, rocky shores; bluff, vegetated and antllropogeniCally-
modified shores. The predominant erosion and deposition meeh~iRm~ at work on these
shorelines are described "qualitatively. Coastal geomorphology'sQJ:dieS, in ~njunction with
numerical cross-shore and plan-fonn shoreline ey~1ution' (e~g. Fig.l), can be used to define
mll'lntitativelv tb.~ ~~Ml;,h~Te1i1)e nnmtinn at.~~p' tim~ in th~'fn~lllr.. fjrt.nre "
....... :". .... ". ~ ',. ......... ~.~""'..<- ~.:":;:1.iiI:W""":,'l!.""-'''j~ ........4'I1>.t.~,.:.i:::~._ll'_~'l:~. --. ":..... ..~.~~....... ..;;t.....~ .~:..":'..~ ~"'/P. ..... ..-:, .~-. ~'.~-: '. ._.~:....i."X.. . ....- . ~ ........ ...~..:.4-'..~;.s.....~-.:: -....
m coficl1iSio~stiiridiird cOastal en6neetiIlttecliirii1ri~ can m;'USOO to definetne. i:rPin'iency
. . ." , . .'t.--. ~ ""'1- ,
'duration, intensity and extent of shoreline inundation. These'parameters are COmplex and highly
site specific~ but are calculable and can be used as the defendable basis on which to superimpose
the additional buffer width required to support sustainable ripariail habitat.
LITERATURE CITED
rnstc:ltAl c:lhl\'Mc:ltp.wm'rlVohln - A cmi~ fnr nhninP.'N h11'iMP.'N smrl rlp.vp.lnt\fl!l'q Thp. Stp'Wm'rlqhin
--:--- - - -..---";":-:'-- r ~,~~~.,- r~-' .-..-7..-:--..:~-,.-7' .--::_:-:;'~',,-:"-'-r:-'-'-- ~:.---_..._--, r
Series. Province of British Columbia.wwW.steWardShtpclmtre:bc~Ca. .
51
'''''
I.
I I I
. 1.1 !Il I
J I ~-II I
I I J II I
I I f II I
I I i'll I
I I f!' \I I
r .\ !.~111 I
~o p
.1 I ~!'III I
I I~~~ '1 I
I I I
r I' I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I . I
I Fiil
I ~ I fill
I I ~I
I I I
. I ~ ~ ~
I
~ ~ ~
(w) JqBleH dnunH
I I
II j,a II
II gi II
II h II
II~ni'll
II ~'it. 1....11.
\I ~>Iill
~ illl
II I"~ II
II II
1 I
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I
II
J/
I //1'
I //. I
I . /
,/'
I
rtll
~I
I
L
. ~ r
I- r
r
~ r
I
r
I
l\f r
r
I
~ I
f I
f I
U) !'" I
- I. ~
IE'
2
I ;.El .
e
~ I i
I .~
I ~
I U) I [
M I ~
I .~
I a
~
o I ~
.~ 00 .
I a
~
N
.~
I l
r
I I
, r r ,
1 J
J
J ~ I
!
i'
'iJ ui
.ll I; Q
I' J, ""0'
0
8 :"c a
1e .. G~~..' r ~
a, i; 0
,! -
1 ' ,...
! ! 1 .,a,
~
Q.
I ., a'. _ ia. ... - - . I i:f "
. .' .... . - . - - -
.:. . .. .- .. ... .. - - . a
.. , . . . -: l'f")
I ;.::l ~.
e
q
r 'tJ
e
I~ 0:
fi ~ 'fj
~
r r. ~
~
~
p
~
:Q'.
fI.I
0
0- ~,
,- ~ .E,
l ~
tf;;t,.
:: :e: r -a
e .a-
t J i ! g
II 4)
-
0 ~
r I, I I ~
,g ~ ~
b . b h 0 t't "T
0
~ I I 0\,
1 i i l.U 1 ~
I
'I' l .....
~
DISCUSSION
Discussion focused on 1he ability of coastal engineers to predict the effects of structure removal
at the shoreline. This was identified as an important topic because opposition to removing
structures from shorelines is often made with the argument that they act as stabilizing features. It
was felt that this can be done, but not to 1he resolution of effects across distances of a one-foot
length, which is typieally requested by homeowners.
The ability of engineers to test their models was also raised, and it was indicated that only in
very limited circnm~smc.es has this been formally pussible; i.e~ the majority of quality assurance
comes from an adaptive m3llagement style, where feedback from operational procedures is used
to implbvemodelifig procedures; ,Onc'lnawn formal biUdy was-c&1abllittttd in the Caribbtan '
region to test the accuracy of model predictions. Further questions were directed toward current
technology in using wood and soft armoming in place of concrete and other ~harder' materials to
build shoreline structures. There appaaen.l1y have been no published studies of the success of
these materials QI' any explicit modeting of changes that would be expected by their use as
,cmJ:\.cqjp~,
54
Likely Scaling of BasiD Area with some Marine Riparian Zone Functions
W. Gregory Hood
Skagit River System Cooperative
LaConner, WA 98257
USA
The ii'Iatine .:.ip-'dtian zoiie@lR}p.rovidcsa v'cu:iety ofccoro~ad: fllilCtiODS (Lcvingsai1d.rcUnit:b'U~
2001). Many of them involve moVement of material from the terrestrial system to the marine
system, and much ofthismove.mentis mediatedtbrougb. the flow of either surface water or
groundwater. Consequently, COtiSidaation of drainage basin area is essential to understanding
the amount and spatial pattern ofmaleria1: flowsHtlIrougb. the MR.
To explore spatial variation in basin area for drainages terminllting in the coastline, I used a
routine GIS watershed delineation pbgtam to analyze 10-m USGS DBMs (U.S. Geological
Survey digital elevation models) ofWbidbey and Camano Islands. I also examined current
USGS topographic maps and histOrical USGS T -sheets to delineate coastal wetlands (jncluding
stream de1ta.marshes andlagOODS). RegJ;ession analysis was used to examine relatiouships
between marsh area and basin area. .Additionally, basin ar-eas were calculated for various
coastlineforms, i.e., cove", poin~ orsltaigbt coastlfue, and analysis, of variance (ANOVA) was
used to detemrine whether basin area standardized by coastline length varied with coastline form.
The results indicated that basin arcawas a strong predictor of stream delta: marsh area ~ = 0.70,
p..< G.Q~;_~f..~area{; =0;:1:1,,1'-< (}J)j.)..whoopDwer~'wem-fi:tted.t&dw-&ata--tt.
= O.015x1.18 for delta:1D8ISbes, y = O~OS6X1.41 for lagoonS, where x = basin area. and y = coastal
wetland area). The results were not sutprising for delta marshes, because similar scaling of
marsh area with basin area can be shown for much larger scaled landscapes (Simenstad et aI.
1982, Walker 1998). However, 1he:relationship between basin area and lagoon area was
surprising because lagoons are ooastal wetIan:ds partially or completely enclosed'by sandy sgits., ,
and spit fonnation is thoUght to result fiom patteDls in coastal erosion and sediment transport by
tidal cutrents and waves. However, the results indicate that terrestrial drainage influence lagoon
size. This could be due to basin influences on nearshore topography and bathynietry, or to inputs
of basin sediments and water whose intloence on lagoon morphology has not been previously
recognized.
The results also illustrate the degree to which coastal spits facilitate the formation of coastal
marshes. The smallest basin that was associated with a delta marsh was S3 ~ while the smallest
basin associated with a lagoon was 2 ha. For a given area of costal wetland, basins were about 7
times smaller for lagoons than for delta marshes.
55
Comparison ofbasin area, standardized for coastline length, between coves" points, and staight
coastlines showed that standardized basin areas wried significantly between categories (F2,22 =
11.13~ p < 0.0005) and post hoc comparisons indicated significant pair-wise differences between
coves versus points (p < 0.01) and snight coastlines versus points (p < 0.02) with a suggestive
difference (p < 0.09) between coves and straight coastlines. Standardized basin areas averaged
~xim~y 790 mZ per meter of ~e for coves, 480 mZ for straight cOast1in~, and 140
m for points. These results sugg_ that mputs offteshwater and suspended and dissolved
materials to the MR and nearshore wiD vary substantially with coastline forJil. In addition to
:_m, ' ,,' , ...__......:_1 ~ to the' am' ~..;.....:I:_, ~, " 1.:1_el' :....a'., th' abili"ty of.....w-t..,.'
Wlluencmg "'U~W &&af:'~ 'D'U'; Wl:I5UU1eJ:onn IJ..S!' Y wuuence8 e ' 'uUlu....:e
currents, wind, and tide to disperse or concentrate these terrestrial inputs, with coves being
shel~ deposuonahuriromnents aI1ltpoin~ being ~ erosive environnients.
Spatially variable input of freshwater, sediments, nutrients, pollutants and other mmilar materials
to theMRhas clear exptession in the developJile.D.t of coastal lagoons and delta marshes of
various sizes, and their associated geomorphology and biology. Simi13r ecological consequences
f . " " L_.' . ...."""-w.__ . _..I" .~+ ftL,_, _I: .1..11:1.' he
0, :w:oati.oD, m u&CW1 srm.~-~..cn~ ~ ~,~~~.... ~JL.r.tmD~ CObm. !h.ewuw,--,.
elucidated for these areas.
From a m~aeement perspective, the restilts indicate that the MR is not independent of terrestrial
basins. Human activities in areas distam from the MR may have significant impacts (e.g.,
changes in freShwater ~ nutrient inputs, sedintent inputs, or pollution) on ecological
processes and structures in the MR. Additionally, sensitivity to basin disturbance likely varies
with coastline form. From the perspective of basin size, coves could be considered the most
senBitive coastline form and points the'least sensitive. However ~ there may be other
considerations, nut addressed in this exploratory analysis, which may vary with ,coastline form or
basin size, e.g., basin slope and geology, which also may affect sensitivity to human disturbance.
LITERATURE CITED
Levings, CD. and Jamieson, G. 2001. Marine and estuarine riparian habitats and their role in ,
coastal ecosystems, Pacific Region. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Science Branch, West
Vancouver Laboratmy, West VanCouver, BC~
Simenstad, CA., Fresh, KL., and Salo, E.O. 1982. The role ofPuget Sound and Washington
coastal estuaries in the life histmy of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. In Estuarine
Comparisons. Edited by V.S. Kennedy. Academic Press, New York. pp. 343-364.
Walker,H.J. 1998. Arctic deltas. J. Coastal Research 14:718-38.
56
EDITORS' SUMMARY
The author introduced 1hetalk by applWlChing a number of ecologically important :functions
attributable to the MR, which were noted to have been weD covered in previous talks. The bulk
of the presentation focused on some preliminary aualyses mcamining landscape features, relevant
to the MR. The author established that associations should exist between physiograpmcfeatures
and biological features at 1he shorelirle alid gave evidence from arctic and temperate areas
showingtbat upland, largei-scalefeabues, like waterShed siH, are strongly linked to shoreline
,c...ri+..-.. Th ,L' '""'^....wf=-I ~ . .:I.:.. 'th., 4-_""+: f . . <>~n""
.l'-"Ullil);, e mCCllaJUSll1 p.a~~toexp.lam wm was ' · e IDIN.lCwLl()]1 0 'ocemnc eroSIon '"'6u.u.a<>..
different kbids oflmid~: featbreStftValent Oi11ht'coast. Data were presented from other
authors: showing positive :relationships ,between watershed area and delta size, freshwater
disebarge, suspended'sedi:mej)tload;~ ar~ andwethmth.itCiL ThOSC'relationships weH;; ,-
echoedwi1h original data ftom. W~gto:i1 State showing a positive relationship between
watershed area and tidal wetland ataL
The author concluded that the nature of ecological interactions between aquatic and terrestrial
~mMnm~q.ftJ1tl MJl.~~.Qb:a:fitn.ttton of'1JIl~4,,~ ~tbat \~p.rQ!~Qn w.ig~t
be moie'linpOitant thaitptev.iOOslyftiij.. "The cOJnpittiSoiIWas madebetweeil Spiis.amtooveS'
QagOOllS), Where coves tended tolxill8Sociated with watersheds oflarger area, leading to the
speeu1ation1hatuplanddmin~ge.~ were significantly modifying coastal features. The
authorconeluded that both uplanaaiH[seaward processes interact to form. important MR features
and gave the concluding example of spits adjacent to coves that at the terminus of relatively
small watersheds. In this pmtiCUl8fC8Se it was mgued that spits act as sediment traps, promoting
the fOlDiaUonof salt marshes. The.caveat was given thatno consideration of longshore transport
had been fonnaI1y made in the given analyses.
DISCUSSION
DW~~~ Vtifh.~ 2ihvu:: ~ urigin \:if s;;;;~~ ~~ m thi; rn.u.;uC wY'ii'Uufuwt, cmd
whether these representedmmine CCJDVer:genee mnes. No conclusion was reached regarding the
interaction of offshore effects with' any possible upland processes to result in the shaping of
shoreline features. A secoml comment referred to the role of groundwater input to the nearshore
from areas that had no visible chanl'IeJization; a typical example was given as a small island
which was thought to be a as watemhed, despite defying the formal definition of such. n was
indicated. that this should somehow be eonsideredin an analysis between upland features and
shorelines. A reference was given to a modeling regime that indicated 14% ofwater in Puget
Sound originated from non-point ~ i.e., groundwater input. The importance of
distinguishing between tidal and wave eft"ects on shoreline formation was discussed. Further
discussion referred to 1he tools CbOtontJ)' available for watershed mapping where Terrestrial
Resoun;e mventmy Mauagemeni dma l riillvi) ami oWer digiiai eiev-cJiion modei sources were
indicated as newer toolS 1hm would enhance prediction and relationship modeling of the kind
outlined in the talk.
57
Current Marine Riparian Setback Standards Used by DFO in BC
Melody Farrell
Habimt'aH'FM~Bnmd1
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
200 - 401 Bumud St
Vancouver, Be
V6C3S4
The science Of mariue riparian zonefimction' and width for effective conservation of fish habitat
features and functions is very poorly developed compared to freshwater lentie and lotic systems.
There-is however a pressing need finm habitat management staff for ,direction and guidance on
reserve widths required to pfotect:6Sb habitat on marine foresbores as a result of the ever
inereasmg nwnber of applications fOt developmetds and walks in and about the'intertidal aild
marine ripari~ zone of':OC. Many Of 1Iie proposed activities affect both the baekshoreand the
rip'arian area d.irect1y (eg; involve cleareutting or selective removal of vegetation) or will affect
theripatiap,area inditeGt1y via ~in local S1JI.i8ee and subsurface fresJriv8ter flows;
intertidal gradient and ,wave, run-up behaviour or sediment recruitment to the riparian zone and
becu..ii $ a restdt ufbadadltite dtwdtipwwt:,cwtiviiies;
In the absence of scientific advice speci:6c tomarinc riparian areas the Department of.
Fisheries and Oceans(DFO) habitat management has borrowed standards fr0mfreshwater
environments and has modified these based on several biological and socio-economic criteria.
There are several main sources of goifhmce for marine riparian setbacks that are currently used in
Be by DFO~ One of these is the 1993 Land DevelOpment Guidelines (Chilbeck et al. 1993),
which were specifically intended fur use adjacent to small streams and rivers in settlement areas.
The other is the Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel (CSSP) report.
Much of the source infonnation for the :recommended setback widths reflected in both the Land
Developmel1t Guidelines and the CSSP report were derived from the FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem
Management Assessment Team) report of 1993. This report, authored by a nUJilber of U.S. land
mana:gement agencies, provided some excellent guidance in Section V- Aquatic Ecosystem
Assessment, on the rationale for buffer widths and presented genendizedcurves of % cumulative
~,""':"._,-~_~____':"":_1__"':__"':'__,~....._ __..J.e.._~___ __,_ .e._~__ -.eL...-a"___d,..J.a. 'T'L.:_
\lLJ.'4.'J,1 v."'~ un: p.GJ:U~ .up~.!,CID '"'u""'~ auu .lUUVUV1J.O ~ a LUll\IUUU VI. UWcL\d 'n'..uua:. LLUlll
information, SlJDltDarized inFig.1A, became the basis for the buffer or reserve widths adopted in
the Land Development Guidelines while Figure IB provided part of the basis for the CSSP
report recommendations.
58
101
I
/ -
, ,E;'
/1" '
If .,.... '.
::t:
Ill, ':,
r' :VfrItIIJ .
,- ,
I
r
[ , '.
.'
~
, "Ccl8faWOdd~
.......
..
"
-. ..
... --. '-;4,... .'. ~ ''!'<'.;.,::,.'.j.':l',:! ";t':".
JI
-s 1
Dfatoc&.trom" CJlanneJ.
OIWfteWdl
A
,I,' '
r SOl
'1IDr _v".'
r, "'~,: >';'::;?:' ,~"
r it' .
I~:-:' ,: .:,
:Ijb;' "
'fl"
r.'- .
I
I
,'.. ~ ~
~"
..,. ....,
. .t>' .-;;
. '
~"",."
,'. -.'
.; ,.,.
" ,f
.. l' 2: . '. .:-~,
......'.............~
7",",t'II:8lt~,,:::, ":::,(':'
B
r
/,
,1
r '
r
I
/
r
I,
r
1
FiP11rP. 1. ~nrvH dpmnnd:rRtinp' DI".ft"ftIt P.ff'Pr.tivPDH.li1 ftlll SI fnntfinn of didftnc-I: from lllhorP.
~ ~-
(A), and from forest stand edges (8). Reproduced from FIgUres V-12 and V-13, FEMAT
(1993), respectively.
59
The context for application of these standards also differs considerably. As 'stated earlier, the
Land DevelopDient Guidelines were intended to provide guidance to developers and plmmers on
... . l' _.-..1.-_1_ .dths ""-..~ . . ,. ~':4-I. urban. .1__1
mlmmum: npanan, eave area or ~ WI,'" .l""'luU_ m association ww.. ' ,. 'Wli'VQopment
TheClayoquot Sound Science Paners goals, on the other hand, as stated by former Premier
Mike Harcourt were' "to make forest praotices in Clayoquot Sound not only the best in the
province, but in the world". The Panel took this as a mandate to develop asuStainable'forest
ecosystem management ag;proaoh, which would;indude aradical1y different way oflookfug at
riparlan/3lp1tic relat:ioDSbips in the fORStry harvesting seetor.
Because of this broad mandate, bo1h the nature and variety of reserves recommended by the
Science Pmie'l went wdl-beyondthose1hat would have ''been proposed by a siugie agency with a
single or limited m3fid.'such as fish.. They were also not constrained by feasIDility of
1~'. urban
appucation man, " , a:mtext.
The CSSP also proposed a marine shore clasSification system to which different riparian
Rt:mdards:wmldappiy (E~ 2)., IhdTer. or'T.esetYe. widtb:teOO1DJDemiatiOns.ratlged fmoIli9 m
for low Shores adj8cent fa open ~ wherevubiei:abilityto. wind effectS was considered
significant,;. to lOO'm on open watermckyblu:ffs and protected lagoon, saltmarsh, dune~ and
estuarine features which are considered D,lore structurally complex, protected an.d less vulnerable
. to fetch and wind effects. In the case Of estuaries'8 smooth transition zone from the marine
riparian to the streamside riparian mmmgement zone was also recommended.
The various buffer widths used in Be and the basis for each are given in Table 1.
The criteria for establishing diffe.:e.d. marine setbacks included adjacent land use, adjacency to
sensitive habitats and feastbility of application.
"
60
MBrilIe ShD1'81
f
I
A adjacent to open _ten
I
:I b8acb
I
~i&arnl,
I (lnl::ludel dimes.)
111 =-
l.q ~ snOre
c
--~
"'=
I
I
B adjaceftt to prateded W8IIn
I
1h1gaon
I .
~Isandr
I (irtdu- dunes)
in 9R1\le11V 5htR -
~ni baUl9e1Vihora
Lw seltm.cnh
.
.
I
:I. alii......
I
~ I mai!:h
I
,i m~
~U1&B~fIat
PI gn\lS1.m'
'~dbtht
l '_mdy~ '
L~_.~'
-Ii' ilPP9i' ,
Figure 2. Marine sho.reIiDe dassifica1ion system. Taken from CSSP (1995). Sustainable
ecosystem management in Clayqaot Sound: plaDDing and practice. Prepared by the
Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices'in Clayoquot Sound.
I ,
2 ....rMrlt
I .
htlw...
I
r...".......
!
t
~ 1llIdtdfti/
sisep'liDpI!
I
.
61
\
,
"'\
\,
\
Table L Lanel use cJ85SifieatiOD scheme and assodated setback distances currently used by
F'JSheries and Oceans Canada. SOun:e acronYms are the same as those ,Ut the text.
1IHW=Digh. high water line, and refers to the -_Timum annual tidal height.
Adjacent land use
Current setback Standard
Source
Urban. commercial
rmdustriallhigh density
residebtial .
Urban low density residential
Undisturbed crown foreshore
adjacent to "sensitive babi1ats"*'
Other undisturbed crown
foreshore
30m from. ffiIW
Chilbecket al. (1993)
15m from. HHW
,100m +windfirm buffer
Chilbeck. et aI. (1993)
CSSP (199S)
5001
+windfinn buffer
CSSP (1995)
:.Sensitive marine fish habitats used for the purpose of applying a 100m marine riparian
setback standard on crown forest foteshores include t\1e following: estuaries, eelgrass meadows,
kelp beds, herring and forage fish spawn areas, salt marshes, mudflats, rocky reefs providing
rockfish spawiting or rearing habi~ sahnon spawning areas, and nursery/rearing and adult
holding areas
LITERATURE errED
Forest Ecosystem Management A~ent Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem
management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment - Chapter V In Report of the
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, Washington, DC.
Clayoquot Sound SciencePane1 (CSSP). 1995. Suninable ecosystem management in Clayquot
Sound: planning and. pmcticcs" Pi:epaied by th~ Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest
Practices fu Oayoquot Sound. '
Chilbeck, B, Cbislett, G. and Norris, G. 1993 Land Development Guidelines for the protection of
aquatic habitat, Fisheries and Oceans Canada! B.C. Ministry ofEnvironm~ Lands and
Parks, Victoria, British Columbia
Millar, J., Page, N., Farrell, M., Chilibeck, B., and Child, M 1997. Establishing fisheries
management and reserve zones in settlement areas of coastal British Columbia, Can Man. Rep.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2-35i:
62
Current Standards fOol' Marine Riparian Setbacks and BUffers ill Washington State
Doug Myers
TL.--40 (,'1......_..1 A ....:__ T___
.. U6"" LAIUU"'- .r. iL....uvU .. '-'CUU
Office of the Governor
P~O. Box 40900
Olympia, W A
nO.t:n.. IVV\I\
Jg~JVV
Washington manag@development on marine sborelinestbrough a combination of local and state
permits and land use authorim.tions. With recent listing of some species of anadromous
salmonids, additional consultation with federal agencies is often required as well. There is no
unifotm code of regulations to protect nuirine riparian area functions and the ordinances are quite
variable by jurisdiction, and Shoreline reach. Rationale for selected standards enforced by local
agencies, recommended or required by state or federal agencies as part ofpetmit consultation
will be discussed.
63
'"
""''-''.
I ' ,
Editors' Snm~'Y: Current Standards by Jurisdictiun
The principle tool for tRaJUlgfng the MR is corrently the use of 'setback' distances from the
shoreline, which typieaDy fOrm the basis for either the retention or the restotation of a vegetation
buffer zone between upland activit;y and the :marine shoreline. The hiStory and ratiOnale for the
development of seth_ standards in the Pacific Nmthwest were presented by Steve Fadden
(Alaska), Melody Farrell (British Cobmtbia), and Doug Myers (W a;<lhington State).
Much of the slmreline in southeast Alaska currently exists witbin the Tongass National Forest
(TNF), adnri.nistered. in part by the U.s. Forest Service. BeCause of the low populatiOn density
amt'~~~:wihmr~'valiltS' m,ibatregiOfl,ibi:i'pr~ ~i1le~'~~'saidt'()
be. habttatfor te.ticiSti181 wildlife SpeQi~' and ViSual, aeSthetics: IndUstrla1 ioggmg~jndicated
to be the primary activity of concern regarding,thesevalues. Alfh6u.g11 the 1NF represents the
northern terminus oftempenite ~ut1$ forest in the Pacific Nortliwest,Jts high latitude means
that forested land is. restricted to8reas withiJifive. tt.lil~ of the coastline and to an. eleVatiOlllinrii
T3,n3ingfrmn,.U.oQ-~_~ F~~i_.._!1t~~~~f~b.a~eJj~,
habitat m:ea,:~ those mownto::~ heavnjooMR. fotestSamfother,fea.tpres.. The
autlitirlisted seVeml spee.ies knoWJttOns.e:MRf~, forWhich the U.S. Forest Service has ,
pattial m-'''eement resp0nsJ.'bilit,J, indudDig: beari;, wolves. marten, mink, river otte1t, moose,
Sitka blaek,..tail deer, seals, wa.1rtm, numerous raptom, king salmon (Chinook); Silver salmon
(coho). pink salmon (bmnpback), reclsalmon (sockeye), dog Sahnon (chum)~ donyvar~
steeIhead, cott-tbroat trout, and halibut. Primary ha'bitaf related features fi;)f which, guidelines, are
desigtted,foc.us on: thene:ed for sh~eforest CODJ1ectivity by marten, mink and otter, the :MR
as a :fuatore for bald eagle and goshawk nesting ~ and winter foraging habitat for deer. The
most GOJ;ttpelling reason fOr extensiVe setback distances Iuts been telemetry data indiCating the
preferential use of thc'NR for foragiDg ~abitat by,1he nQrthem goshawk: (data provided by
~DqtFSh_G~. 'fIle.~~~fm',~ttmane&Wm;~t&.w.
1000 feet rrO:O:lShareline. . ' ,
Washington State was indicated to manage development on marine shorelines tbrougb'a
combiriatimt of local and state permits add land use anthorizations. This included :five sources as
CUI1'eilt guidelines for shmeJitte d.e\dc:)prnent The Shoreline Management AC4 the Growth
~ent Act, the Uniform BuiItIiDg Code, the Clean Water Act, and looaI building codes.
Primary features of llihotest that arc guided by those sources were as follows: landslide hazard,
steep slope hazard, fish and wildtifehabitat areas, kelp and eelgrass beds, comm:ercia:l arid
recreational shellfish interests, wetland habitat, andhening, sand lance and smelt spawning
areas. Setback distances from IIUI1'iDe shorelines were said to be 25;.200 feet (-7 -60 meters) for
residtmtiahlwcltJpmcut. Vvl1e.u.~' are iu be built-uIl bluffs>> seibauk'distau~ were saidto
be eqo8l to 1/3bltdtheight, where bluff height is not to exceed 100 ft. For water-dependent
comntercial structu.res, it was' ittdicakid 1hat no setback distances were required. For sbGrelines
of 'statewide significai1ce' , 200-fOOt butTers were indicated for timber harvesting. Additionally,
buildi1igsetbacks ate C01l1Dionly setto be 8.;.50 feetftoJli any vegetation buffer. Theantbor
raise.d.~,e,c:.QT1,~~~,tltq,.~,,~~_:<iv_~bllff~""itL:W~~h-in.&t~~
as many activities ate ~ wiifafu the bUffers: inCluding:' cutting of no moreth3:i1 300.lo
64
mercJianta))le timber over ten years, water conveyances, tralIs and'access stairs or ramp~ ri6iiiy
coiTido~ view trimming and pruning, mining and quanying, shoreline stabilization, and the
rep1acement of existing, dilapidated structures built preceding current restrictions. However,
under certain ,conditions, restrictions can be enforced to limit such activity. These:CaD. include no
touch zones, liniifs to impervious sorfaces, limits to vegetation clearing, the requirement for
.~&~~~.f=tm:;smi4t~.f.~~aH~:oome:'~~~
requirements C8n: be imposed asa Condition for a proposed development Requirements were
said to be evaluated on a case-J>y-case basis~ given the roles inherent in guiding documents.
LITERATURE errW
w~ sw:e,Gmr~t, 1.004,. W~bjngton$_.Gt,owtb.,~~e.ntSCQl.i.~Criti~~:;,
Areas 'and Best Available Science 1nfurmation Page
htto:/Iwww,cted.waaovlDesktoDMDdUleslDocumemtsNiewDocument.asox?DocumentlD=1034
WClb1ri:ngtu.lTSta1':e:Dbpt. Etm\1~:;;200:t Sho:t~~~ F~:
htttx/lwww.ecY.wa.aoWfi)fDQFamSlsealSMAlst.auidelSMPJirid&x.html
65
Requiremeut for Use olDest Available Science
Doug Myers
Paget Sound Action Team
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 40900
Olympia, W A
98504-0900
Washin:gto~'s Grow1h Management Act requires that updates of critical areas ordinances be
based on Best Available Scien:cc'(BM). While there is a statutory definition of BAS for the
PU1'pQ$e of tbeAGt"many other IDauagtmlent progrnms haw begun to adopt this philosophy.
This places it burden on regulators to slay current with scientific findings, that affect the resOmce
but has the, effect oflceeping the regulation "alive" in the face of changin~,kti:owledge. It also
urges morefteqttent contact between teS01Jl'ccmanagers and the'scienti:fic community.
EDITORS" SIJMMA&Y
Doug MyerS gave'bridilimnneWs about, the use ofbesl"aV'cdlabie 'SCience asrequi:rectbyihe
State~s 'GroWth ~ent Act. He referred specifically to a dOCl1II1eD.t known as the 'Critical
Areas.A:ssistance:Handbook'. The dOcument is used as a guidance manual for updating critical
areas ordinances reqpitedTinder the Act.. The criteria for use of such science are: 1. The science
in questim inust have been contained in a manuscript that haslmdergon,e peer review, 2. it must
he Jogi~tqr ~~~~~., it~~~>>:-AA~Jla~~,ot:,~ki,~~.4.:it&
conclusions muSt be set in a ptopeh:oJitext: '
Within the handbook isa model ordinance. The ordinance was indicated to' be useful because
despite its limitations, it can be applied to a large area of marine shorelines, in Puget Smmd, and
contains strict guidelines for tbeptGViSion of riparian vegetation buffers and/or setbacks; 150-
250 foot distances are common. Clarification was:requested as to whether the County
recognized open space as a plAnning priority. It was indicated that the County currently does
recognize aDd implemmt open space as a priority during development plaIining.
Discussion that followed the presentation focused largely on the gui4eJines within mbanized
areas. lhe-'~"":Of.~~:am~~''Was~, vffli\,il-m'Mm'
raised issues about the scale at Which n.anagement deciSions are being made. The conclusion
was reached that neither managers nor scientists sho1ild act to reinforce the management
measures in current legislation because they are somewhat arbitrary. They should instead
advocate a4justments justified by best available science.
66
\,
..\....,
\
\0;
'\
\~i
'\,
\\
'.
"
"
BREAKOUT S:ESSION 1
Group 1
Caveats about choosing management approaches were stated and included the need for a clear
statell1entof goals, and a good undennnding of ecosystem principles. Impediments to forming
go0d approaches were- ickm.tified as: tIiffet:ing ter:mfutylogy among agencie8;, tli'fTering
maTi~gem.ent nnits, including the basis for their delineation, ,data gaps, under-representation of
sorile stakeholders during plan:oiDgptocesses, and the lack of co:inDnJ.nication between managers,
policy makers and the scientffic community. Cmrei1t1y available mari1lgeJ1lent approaches were
identified as: genemt stewardship and advice provision ftom the variety of appropriate agencies;
-the uSc'Qfi>>~mf'g fit variety,Qf ~ 'w~va:iiol;l ~fl.\,~, reg~y'etr~publ::l1t tduc;atiott
efIOrts; tmmal resea:rob, inventorY;.ad assessment. Adapuvemanagement,was seen as aD: ' '
important fiinn ofdatareconnai~. "Green engineering', which includes attempts to create
ecologieallynon-intrusiw strn~ was also seen as a valuable approaeh that should be
pursued as there Was a pefceived demand for suchstmctu:res; it was felt that any inhei:ent merit
slmul~he app~Je tn. MR.. ,
The group agreed that 1here was little scientific study to suppOrt any of these initiatives for the
MR. Given the CUI'l'eDtstateofknnwJedge for the MR, management recommendations, were
thought to be best ptoposedin thepeml sense, and included approaches Such as; using a
variety of temporal and spatial scal. to:. evaluate, ptOblem.s; the pursuit of cumulative impacts
assessment; and methods to add:tes$ecdogi~ problems by ecological rathertbanjurisdiGtiOnal
boundaries;. The 'appliGation of such appI'eaches, was (elt to be complicit with the goals of a
regionally widem8Jiagement plan in 1hatmost tools could addreSs large as well as small scale
issues. It was felt that a regionally wide'management plan would help to communicate regional
objectives to actions taken at a local scale. Some coneem was expressed that the latge-.sca1e
planning process currently undeIWay known as the 'Georgia Basin Action Plan', was not taking
the'MRin1o aGCOunt' as mt ex,pticit man"'8emeni'onit ,Speciiic actions 10 appnrd((n: the various
issues listed above were suggested as:
· working towards more detioitive models that include' factors like substrate, slope and
estuary proximity
· Establish better communicaticm between scientific community and local governments
-e. Fmther ~'enteiy~ ~aBd ~<upllia~-mehlding ammlatiw~...s
· Public educ3nonaoo stewaidsbip promotion
Group 2
Current mari3gemeiJt approaches were identified by the group to consist of CDITently existing
inventory maps for MR f~ hiStoric inventmy for restoration purpo~ the identification of
sensitive mmtaeement areas and m~ent risks, vegetation buffers, and setback distances
from the MR.. However, much ofthegtOup effort focused on particular methods for future
mAn=teement approaches, including 1heidentification of sensitive areas at larger scales than
currently performed, and better investigation of vegetation buffer lengths and widths needed to
67
'\
\
\.
protect identified functions of the MJl. A sugg.estecl vegetation buffer width of 30. m was
suggested as a starting point in the absence of marine specific data, as there appeared to be some
justification for this at leaSt from freshwater FEMAT documentation. The group also discussed
broader, 'ecosystem based:t ap~ sUch as larp'-scale inventory, mapping,. and coastait zone
P1artnin8. There was some expreSsitm. of the need to connect improve reporting ,of research to
the public, and to deeision makers, and. to improve public education: as a managemeni approach.
There was also recogoitioo of a viIIDallack of economic approaches for the study of the MR,
including CUlTent and fbture dollar values, the use ofland covenants, and fuR cost aceounting of
ecosystem services to fmmans, Itwassngg4Sted that a gOOd link between editcatiail aitd the'
outright purchase ofland as a management tool would be to develop demonstration areas in the
'Il :.;..... .,. .... ..". . .... . .. ..... .... ..
.MK, usmg pmpeny acquo:cu OJ a V8DClY 01 secUJlS; me secwrs were lacnuneu w De'pnvate
businesses:t governments, NGO~ and private foundations. Demonstrable items were to include
conserv.anoo principles, restoration ami enhancement efforts, and non-mandllTd erosion
prQtectioD measures.
\
\
\:
\
\
'\
\
\
, Group 3
Identified current m9l1~ent practices were: the principle of working to 'conserve rather than
restore' habitat and systems, specific recommendations about the construction of shoreline
a:rmouring, the use of vegetation buffers at shorelines, and the use of biophysical mapping. The
community working with MR issues should anticipate legislation attemp~ to mimic approaches
developed from teuestrial wetlands management where dev~lopn1ent is allowed in lieu of o:ffsite
restoration and recreation effortS. It was felt that 1here was DO good evidence to su~est that this
can be accomplished for mote than a few of the many values inherent in such systems.
Alternatively, shoreline armouring data were cited indicating that siting stIuctmes abOve the
1.:_1. 1:.:-1. __..4.__1:__ IT'O'mrr' ___..J1______...1..~1 _.cc_......_..... .L1._ 1:.....___1 ____ __Jl____1J1 _1__
1llQU, JU6U-W'au,,1 UU~ \.LLLJ; '" J.JJ YYUUkU J:'1"'V,",HI; HGUII.LW "'LL"""m t;U (.I1'\;t lUtvLGl ala"" CIIIU WVWU ~
promote the deposition oflarge wood from the ocean to shorelines. Scientifically defenst'ble
recommendations for vegetation buJfers were felt to be limited to the recomniendation of
vegetation presence over absence when. a choice is implicated. There was suggestion that
pursuing the' presence of veg.etation might be more important than the pursuit of armouring
restriotions, given the identified stmng'role of vegetatioo in generating terrestrial input in niarine
fish diets. It was feh that no good science curreBtlyexists to recomDiend ~on buffer widths
in the MR at this time. Tn terms of addressing regionally wide plans, it was felt that a
biophysical mappmg regime would be the first and most important development priority. It was
felt that such a tool should consider living and physical elements, and that much of the
information existed already as fragmented sources in a variety of fonn:~ and in the custody of
sever.u ageIl"-i.es.
DISCUSSION, PLENARY SESSION 1
There was objection to the recommendation regarding position of armouring structures above the
HHWl. tn thP. P.ff'P.cltbAt lill1t'.b hl:mlcp.hvP..cw.rintinn!i1 wnnltl b"vp' i1p.1P.tP.Tinu!il ~ nn lilborp.1inp.
Jl Jl
processes. The recommendation was refuted by several members of the audience who identified
adverse impacts associated with shoreline armoming, regardless of location.
L:D
va
(.
It was then sugg~sted that it is better to avoid bulkheads altogether rather than tIy to make
recommendations for preferred positioning. There was also some diseomfOrtexpressed toward
the blanketrecGmmenCibition of anyfixcd width for a buffer, especially small (3"0 m); such values
cali become quickly entrenched and difficult to adjust if future data wauants. It was suggested
that life histmy reqUirements, of individual species should be used to address appropriate
vegetation buffer widths. There wassomeconcem that buffers were not being applied to the
marine side of shorelines. Since both marine mid~al regions are thought to :influence one
a1lo1her ina rceiprocal fashi<:>>i:, it WBS,felt tltatper1uJps a bttfferwidtb: exteD:ding seaward should
be conSidered. One apptc)aCh to width deter.tniDation in this case was given as the distance for
which theeup~otiG ~ an~ ~~,~ floor were inclusive of one another. Support for
demomKudiun plOjQ.is w-cUi'dkpi~ terming iu ih'? wrli~ idea of coupling public Wu'Caiiun
and awareness effort with the esfab1isbmentofMR protection areaS.
The concept of producing cnomogmp'hs' for the MR was put forth, poSSloly useful in visnR1i7.ing
concurrent changes of multiple functions across distance in the MR. A typical example was
given in Melody Farr.e11~stalk (day 1).
69
BREAKOUT SESSION 2
Group 1
The following, data areas were identified as data de.6cient:. a maPPing tool for inventory and
analysis. Species inventory, quantification of natural systems and identification of threshold
points f<< critical losses of fimction services; 1003 teJm limits of water actions on beaehes,and a
general need to tbi:nk in longer terms; soil types 'and processes in the MR; a need for natural
reference sites was identified to ,establish goals for management and restoration; much more
infGtm.ati.on on water quality in the MIl; data at the basin or large watetsb:edsca1e.
l1remelhods to approach data reoommis$ance for the above'were as follows: the use of a
multidisciplinary apj)t~ espeeiaDy. where collaboration is implicated. This not only helps to
identify'dependence Wween diflfea.wt measured: variables, but also to' avoid: discontinuity in
research effort. It was felt that at I'-in some circumstances the co-involvement of multiple
agencies trtatnta1Ti~' fnn~ stabiHty via interagency commitments. It was felt that tools to assess
natural attd-acceptable I3Bges of disIorbance should be developed and used to define and
illustrate those types of dIstorbap:uefidting outside of the imticated range. The use of "citizen
science' (involving laypersons in datJuecpnnaissance) was advocated as a method to. increase,
public ownership overkttowledge. ~'wen as support for fomtal research. Aneed for better data
" ", 't ,'.I~~ +'L._~.""" c_....1.:ty ,__I ,ft+-- ,1> eth"'.I'" Dioital 1_"'+:00
manageDlen was lwaauuGU WJUI&p ~ assuran\iGlCO.u:u 01 m" 'UWj. ' f!ia' ,el,"Vau '
models wem,~sed asvaluabletoOis for which.ore data need to be gathered. Other
diScussion fOcused' OJI'. need fOr cJataregardiilgetr~ ma rismg sea IeveI: ana tlie
comparative role of tb.l.ia1 ~ Dlar1ne'insect species contnbUtioDS'tofish diets. Further,
the topic ofvegetation bnffet widdlswas identified to be data deficient as well as the'
investigation of "no touch mnes' Within buffers. Ground water flux and sea water intrusion
1an~watd Wete alsO' areas for wkichfhere'W8S littlelmoWIl infOIIiiation. Further stiintdation for
rcseareh.eGuW-be,~by_,develo]mt$lt&fa.f~MR~'6i'a"
sympoSium at a larger ecologica:I mabng.
Funding agencies were identified to include: United Nations, state governments in the United
S~,lJnited States Geological Survey, Geologiea) Survey oreanada, National Science
Foundation (US), NSERC (Canada:1 Parks Canada via its mandate with marin-e protected areas,
and the real estate, boanl ofBC. 'I'Jte concept of a MR website was given as a way to promote the
MR as 811 ecological reference temL '
Collaborations were suggested bdween some groups which had not been considered in the
workshop. For example, public heald1 and safety ,groups should be interested in managing the
MltfOh[UiI~togiCatftt<<es; butSUCbiactMty ~&timVe'~ecmtigiad'~~:
The mstitutions responsible for the developmeDtof seaward oil and gas exploration were
identified as a funding source that had been overlooked, as this industry could adversely affect
MR areas.
70
Group 2
Biophysical Di1ipping of the coast was recognized as the natural starting,point for describing the
distributions of structund features. It was felt that spatial analyses of multiple data sets would
allow the establishment ofh~esc;sI:egarding the interaction and covariance of multiple
functions in 1be M:R.. A listoffunctioos was identified to include: wildlife habitat, water
filtration, food. web ~ luibitatcomplexity (woody debris was given as' an example),
microclimate control :inclmting ~e, moiSture and ultraviolet radiation moderation,
regulation of water How, slope stabiiity, sediment supply, andvarf'OUs measures of inherent in
thebi.OOiv~ coneept.: Method$.,fhr fi1lii1ida1a:PJs were identified asfhe foUoWi1l'g:
ClassificatioJi of eool~ units, 1he comparison' of modified to more pristine areas (thc'use of a
, fbrma1 ~ ca.hddte ctoeffiCient~~#d1ti()n:' was jde.ndfied)~ expedme.tJ.td aPPre~h.., "
aDd landscSpe level analyses. · SOei.."fbD.etions ofthc MR. were, also idcmtif]ed as,non.:quantified
values; inclUding pub1ie~ and,supportofateas that babitatm~ would coilsider
to be cnatura.1>, and perfOnning a fuBnmgeof desimble ecological functions.
u... ,'it. . .., , ;,.;1.........:-'1:..-.,1 " d.....,..-.,d........-d..... L B.Aft........:......l . 2.. TI..
~~~~~P1ontwl~,,~~.nt~""~v~~ as;" ,~R*..mam2Ulg...: "I..I.d~
compteh~ of ecological fwlCi:iOil& In this case it was felt that freshwater liter8ture could be
referred to as a starting point 3. n.c:estabIiShment of experimental prog'rainmes. 4. The
explorati.0l1 of SocioecooOinic dynamics, responsible'for typical patterns of coastal develO}llitent,
and strategies to change pattern to ,better fit conservation goals.
Research programmes- were identified robe mast desii:able in a cross-border context, with
cooperation :trom Canadian and U.S. organizations. Omailj,an funding org;mi73tions were
identified as: National Sciences and Bnain~g,Com1ciI, Forest Renewal Be (now referred to
as the Forest Investm'ent Initiativel~ona:l districts, Parks Canada:, The Nature Conservancy,
Eco~ and theWGrld WildUfeFuncl U.8;, agencies were identified as: US Forest Service,
""Att!d:u ~ tJ.-~.,:'~ ,.." '~ _,..;I .-.,d~,-:_ :_-3..---=__ TTc;, A_"", C'_a _e
...............:T<o..........~v....~ ~'t; enIIS&. ' "~ au'u'~JU;I:l:lUU5U'fti5, ty"",.CU:U1.r~'pi'tn..
Engin~ Puget Sound Actionteam, Sea Grant, Environmental Protection Agency, and the
National Science Foundation. It was felt that FiISt Nations should also be approached for their
interest in research and mRnaeement of the Mlt
Group 3
Five different data areas were identified as data deficient: Data for the establishment of
vegetation btdfer wid1bs in the MR;., data relating to aesthetic functions in the MR, data
comparing csoft versus bard' engineering approaches in the MR, data for the effect of disturbing
groundwater flow, and specifications for differentplant species for their functions as restoration
tfJOls (in: generaJ:.bntalso ~pfi~ctothe MR);' IIithc case ofbof.ferwidths, the eonceptof
variable widths by function was eAJi~ in the on-1he-ground management context For
making decisions regatding setback distances, it was felt that having a flexIble approach at the
time of decision would be help~ where theparticuIar case could be accommodated by
identifying the most relevant issues and making decisions based on them. In this regard, some
smt-ot:pr.ioritization sdu;mc;, was.j~a1so:,a&auseful tool,. to heJp::choose,among.ntU.ltiple,
objeCtives in a singleman=-eement scenario.
71
The lack of data regardingaesthefic value~ and :function in the marine riparian zone was thought
to he in contradiction to the obvious appeal the MR has for humans. It was expressed that some
-data relating property values to Cgreeospace' should motivate local governments to protect
ecological fatures at the sIIoreline, given the ramifications to taxation revenue. It was felt that
other interested parties in this case would be chamber of commerce andrelevant NGOs. The
approach to gainingCODlpatative datafor hard versu&,soft engineering, features was explored in
terms of retrospective and more formal prospective studies. The role of freshwater seeps in the
intertidal area was thought to be Im..ed and it was iden1ified that legislation governing the
modification of 9fcrondwater pattem ittBC is sparseornon-existent. It was suggested that no
legislation oould be motivated without proper study. Casual observation by some group
membe$ indi:cltted that fiW(~cdlwdopm:ent ofteIi: affeets grountl\vatet, 8mfincreases'
channeliZation. The issue of technical data for individual species as restoration tools iii the MR.
was explQred, indicating that no centml source existed. A c:labtbase of teclniical attiIDntes like
growth'rates and rooting depths' was thought to be desirable, as was infonnanon regarding how
to manage plant succession dmint restoration.
The single most important issue in promoting long-term funding, availability was identified as
public education. It was felt that awareness of ecological issues resulted in pressure toward
legislators to allocate' funds, toward research. Collaboration between NGQs. graduate research
programmes, and private foundaticmswas thought to be leSs than fully developed. First Nations
participation by coastal groups was identified as a natural step.
DISCUSSION, PLENARY SESSIONZ
Due to time restrictions, participants decided to forego explicit plenmy discussionaud move on
to reviewing the Cnext steps' considerations emerging from the sum discussion of both workshop
days.
72
('.
Next Steps
Doug Myers and Melody Farrell
-Four different undertakings were recogo:ized as good cnext steps' to ptonrote awareness and
fimdingfor MRissues. These included the developmeilt ofnomographs' for tbe'different :MR-
associated functions, the development of a biophysical classification and mapping regime for the
coastline, of northwest North Am~ the- development of stewardship and outreach products to
public venues~d to non goVemD1t1lt OJ'8'Ini7.Qf1ons, and the development of a peer-reviewed
pmspectusfpositionpapet OIl the MR..
In the case of nomogJaphs some-doubt was expressed toward the availability of good information
to generate them cuttendy, indicating that primary research would need to be the foundation for
these in, most cases~ Incases were:1lu;y are genentted fromexistingliterafure, they wiD need to
be tested with.m-situ Die8S1ttes. There was reasonable ~ that startina the process by
ext:rap.olating from freshwater liteddDl"; would be a good initful steplO with the caveat that data
takenfiom large rivers and lakes woUld be more app.It.)priate than those :trom.' small rivers and
streams. It was, noted that the latter case, repteSentSthe bulk offreshwater riparian literature.
Somewmk by t.he ForesfEcosystelil Management and AssesSliient Team has been done for
freshwater rlp.nan systmns, but wooIcI need to be verified for marine conditions. The list of
:functions wOld.d likely ,tteedto be ~ down toa more fondamenta1list with the caveat that in a
D1U1tidiseipilnary eil~ent sudb attempts should proeeed with caution for risk: of deterring
partitiPation, by some disCiplines.
Biophysical mapping was discussed as an expansion of the cShoreLine' mapping system.
Su~ data SOllfG($wer-~indiG8kdto be'l'errestr.ial Resooreemvent6ly and Mapping data
(1'RJM; pkysiealltopographical data), 'and perhaps the adaptation of already existing
BiogeocliDlatic Ecosyst.eQ1 Classification (BEC) data in Be. There was some concem expressed
that this would be a nmc-atnsuming process given the effort taken to create the BEC. Long tenn
monitoring sites of forest lands in the United States were suggested as data sources for MR forest
cover infonnation.
OUtreach tools were thought to be best approached with planning scales larger than the property
lot-by lot approach.
Lastly, it was felt that a prospectus adicle would be easy to accomplish, adaptable from the
workshop proceedings. It was indicated that a peer-reviewed scientific article would be an
important tool to generate research interest, and to establish 'Marine Ripariant as a common
reference term.
73
Appendix L Biographical Sketd1es ofWorksho,p Speakers
J"m Bi'eDDaD
run BteJimlD is the Senior Marine Bcologist for the King County Deparbnent ofNatnral
R$ources and Parlcs. Responsibititiesinclude: Marine inventory, assessment, and integration
with watershed and salmon recovery planning efforts; Consultation on ro~
wastewater, environmental review and permitting, and the development of marine resource
~ acUoDs,iD.Clutting ~a0l1, regolatoty, and pubtiCeducatiGD projectslpragrams.
Jim has 21.: years of experience working in both the private and public secto~ has conducted
maritte flshetie$researdt in A:ntatetiGa;. California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, aiIdhas
taught fish biology/ecoJogyclasses in CalifoIIli~ Mexico and Jamaica. Current interests are in
ma.rli1e'~e ecosystems of1he Paget Sound/Georgia B8sin. rlDl holds a MS. in Marine
Sciences from Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.
Melo.dr Farren
Melody. FmeD is an Oceans plmmcrwi1h the Habitat and Enhancement Branch ofFisberies and
Oceans Canaaa. She has worked for the CAn~mAn federal government for 21 years and holds a
bachelor's, degree (honouts) in marine biology~ and has completed course work towards a Master
of Resource Management degree. She iscorrent1y the chair of the DFO Marine and Estuarine
Habitat WOtking GroUp and,:represe:ats Fisheries and' Oceans Canada on the Georgia Basin
Action Plan Joint Management CommittP.e. She is also a member of the Habitat and S-pecies
Plamiingand Implementation Team and the Pacific North Coast Integrated Managem:ent
Planning Team, and is involved in a variety of marine and nearshore habitat programs and
projects.
Joe Harper
Dr. John Harper is a marine geologist, a co-owner of Coastal & Ocean Resources Inc. and
atljunct professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences of University of Victoria. His
research special~ is in coastal and nearshore ecosysteri1s, particularly mapping and
classification. Dr. Harper is a co-developer of the ShoreZone Mapping system, which has been
widely applied, in Washington, British Columbia and Alaska.' He is also a ca-developer of the
Seabed fmqgi1'\8 and Mapping System (SIMS), which is a nearshore seabedmappmg and
motritoring.systetn based on biophysical classification of towed video imagery. Dr. Harper has
conducted research in. the Pacific NorIhwest since 1978.
Greg Hood
Greg Hood is senior restoration eoologist for1he Skagit River System Cooperative, a tribal
environtnental research and man~ent orpnization. He received his PhD~ from the
Universi1;y ofWasbin~ School of Fisheries in 2000 ( Si Simenstad and R. C. Wissmar major
professors), and has fourteen years of experience in estuarine habitat restoration in the Pacific
Northwest. Greg is lead or soleaudior for joumal articles published in Restoration Ecology,
Estuaries, CanadianJoumal of Fisheries andAquatic SCience, Plant Ecology. and Physiological
Entomology. His areas of research interest include interactions between landscape form and
ecology, scale, estuarine ecology and geomorphology, applied ecology ofbabitat restoration.
74
Max Larsoil
Mr. Larson bas twenty years of experience as a consultant in the fields of coastal, ocean and
hydrauJic,en,gineering, and holds a ~,ate degree in Coastal Engineeringftom Queen's
University at Kingston (1'87). He ispresent1y a principal of Triton Consultants offering a wide
range of coastal 'engineering expert.iseJil the development of metocean design criteria, the design
and constrnction of coasta1 st:tuctoJ:es; dynamic mooring analyses, and ,tkephysical and.
numerical, simulation' of coastal processes. Mr. Larson's experience was gained both within a
Jar - _1"': ..c_~, 1:...._.1 " h:fft~",. .1,-": 'd' '..1..:_ " ...-_11 " l' 'ted
-go mw.u.-wMap.uw;;Q,p0tt' cm~;~gn;"group au", WlWllI: vanotiS Mii:cW specta 17.i _ '
cOastal engineering coJiSUltancies across Canada; this experience resulted in the construction of
operational marine facilities m Cm:urda, SOuth Ameri~ Indonesi~ Anstralia and the Caribbean.
Piiorto 1991, Mr. Larson worked asa coastal engineer :in AtlantiC' Canada:, a Shoreline
Management Engineer on the Great Lakes, a Stabiiity Engineer on a Beaufort Sea oifShore oil
platform., and in various capacities for a heavy-construction contractor in Eastern Canada.
Jeff Lemieux
Jeff Lemieux currently resides, inihe FIBSer Valleyr.egion of British Columbia, having recently
completed a Ph.D. programme atOtegon State University. His work has focused on the
distn"bution and rolesot artIiropod~unities fufOres! ecosystems but bas recently had a
terrestrial-marine systmJs compon_ under the direction of Dr. Colin Levings, Fisheries and
Ocea:ns,CaDada Cmrentresearoh' ildel:eb'1scinclude dte roles of organim.n$ in promotfug
ecosystem processes, especially tko'Dlovement ofrate-limiting elements. CUrrent research
includes the use of stabJe isotope tldmiquesto examine effects of forest harvesting on littoral
and supndittoral marine:food webs ami ecotones. one special aspect of this work is the
investigation of the lif'ehistories ofDiteatidal Chironomidae and their role in the diet of chum
salmon on the west coast ofVanCOllVCi:i' Island.
Colfu Levings
Based at the West Vancouver La1xu:tdulY, Dr. CoJin Levings is head of the Coastal andMarlne
Habitat Science Section within the Marine Environment and Habitat Science Division, Science
Branch;. Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Canada Dr. Levings has
degrees in. Fi.sheries and Zoology ftoIIi UBC and in Biological Oceanography from Dalhousie
University. He has been wmkingon applied :fish habitat research: in coastal British COluiIibia
since 1972, in support ofbabitat m~. He alSo worked 011 this topic in Nova Scotia,
Norway, Korea, and Japan. He is,1he author or af-author of over 200 papers and- reports on fish
habitat topics. Dr. Levings is :ftequentJJ called upon for advice by DFO habitat and ocean
managers on a wide variety of C08S1aI. ecology topics ranging from log storage impacts on the
north coast to sediment impacts in soothem estuaries. hi support of needS for infotIi:Uition on the
role of the marine riparian zone' (Mlt) in coastal British Columbia as:fish habitat, in 2001 he
began researehing the potefitia:1. foodweb Ii1iks between vegetation, arthropods and fish. He is
also involved in other piOjectsrelating to marinecmservation and habitat man~ment including
environmental aspects af8quacU1.l:ore, ballast water as a vector for non-indigenous species, and
effects of fishing gear on benthic habitats. The studies have been conducted in the Strait of
Georgia, the Broughton Archipelago on the Central Coast ofBC, and BarIdey Sound-Alberni
Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island. Dr. Levings is an Adjunct Professor at the Institute
75
i.
for Resources and Environmental SuidainabiIity atUBC and has supervised graduate stUdents
working on applied ecological reseamb.
Doug Myen
Doug Myers supervises two priority projects at the'Puget Sound Action Team: Restoration of
Marine and Freshwater Habitats andReeovery of Salmon in the Nearshore. He is state co--lead
for the Estuary Restoration Project podion of the Poget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration
Project (PS.NERP). Doug'holds aD.8. in: Marine Biology, an MS. in env:iroiu:r1enta1 science and
has over 17 years of experience in: coastal resoUICe1il~agement issues;
Dan Penttila
Dan Pentti1a was born and raised in 1he Pacific Northwest. He received a B.S. in ZooJ~ from
the University ofW"-~ in 1970, and an M.S. in lliology from the University of Oregon in
1 tJ71. He has becminvolved in marine forage fish matters in western Washington State for the
Washington Department ofFisherieslF'tsb and Wildlife since 1972. ProfessiOnal activities in this
region have included hen:iilg/surf _dtlsand lance spawning habitat surveys (including
development of new smvey methods and exploratory,sorveys in previously unsmnpled regions)
andhet.r:iDg,hydro-aeousticltrawl surveys, herring latvaJ/juvenile surveys, eelgrass'shading
studies, contributions to forage fisk habitat pro'tedicm policies and. regolations, ~ony as an
expert witness' on forage fish habitatmatters, and nmiierous public presentations, WOl'kshops and
training sessiOD'S pertaining to fomge fish spawnilig ecology. Mr. Penttila is,deeply oonunitted to
th n1"Pc!.......P2hftft of ....:+:caJ' ., habilats ~ 1h""a..-......a... ~1h' ....:-h.........ft ofU7......t..;-ntBft State' "
e 1'.&"""" -.:,~.u:, '"'UU' "manne '.1m ,,';', UGJ:iGn1. 01 ,e "'J.~' " "~e"'.I1' '.
He cuttently resides in Anacortes, WA, and enjoys:fisbing, ,boating, SCUBA diving,
paleontology , astronomy, and DBtlmIJ.-history traveL
Kathryn'SobodDski
Kathryn Sobocinski ,is COIreJitly a research scientist with the University of Washington, School
of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences woddng on projectS related to salmonidccology in nearshore
and marsh environmems in the Paeifie Northwest and San Francisco Bay. Other previous
endeavours include: GradUate Stritient,. University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery
Sciences, Wetland Ecosystem Team,.(Th.esis ~e: The impact of shoreline armorlng on upper
beach fl1lll'la in central puget Sound); sdentist for NOAAl:NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science
Center, GUlf of Alaska Groundfisb Survey, worldng on variety of projects relating, to saJmonid
use of nearshore and estuarine habiiats; teaching assistant at University of WashingtOn Friday
Harbor Laboratories; and water quality technician, Snohomish County, Surface Water
Management
Si Simenstad
Charles A. ("Si) Sim~d, Researeh Associate Professor at the University ofWasbington's
School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences (SAPS), is an estuarine and coastal marine ecologist and
Coordiilator of the Wetland Ecosystem Team (WET). Si has conducted research on estuarine and
coastal marine ecosystems tbrougboot Paget Sound,' the Washington coast, and Alaska for over
thirty years. Much of this research has focused on the functional role of estuarine and coastal
habitats to support juvenile Pacific salmon and other fish and wildlife, and the associated
ecological interactions 1hat are respoosible for enhancing their production and life history
76
diversi~. His research concerns pr.QJ1ariIy natural (e.g., basic) ecosystem-, community- and
habitat-level interactiOns, with emplUisis on predator-prey relationshipS, the sources, orgAAi'7.atfon
and flow of organic matter tbrougk food webs, and bmdscape;-sca1e interaction between estuarine
phy.sicochemical and ecological pniCeSSeS. Recentresearcm has inteped ecosystem dynamics
with applied issues such as restoratiott and rehabiJitation of estuarine and coastal wetland
ecosystems, and ecological ajiprOaChes to evaluating the SilCCess of coastal wetland restoration at
ecosystem and landscape scaleS. He holds a B.S. (1969) and MS. (1971) from the School of
Fisheries at the University ofWashiDgton.
77
Appendix D. List ofWorksh:op Participants
Name
IDstitution
King Counly. Depu;ttmmt ofNatuml
Resources aadlarks
LiYingby WilerProgmm
W~S1aleDept Ecology
W8!ih~SeaGmnt
NWiR, Se8u1e
ArcbipeIaao Marine CoDSlllmnfll
US FORlSt&lrvice
ToDgassNaiioiBlForest
YJSheriesalidOCeans CamIda
US Army c:dI(J&ofF.ng;neers
CoasIa1&ocean 1tesomces Inc.
YJSheriesandtkeaos Canada
SbgitRiverSy$le:in Cooperative
YlSberiesandOCieaDS Canada
YJSheriesandOceans, Canada
Triton 'CommltJumi l.td.
~ otBritisbColumbia, Dept.
FORlSt,Scied:es
Y1Sberics aiJ.dOteans Canada
Fisberiesand'oteans Canada
YJSheriesaml OCeans Canada
Western, wa,di(.~n Univemity/Coastal
&dogie Senices
Gteer1 Belt c-n1fD1g
Puget SoUDdAdiOn Team
US FJSb and WikUife Service
FishetUlsaudOcclans Canada
Wi"'I~SeaGnmt
Nomi811 WifdJifc'Con$1lltiTtg
Fmmries and Oceans Canada
YlSheries aud~ Canada
Washington StaleDept Fish and Wildlife
University of'Mootrea1
FISheries and Ocems Canada
Univetsity CJfWasbiogton Sdlool of
Aquatic and YISIidy Sciences
Jen Simpson YJSberies8iUI Oceans Canada SirqpsonJe@paculfo-mno.mC8.
Kathryn Sobocinski University of Washington ksobo@aWILWnofnn edu
Tina Wbitinan Friends cJf1be San Juans tinA~1:l~uaIlS.cttg
Gregmy D. Wi11iam!;t BafleUeMmineScieneesLaboratory m:eao:tv.~l~ov
Ga.rY Williams GL Williams aud Associates sdwill@tefus.tiet
* Attended first day only and did not participate in breakout sessions
run Brennan
Clive Calloway
Doug Canning
*Ken Carrasco
Bob: DmnieUy
Brian Emmett
Steve Fadden
Melody Farren
Fred Goe1z
John Hatper
Joy Hillier
Greg,H:ood
*Shelley Jepps
Brad KOr;{)lok
Max Larson
Suzie Lavallee
JeffLem:ieux
Colin Levings
Steve Macdona.1d
Andrea'MacLennan
Elliot Menashe
Doug Myers
Katen Myers
Brian Naito
Anne Nelson
Don Norman
Scott Northrup
*Beth Piercey
Dan PentiDa
*Tamam Romanuk
Rob Russell
SiSitnenstad
78
Electronic mailing address
Tun.Brenna:n@M:B'mOl{C.GOV
clivect'Qi'ietstrea.ianet
dcan461lfiJ.ecy.. wa.2OV
KeD. CIt1lwsu.edU
bob;domtel1Y@rloaa.gov
B~lIn:h~!'Abum.C8.
sfadden@tS.fed.ua
Farte1IM'@pa'c.dfe--mpo.gc.ca
Frederick.A.~usace.annv.mil
jobn@~tnn
Hi1lierl~dfO,.nipe.2C.C8.
gh~............- '
"~i'.org
JepnSS~dtO:.mno.mC8.
KorOJl1kt~(u:lfo-JI1OO.mCa
max.lars01i@sbaw.Ca
s1avaU~e.ubc.ca
jefIlemieUii@shaw.ca
LevingsC@paO;dfu.mpo.gc.ca
Ma.cDnria:1d~C'dfo-!iltl0.l!C..ca
AmJtCterifuln~~net
eUi~dt1nO'com
DMyeiS@lSAT:WAGOV
Karen.:mv.ers@rLfws.~ov
Naitm~@{l81uito;.ttJ()o.~ca
~,wa.~riMnt1 edu
dcm.mmanfii)A~, COIn,
Notthr:im~C:dtO-mDo.2C.ca
PierceyBe@jaadf'(J..1l1pO.gc.ar.
PENT1DEP@dfw.wa.gov
roi1Uinukel~er:s.com
RusselJL@pac.dfo-D1l>O.sro.ca
sin1enstd@tLwashington.edu
Appendix llL Breakout Session Questions Posed to Workshop Participants
Breakout Session I
1. What mlm:leemeot approaches exist to mainfJriTl and restore or enhance the
various functions ofmariile riparian zone and are they supported by scientific
investigation?
2. Based on best available science (refer to talks on day 1 plus expertise and
experiencewitlifu the breakout session group) what management recommendation
that can be put forward-from the group?
3. How could a regionally wide approach (coastal management plan) facilitate
accomplishing multiple goals in items 1-21
Breakout Session 2
I. What are the outstanding management priorities from breakout session 1 for
which yon have insufticient data?
2. What kinds of data are needed to fill the gap? (scale, observational! monitoring,
experimental)
3. What funding sources are currently potentials to address this issue?
4. Are there any suggested collaborations between groups that would increase
likelihood of successful study?
79
Appendix IV.. Breakout Session Group Members
Group 1:
ModeratOF. Colin Levi:nAS
Rapporteur: Brian Emmett (moming)/Jim Brennan (afternoon)
Clive Caloway
Doug Cannings
Brian Emm.ett
Joy Hillier
...
uu;g nuou
.Andrea McLennan
Karen Myers
Dan PentiJla
Max Larson
GrQup2:
~r: Melody Farrell
Rapporteur: Steve MacDonald (morning) I Steve Fadden (afternoon)
Fred Goetz
John Harper
Shelley Jepps
Brad Koroluk
Elliot Menashe
Brian Naito
Anne Nelson
no: n:_...._ _.....:1
10.1'" U .I.1.I.l.'"'UO.......
Group 3:
Moderator: Doug Myers (moming)/JeffLemieux (afternoon)
Rapporteur: Jeff Lemieux I Suzie Lavallee
Robert Donnelly
Suzie LawUee
Don Norman
Scott Notthwp
Rob Russell
Jennifer Simpson
Kathryn Sobocinski
Ti.ltil w'illl.iUat{ ,
GregorY Williams
Gary WiHimn!l
80
c.
Appendix V. Workshop Agenda
Tuesday~ February 17, 2004
8:00-9:00 COntinental bre::lkTast served buffet style in meeting salon
9:00-9: 15 Welcome and introduction to the workshop (Melody Farrell)
Session 1: Setting 1he stage
9:15-10:15
Overview of research and thoughts on the marine riparian as fish habitat in British Columbia
Colin LeV:ingsITamara Romanuk
An Overview of riparianfimctions and management issues in marine nearshore ecosystems
Tun Brennan
10:15-10:30 QUestions and answers
10:30-10:45 HEALTH BREAK.
Session ll: Function~ values, and data gaps
10:45-11:15
Physical processes affecting the marine riparian zone and associated classification rationale
John Harper
11: 15-12:15
Fish habitat values andfimctions qtthe marine riparian zone
Kathryn Sobocinski! Jeff CordeD! 8i Simenstad
Forage fish spawning habitats
Dan Pentilla
12:15-1:15 LUNCH
1:15-1:45
Other (non fisheries) ecological fimctions and values of the marine riparian zone
Si Simenstad
1:45-2:15
Potential for terrestrial vegetation to influence nutrient subsidy to non-estuanne marine
environments in temperate ecosystems: summary backgroundfor thinking about management
and research approaches
Jeff Lemieux
81
2:15- 2:30 HEALTH BREAK
2:30-3:00
Effect of oceanographic processes on supralittoral marine riparian habitat (from a coastal
engineer'$ perspective) ,
Max Larson
Session ill: The effect of scale
3:00-3:30
Scaling marine riparian zone form andfimction
Greg Hood
Session IV: Current standards by jurisdiction
3:30-4:15
Rationale for current marine riparian setback lIDmdards and buffer widths in
the Pacific Northwest
Alaska-, Steve Fadden
BC -Melody Farrell
W~~hingh>n State- Doug Myers
4:15 -4:30 Questions and answers
4:30 Adjourn
Wednesday, Febromy 18jt 2004
8:00-9:00 Continental Breakfast served buffet style in meeting salon
9:00-9: 15
Summol'J' of day 1 and introduction to day 2 (Melody Farrell)
9: 15-9:30
Requirementsfor use of "best available science" by monagers (Doug Myers)
BREAKOUT SESSIONS
Session 1
9:30-11:00 Develop and prioritize n:commendations for management actions for
protection/conservation
11 :00 - 11 :45 Report back to plenary and discussion
82
- '.
~
.........t
From:
Sent:
"f'.
Cor
SUbject:
Jim.~t~.~.wa.us.j
1'Itui'8day. Nov__ fl. 200511:33 AM
ctma~"
Oindy Baker. C~ Gears; Eric Baker; JaR Angel; patty, Lenl'
Shoreline buff_
Commissioner Endr:esen,
In resp.onse td toar. Vo..iOetna:tl I.IIeSBacje this mOnUnq" the various g;.r:dups that are advo,cat-ing
,.increased ShO,r, eline bUf.ferS,' frequentl"Y, c,ite the nEW p,''llbueation MBna<jement;:
t:Reeoaunendations. fer Washington J s Priority
Habitats: ~j"an,. In this doewnent,- the, bu.rfer recommendati,on for T~ 1, and 2
stx::ea.ltlS; OJ; Snor:ellnes of the State.. Shor,elines of Statewide Si.cjt:d.f.ic~ce is: 259 feet.
C:Note: this; document alSo EecOilii:1\'ends buf:f~rs for fuh bearl~ type j streams' as lS6-t to
200' depend1n~ do the Width of the stream.)
~f. has, oolisid.e,t.ed this ~oc~t (al,Qng ~th,several others) and the sei,ence it: used (>
~ta,tions:l far devel,op:Lnq buf'feE' recoIillnf!nda.t;:ions~
HoWever" this d:(i)~Jtt sp~cl'fi:.ca1lY s,t;ates tbt it addresses ripa.r::i.an habitats: assoei.ate4'
with f1owing- water and that riparian habitats associated with marine and, standing water
~yste1IlS hav:e diff~r:ent characteristics and Will be, discussed in a s.epa~a:t:,e d~t. This
separate document is appcu:ently still in develop:ment.
:tn addition, while several soutees have disctl$sed marihe riparian ate~s and t$.e!J:
fllltction&; discus$ioB$ axe us,ually conditioned an the> fa,ct, t.h&re there. is lit'tle
eKperimenta1 stiJ:e~ce 'to document the relatioil$hips of functions .t'elatiife to: distance f.tom
, ,the sha:J:.&, as, bas baEm. dOC'i.UUented for. s:treams aD.d,J:'.:i.vers. ~ pOint is furtll.er sq.m.po.tted.
~,.bY"." t,'.h,e '"P'~cee4f,:n, <1;S""O"f, a,Mq.r~ne RilHl"r"i.a,n ~er"t.s, W"Or,ks'h01.>,' ,C20ll4) spon:sQred: bY, the 'Pug',et
SoWid .A.c.t:J.Q.~ 'leam and canadian Dept:~ of Fisheries: a11id Oces.nfi.
;, iheseexpe:J:'t;si\tiem::ified as an important 'priority the development of standatd:ized' curves
'that tti:;~p;r::esent: e~o,loqiea1 ~ttribut:es a5 a function of ;Landward di.&t~~ f'tmn Sj~.cu:;e; n'
which coUld "serv:e as g'u1del.ines for offsetting: distuxbance. ~nd de:velo.~nt ft~nt
shiQ'relin.e's. Ii ~pec.it'ica1iy.r when WorkShop pa..tt1oip~1:.s were asked 1;;0, consi.der. the- guidance
~' from C'Ji'm Coti;tained in their Critica1 Areas bsl,s:taJ:l.Ce H'an~ooJt: ahd US1:eltCl~~ekns
,~b:C :ciJ?~:=1ap: ~u~r,s of 150, r to 250 r ,all three dis'cUssion, ~J:01ipsno.ted: the laC;;k ~t,
's.c:i.entt:fi.,e. ev1.deiXQe to support these ri:icommet1dati.cins ro.:t 111.ildne id.pctrian a:r€ias.
Excerpts from the proceedin.g-s...
I would recoJiltllend all of the ComDlis's'iOners review the dO'ctunent in y.our blue binders wi th
the green t~b (about in the middle) that I s labeled "Bes.t Available Science White Paper"
for a more detailed discussion ox stat~s' consideration of the science. ' This document is
in the record and has been available to the public, online for, nearly. a yea,r, and was
1
I.
provided to the entire planning Commission prior to their hearings and deliberations,
despi te al~egations to the contrary. This documen.t pr.ovj;QeS detailed, dis:C\lssioo's of
staffs' considerations of BAS for all critical areas and iden'tifies Primary sourees of
scientific info~tion and explains our rationale. rt does address scienee submitted by
the
public. You have access to the "sci.ence'" that haa been turned in by
the pUblic with staff notes included. We,'re currently making ~les of everything and
,will bring the boxes down either later th1.s week or early. next. {This includes Dr.
Duff's, Dor. Flora's, Dr. Buell's" Dr. Crittenon, Mr. Gust&vson, etc.,}
Pierce County, in the pro.cess of adopting their shore1ine buffers or lack thereof;
recei ved a co11l1ttent letter from the wD'E'W indicat:::in(jj that the aqency wquld not support
buffers along marine sho:J;elines of less than 100 feet.. Pie:r;ce CoJmty. is now propos.in.g 100
~:d~Uf~~~~s~~~'f~it~~~ ~~~, ,..:.tWi~::'~'~:~;~;\!;' ~:t~0~'
" ,,' ,i~'~~ moi~ ..nd",.......ts' h the _ _ we have "'tte>c
~i~r't2t1t:' 'in~:ti.iie.t:eSOUrce a,reas.
If you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask. I'll try to be less ve~bous_ -Jim
-~~------------~-----~-~~-~-----
Jim Bolger
A$sistant Director
K:itsap County
Depart:ment of Communi ty Devel,opment
(360) 331-7165 cell: (360) 536-5453
Fax {360} 337-4.925 www.kitsapgov.com
_N________~~____~~__~___~___~___
2
Q
June 2008
. Dona1d F. Fl.ora
Formerly head of research on watershed studies, stream biology,
riparian ecology, and related subjects, covering several Forest
Service laboratories in Oregon, Washington, Alaska.
Formerly responsible for federal forest inventories and their
analyses in five western states.
Was program manager for national project on fire danger rating (in
forests)
Was program manager for national Timber Harvest Issues Studies, a
federal venture
Past technical editor for Journal of Forestry
Author of various technical-journal papers related to forests and
natural resources
Formerly affiliate professor, University of Washington
Formerly board member, Forest History Society
Early on, director of Keep Washington Green Association (forest fire
prevention)
Since retirement has:
Developed an alternative method of assuring sustainability in
calculations of geoduck harvest levels (led to small revisions
in State's' procedure)
Calculated that most of the variance in sediment drift along
beaches is attributable to fetch and drift-cell length, leaving
relatively little to be explained by sediment-reservoir factors
like volume of bluff colluvium, beach geometry, gravel size, and
bulkhead presence
Estimated nutrient flows into lower Hood Canal from ocean
upwelling, relative to maximum septic-nutrient discharges (the
ocean trumps septics 68 to 1)
Estimated the dependence of juvenile salmon on tree-obligate
insects (negligible)
1
Assessed the role ~f shoreline shade trees in the welfare of
(upper-beach) spawning surf smelt (apparently none in the
central Sound)
Assessed the risk of using trees in shoreline buffers
(considerable)
Examined whether oyster 'gardens' can significantly reduce
nitrogen levels in a central Puget Sound bay (cannot)
Reviewed, for the state's Department of Ecology, their science
compendium and guidelines relative to wetland buffering
Served on advisory panels for Kitsap County's critical areas
ordinance and Bainbridge Island's shoreline master program
Challenged the doctrine that mandating 'native' vegetation is
preferable to encouraging diversity in shoreline buffers
Identified elements of stream riparian science that have been
misused, or might well be used, in formulating buffer policies
for wetlands and saltwater shores
Advised several jurisdictions, including Puget Sound
Partnership, on the (generally low) utility of vegetated wetland
and tidewater buffers. This included review of some 3500
research abstracts and journal papers. Recommended various
alternatives
In several venues, has drawn attention to special features of
Puget Sound stratigraphy and climate that counter buffer
effectiveness
Identified specific vegetative arrays that preclude buffer
efficacy against chemical pollutants
Demonstrated, with statistical analysis, that the gain from
widening buffers for nutrient capture is not significantly
different from zero
Demonstrated that, in a study of beach transects, those ,in front
of bulkheads were not significantly different from non-bulkhead
beaches
In the Bainbridge Review, warned Islanders about firestor.m
possibilities, based on his fire-danger studies
Based on the wood-treatment and marine science literature,
assured the City that old creosoted piling, rather than a
threat, is a distinct and productive marine ecosystem
Assessed, for the City's staff, the vegetation and stability of
2
Island ravines
( .
Has wri'tten on impacts of buffering: Conscription of children's
spaces, wildlife inhabitants, area encumbered, grass in buffers,
pre-settlement restoration, diminishing returns, and social and
private costs.
Tidewater stump ranch youth in Mason County
BS forestry and geology, University of Washington
MS Yale University
PhD Yale University
3
March 2008
Updated
errED BUJ!'Jrl!:R sex_a:
ITS ECOGEOGRAPBIC DOMAINS
A number of regulatory and even technical treatments of buffering in
the Puget,Lowland have relied on research conducted in distant
places, within ecosystems and land-use regimes rarely if ever found
here. Planners and analysts are often unaware of this lack of
congruence.
To illustrate the point, here is an assessment of the science papers
cited by Christopher May in his report to Kitsap County.l His
suggestions for stream-buffer widths have been extrapolated to all
fresh water, apparently, by some consultants.2
The Christopher May col.lections
Aside from the Desbonnet summary paper mentioned later, May relied on
145 citations, of which about 50 were primary-research (non-
synthesis) papers. Those specific to pol.l.utant buffering (his table
5) were:
Bingham, s. C., et al. 1980. Effect of grass buffer zone length
in reducing the pollution from land application areas. Trans of
Amer Soe of Agric Engineers 23(2):330-342. Poultry manure
applied 'regularly' in a field. Bingham and Overcash (below)
published together and probably studied the same site: North
Carolina .
Dillaha, T. A., et al. 1988. Evaluation of vegetative filter
strips as a best management practice for feed lots. Jour Water
Pollution Control Fed 60(7):1231-38. Trials of grass and low
vegetation for buffering in feedlots using artificial rainfall.
11-16% slopes. study was in Virginia.
lMay, Christopher W. 2000 and 2003. Protection of stream-
riparian ecosystems: a review of best available science. Report to
Kitsap County Natural Resources Coordinator. 38 p.
2Envirovison,
Guidelines Working
functions in Puget
publisher unknown.
Herrera Environmental, and Aquatic Habitat
Group. 2007. Protecting nearshore habitat and
Sound: An interim guide. [Place of publication
May be Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife]
and
Page 1 of 7
Doyle, R. C., et al. 1977. Effectiveness of forest and grass
buffer strips in improving the water quality of manure polluted
runoff. MAE Paper 77-2501. This study involved placement of
livestock manures (dairy waste) close to buffers, 86 tons per
acre, in Mary1and. May's pollutant table misrepresents this pub
as 1997.
Hubbard, R. K. and R. R. Lowrance. 1992. Solute transport
through a riparian forest buffer system. Agron. Abstr. 43-4.
Similar material in: spatial and temporal patterns of solute
transport through a riparian forest. Pp 403-11 in: Riparian
ecosystems in the humid U.S., functions, values and management.
1994. Washington DC: Natl Assoc Conserv Distri~ts. Georg~a
coasta1 p1ain.
Jacobs, T. C. And J. W: 'Gi-lliam. 1985. Riparian losses of
nitrate from agricultural' drainage waters. Jour Envir Quality
14:472-8. ' North Caro1ina coasta1 pl,8in cultivated fields.
Jones, J. J., et ale 1988. The 'identification and management of
significant fish and wildlife resources in southern coasta1
~e. Augusta: Maine Dept of Inland Fish and Wildlife. Not
primary research on pollutants.
Lowrance, R. R. 1992. Jour Envir Quality 21(3):401-5. May's
cited-literature section does not include this entry, which he
used in his nutrient table. The study was done along a transect
from Georg~a coasta1 pLain crop land through woodland to a
stream.
Lynch, J. A., et ale 1985. Best management practices for
controlling nonpoint source pollution on forested watersheds.
Jour Soil & Water Conserv 40:164-7. Compared cut and uncut
forest pollution control performance with and without buffers.
Centra1 pennsy1vania.
Madison, et al 1992 This citation is mostly missing from May's
literature list. It is assumed to be Madison, C. E. 1992, at
page 331 in Agronomy Abstracts. OW's collection of this journal
ends with 1991. Presumably this paper reflects Madison's 1992
MSc thesis at the University of Kentucky, for which he did work
on vegetated filter strips in Wisconsin.
Magette, W. L., et ale 1989. Nutrient and sediment removal by
vegetated filter strips. Transactions of AIDer Soc of Agric
Engineers 32(2) :663-7. Experiments with grass plots and
rainfall simulator, near the Chesapeake in Mary1and or Virg~a.
Mander, D., et ale 1997. Efficiency and dimensioning of riparian
buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Ecol Engineering 8:299-
324. Relating mostly to his grey-alder research in Estonia, this
Page 2 of 7
report mentions two deciduous riparian woodlands near the Rhode
River in Massachusetts and Little River, Georgia.
Osborne, L. L. And D. A. Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated
buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream
management. Freshwater Biology 29:243-58. They followed Nand P
in groundwater moving from row crops through grass, cropped, and
forested buffers, in central I11inois.
OVercash, M. R., et al. 1981. Predicting runoff pollutant
reduction in buffer zones adjacent to land treatment sites.
Trans of Amer Soc of Agric Engineers 24(2): 430-435. On the
eastern Piedmont in North Caro1ina. See Bingham above.
peterjohn, W. T. And D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dyn~cs in
an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a
riparian forest. Ecology 65(5):1466-1475. Followed sediments, N
and P, from a corn field through a deciduous woodland in
:Mary1and., in the coasta1 p1ain.
Petersen, R. C., et al. 1992. A building-block model for stream
restoration. In: P. J. Boon et aI, eds, River conservation and
management New York: Wiley. Not primary science: A literature
review and suggested concepts of stream dynamics and ecology.
SCS [USDA Soil Conservation Service, now Natural Resources
Conservation Service]. 1982. Filter Strip 393. Apparently
related to fecal coliform removal in vegetative filter strips.
However this is not a valid literature citation.
Schultz, R. C. et al. 1995. Design and placement of a multi-
species riparian buffer strip system. Agroforestry Systems
29:201-26. Description of a riparian buffer restoration project
in Iowa and some data on effectiveness. Farmland is row-cropped
with corn, soybeans. The buffer is grass-shrub-trees.
Shisler, J. K. et al. 1987. Coastal wetland buffer delineation.
Trenton: ,New Jersey Dept of Environmentai Protection, Div of
Coastal Resources. 327 p. 100 New Jersey coastal sites were
studied for interactions of disturbance, buffers, wetlands.
Terrell, C. R. And P. B. Perfetti. 1989. Water quality
indicators guide: surface waters. Technical paper SCS-TP-161.
Washington, DC: US Soil Conservation Service. 129 p. Used in
May's pollutant table three times for buffer widths: Herbaceous
or cropland vegetative filter strips for nutrients, wooded
buffers for nutrients, and pesticide/coliform removal. Rating
sheets Uto determine by means of an indicators approach whether
farm-generated materials are a problem". Intended to be applied
nationally. Not primary research.
VanderhoLm , D. H. And E. C. Dickey. 1978. ASAE Technical Paper
Page 3 of 7
No. 78-2570, presented at ASAE 1978 winter meeting. No title is
given by May, yet this paper is cited twice, for flat and 4-
percent slopes. Its title is ~Design of vegetative filters for
feedlot runoff treatment in humid areas". It was mentioned but
not published in ASAE's Transactions, which are in OW library.
Vanderholm's related papers deal with manure handling and
storage in feedlots. Vanderholm was at U of Illinois and
research was almost certainly in central and northern I11~ois.
Vought, L. B., et ala 1994. Nutrient retention in riparian
ecotones. Ambio 23(6):343-8. A review article with ~some new
data from Sweden" on changes in'nutrients in surface and
groundwaters with distance of travel through riparian vegetation
zones. This is a Swedish journal, in English.
Xu, L., et ala 1992. Nitrate movement and loss in riparian
buffer areas. Agronomy Abstracts p. 342. This is based on a MS
thesis at North Caroliha Stata~ Nitrate and chloride were
inserted in soil trenches between croplands and riparian
buffers; the distance they had moved was measured after 530
days. In the Piedmont region of He.
Young, R. S., et ala 1980. Effectiveness of vegetated buffer
strips in controlling pollution from feedlot runoff. Jour
Environ Quality 9:483-97. Studied cropped fields in Minnesota
for nutrient capture by buffer strips.
May's science on buffer~q for fine sediment remova1 (his table 4)
comes from:
Belt, G. H., et ala 1992. Design of forest riparian buffer
strips for the protection of water quality: analysis of
scientific literature. A 30-some page science summary, produced
by Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group at
University of Idaho. Not primary research.
Broderson, J. M. 1973. Sizing buffers strips to maintain water
quality. MS thesis, University of Washington. A literature
review, oriented mainly to Northwest West Side logging. Not
primary research.
Cederholm, C. J. 1994. A suggested landscape approach for salmon
and wildlife habitat protection in western Washington riparian
ecosystems. In: Carey, A. B. and C. Elliott. 1994. Washington
forest landscape management project, report no. 1. Olympia: Dept
of Natural ,Resources. P. 78-90 Not primary research.
Cooper, J. R., et al. 1987. Riparian areas as filters for
agricultural sediment. Soil Science Society of America Journal
51:16-20. Cultivated land and woods draining to a flood plain
Page 4 of 7
swamp, in the AtJ.antic coastal. p~ain.
Davies, P. E~ And M. Nelson. 1994. Relationships between
riparian buffer widths and the effects of logging on stream
habitat, invertebrate community composition and fish abundance.
Australian Jour of Marine and Freshwater Resources 45:1289-1305.
Eucalyptus forests in Tasmania.
Desbonnet, Alan, et ala 1994. Vegetated buffers in the coastal
zone, a summary review and bibliography. Coastal resources
technical report 2064. Narragansett, RI: University of Rhode
Island Sea Grant and School of oceanography. It is curious that
May double-counted sediment-control buffer widths by including
numbers from this pub, in that he also pulled data from five of
Desbonnet's nine selected authors on sediment. In any case this
is not primary research.
Dillaha, T. A., et ala 1988. Evaluation of vegetative filter
strips as a best management practice for feedlots. A Virginia
study; see above.
Erman, (Not Eman, as in May's table), D. C., et ala 1977.
Evaluation of streamside bufferstrips for protecting aquatic
organismS. Contribution 165 (not 16 as in May's citation),
Technical Completion Report, Center for Water Resources,
University of California at Davis. Not accessible via Google,
not in OW collection.
Ghaffarzadeh, M., et al. 1992. Vegetative filter strip effects
on sediment deposition from overland flow. Agronomy Abstracts
p. 324. Not accessible via Google. Agron Abstr is in OW
, library but only through 1991.
Gilliam, J. W. And R. W. Skaggs. 1988. Natural buffer areas and
drainage control to remove pollutants from agricultural drainage
waters. Pages 145-8 in: Kusler, J. A, et aI, editors.
Proceedings of the National Wetland Symposium. Several sponsors.
Not yet seen; in OW stacks.
Horner, R. R. And B. W. Mar. 1982. Guide 'for water,quality
impact assessment of highway operations and maintenance, FHWA
WA-RD-39.14. Report to Washington State Dept of Transportation.
Dept of Civil Engineering, Univ of Washington. Not primary
research.
Karr, J. R. And I. J. Schlosser. 1977. Impact of near stream
vegetation and stream morphology on water quality and stream
biota. EPA 600-3-77-997. Not found in EPA on-line catalog, nor
in OW catalog. A 1978 Science paper may be related. Also
Schlosser and Karr published jointly later, which may locate the
work.
Page 5 of 7
Lowrance, R., et al. 1986. Long-term sediment deposition in the
riparian zone of a coastal plain watershed. Jour of Soil and
Water Conserv 41(4):266-71. Estimated erosion and deposition
downslope from field to forest in the southeastern coastal
plain, probably in Georgia.
Lowrance et al. 1988. Erosion and deposition in a field/forest
system estimated using cesium-137 activity. Jour of Soil and
Water Consen 43:195-9. Same objective as in 1986, but used a
cesium tracer with very different results. Same region,
probably same site.
Lynch, J.A., et al. 1985. Best management practice~ for
controlling nonpoint source pollution .on forested watershed.,
Jour of Soil and Water Conservation,40:164-7. Central
Pennsylvania, see above.
Magette, W. L., et al. 1989. Nutrient and sediment removal by
vegetated filter strips. Grass plots and rainfall simulator,
possibly in Maryland. See above.
Moring, J. R. 1982. Decrease in stream gravel permeability after
clear-cut logging: An indication of intragravel conditions for
developing salmonid eggs and alevins. Hydrobiologia 88:295-8.
On the Alsea River in oregon Coast Range.
peterjohn, W. T. and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in
an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a
riparian forest. Ecology 65(5):1466-75. Coastal plain of
Maryland, see above.
Raleigh, R. F., et al. 1986. Habitat suitability index models:
Chinook salmon. FWS/OBS-82/10.122., US Dept of Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service. For rating stream habitats according to
temperatures, velocities, etc judged important to Chinook. Data
taken from many sources. Not primary science.
Terrell, C. R. And P. B. Perfetti. 1989. Water quality
indicators guide: surface waters. SCS-TP-161. Washington, DC: US
Soil Conservation Service. 129 p. Listed twice in May's
sediment table. A rating guide for application nationally, see
above. Not primary research.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1982. The SCS item of unknown
content, listed above in the nutrient table.
Wilson, L. G. 1967. Sediment removal from flood water by grass
filtration. Transactions of Amer Soc of Agricultural Engineers
(ASAE) p. 35-7. Research done near Safford, Arizona
Wong, S. L. And R. H. McCuen. 1982. The design of vegetative
Page 6 of 7
buffer strips for runoff and sediment control. Civil
Engineering Dept of Univ of Maryland, for the Mary1and Coastal
Zone Management Program. This may have involved modeling,
implying sponging up others' data rather than doing primary
research. OW library says only U of Maryland library has this.
Young, R. S., et al. 198'0. Effectivene'ss of vegetated buffer
strips in controlling pollution from feedlot runoff. Jour of
Environmental Quality 9:483-97. Studied cropped fields in
Mi.miesota. Also in nutrients table.
Some Observations
May's cited primary-science studies on buffering for nutrients and
s~t involve mostly:
The Midwest and East Coast
Manure (nutrient studies) and cropland (sediment research)
May's compilation is sadly small, considering the plethora of buffer
studies. I have a 900-item annotated bibliography on vegetated
stream riparian zones and have been through over 3500 buffer items.
He fails to identify the soil, seasonality, climate, vegetative
composition and density, upstream and landscape features, of upland
and buffers pertinent to the studies he cites. Similarly rainfall
intensity and duration, snow cover and melt, soil saturation, and
overland vs subsurface flow circumstances. This problem is
compounded by his considerable use of others' compilations.
Given the known, vast differences between conditions in the Puget
Sound lowland and those elsewhere in North America, one cannot
perceive how May drew his inferences about buffering here.
Nor dOes he identify particular problems here with nutrients or
sediment, their locations and intensities, nor whether bUIfering can
be expected to be best or even salubrious practices.
He ~an be congratulated, however, on his ability to work many streets
with the same, rather old pushcart.
Don Flora
Page 7 of 7
12817 VAft...........;,ta Road
Bainbri~ :IsJ.am:l
Wa.shingt:on 981.10'
13 May 2008
City of Bainbridge Island
Attn: Kathy Cook
Interim Director
PI~nn:i nq and Conununi ty Development
Be: :tDsects, surf S1D81t, 'trees, aDd bu.ffers in t:he SMP
Here are four issue papers pertinent to your forthcoming Shoreline
Master Program. They're modified from counterpart analyses I did
lately for Puget Sound Partnership.
Kathy, before passing them to Peter you may wish to glance'at the
smmnaries. This because the draft SM;P probably has language quite
contrary to the technical conclusions reach~d in this packet. There
may be a stir over these points, which challenge shoreline doctrine:
I found that insects falling from tidewater saar-eline tree,s are
virtuaily irrelevant to the diets of passiIr'g salmon.
r surf smelt do not need shade above their spawning places on,upper
, beaches here. At only one ISland site do they spawn in sUIiltner,
and it's been barren of trees for at least a century. Obviously
Island smelt are either tough or indifferent.
/
For better or worse, trees above tidewater shores are at risl€'
from a combination 01: wind and storm.Tiater-saturated soil. It
follows that tree root~don't stabilize banks.
v
You will be disappointed by the performance of bank-top buffers.
In the buffer paper I explain why and list 14 sources of buffer
dismay and 20 things that widening buffers will not accomplish.
A number of rather obvious alternatives to buffers are mentioned.
Incidentally, I believe PSP will be enthusiastic about buffer
performance monitoring. You may want to make, say, a 5-year proposal.
Shorter-term, another u~~ful product woUld be a list of half-lives of
commonly used yard Ch;l}~s.
Don Flora
May 2008
SHORELINE VEGJ!:TA~ Bub.'~..ggs
GOOD mm BAD FOR
,
PUGET SOUND
Donald F. Flora PhD
,,' ,-
There is a plethora of literature on buffering along watered places.
Little of it applies directly to puget Sound. This is a brief
discussion of why that is, the functions and values we expect from
buffers, whether buffers can be expected to function well here, and
some of the alternatives. In summary:
Buffer studies around the world have focused largely on streams
winding through far.mland. Thus data on buffer effectiveness comes
mostly from short-duration studies on deep, well-drained soils beneath
pastures, feedlots, or bare-soil row-crop agriculture.
Recent decades have brought buffer research to forest settings along
back-country streams in the Northwest's West Side. Some of those are
mentioned here.
Literature compilations portray wide differences in effective buffer
widths, reflecting not faulty research but rather compilers' failure
to indicate the field conditions that varied among studies. There is
no 'best' buffer science.
In any case, buffering beside puget Sound has had much advocacy but
little study. In particular before/after research is seemingly absent
altogether and with/without comparisons are few and somewhat
confounded.
Buffers' primary role is stopping or slowing overland and near-surface
stor.mwater. This is important where nutrients, pathogens and toxics
aren't otherwise stopped.
Buffers work here: They slow or even stop sediments, which carry
certain pollutants. By slowing stor.mwater they encourage infiltration
to aquifers, which is either good or bad.
Buffers don't work here: They don't stop stor.mwater in places with
combinations of steep slopes, harqpan (glacial till) soils, hard or
Page 1 of 12
prolonged rains, winter-dormant vegetation, limited low groundcover
(as in shrub landscaping and woodlands). Dissolved pollutants travel
on.
On balance, The Island may wish to include in its SMP (1) checking the
performance of existing buffers and (2) considering the cost and
effectiveness of alternatives, including halting pollutants at their
sources.
There is a ,vast 1iterature on buffers. :It, has concentrated mainl.y on
riverine risks.
Because buffers are pertinent to non-point-source pollutants, river
issues have typically pertained to agriculture, with overland flows
across pastures, feedlots, and croplands, the latter two usually
involving bare soil. Slopes are not great and soils are relatively
deep and porous. Most U.S. studies have beert in the Midwest and East,
whez.:e sunnner rainfall is significant. 1 In many cases abrupt snow melt
is a factor. None of these facets is prominent along Puget Sound.
Recent dec:ades ha'Ve brought stream buffer studies into the Northwest
forestry sphere.
These have dealt mostly with concerns about sediment and debris flows,
provision of woody debris to saLmon streams, and habitat protection
where clearcutting would otherwise sharply change the ecosystem.
Research findings have been surprising for all three issues, discussed
a bit later.
Data on buffer efficacy has ranged wide1y.
It is easy to cite contradictory research findings; however
differences are more apparent than real. They lie in incomplete
reporting (especially in research surveys and compilations) of the
many factors, natural and manipulated, that bear on a buffer and its
burden. One can read that over 50 percent of received nitrate can be
removed by a buffer six feet wide. Or that only 4 percent was removed
in a 3D-foot buffer.2
So-called syntheses are not much help in resolving the variance. Most
'of these publications focus on a narrow perception of relevant
landscapes and threats. In trekking through 3500 abstracts and papers
related to buffers I did not find an efficacy model that would
accommodate Puget Sound conditions.
Page 2 of 12
For buffering, Puqe1: Sound is unfavorab1e 1:0 say the 1east.
This statement applies to places underlain by glacial tills (hardpan),
left by continental ice sheets or their ouflow rivers.3 Typically
close to the surface, with very low per.meability, they serve as a
cement floor above which flow whatever fluids infiltrate surface
soils. Tills account for our remarkable abundance of wetlands, which
are generally cups in the till.
The second element is our rainfall's concentration in winter months
and its abundance. In much of North America summer rain is common.
This is a factor in vectoring chemicals, applied during the growing
season, into buffers. Rain's abundance in multi-day events and
occasional downpours (as in early December, 2007) tends to flood even
well-vegetated buffers. Since at least the 1880s, almost all of the
hundreds of landslides in Seattle have been preceded by winter storms.4
A third element is our irrepressible vegetation, which spares us much
erosion. However an unintended consequence of many prescribed buffers
is their porousness at the surface: Overhead shrubs and trees suppress
with shade the dense ground cover needed to halt stor.mwater in its
stride.
The fourth factor is the winter dor.mancy of most of our vegetation.
Trees along the shores are expected to capture large amounts of
stonmwater and send it off to the sky via evapotranspiration. But
that is a spring-summer affair. For hardwoods and softwoods alike,
winter absorption of water is as little as one percent of that in
summer. 5
Together, these conditions conspire to pass stor.mwater on through
buffers, or, underground above the till, create dams of roots that
saturate the substrate with obvious effects on the buffer, stor.mwater,
and whatever the water carries.
All of which is exacerbated by buffering on steep slopes. Bluffs
aside, puget Sound shores are- not famously steep. Still, shorelines
do not slope uphill toward the bay.
So, do we need vegetated buffers?
How wide? With what within them?
those mi1es and acres?
If yes, ,how many miles of them?
And if not, what wou1d be on a11
The last question first. Even in downtown Seattle, the principal land
uses facing the Sound are residential and recreational. Industrial
use is apparently fading, as in Bremerton, Olympia, and Bellingham and
on our Island bays. There is general agreement that, in both our
urban core and suburban areas, the Island's shoreline will retain its
residential domain, with shoreline vegetation comprising grass,
shrubs, and trees.
Page 3 of 12
( ,
Whether formal buffering is needed is largely unknown. Marine
riparian experts, meeting in 2004, concurred that ~It was felt that no
good science currently exists to recommend vegetation buffer widths in
the [marine riparian zone] at this time." And, ~Scientifically
defensible recommendations for vegetated buffers were felt to be
limited to the recommendation of vegetation presence over absence when
a choice implicated."6
From such a sturdy knowledge foundation it is a bit hard to justify,
much less write specifications for, bank-top buffers.
There .is nearby stream sc.ience re1at.ive to buffers.
Riparian research in forestry has included with/without studies of
clearcutting versus buffering next to streams. Examples are mentioned
here.
Buffering to control stream temperatures with trees' shade has been
common, because high water temps are known to cause mortality in
salmon eggs. It is also known that higher temperatures increase
productivity of the ecosystem, including the biomass of young sa~ons'
prey and the rate of growth of those sa~on.
The obvious tradeoff has gradually been quantified. Across western
Washington, on nine pairs of logged and unlogged sites, total sa~onid
biomass averaged 1.5 times greater after streamside logging than in
adjacent unlogged sections.7 In southwest Oregon, despite its war.mer
climate, on eight streams where 102,000 macroinvertebrates were
counted and identified, the organisms were more numerous in reaches'
lacking any canopy.s Again in Oregon, in three watersheds, there was
no sa~onid mortality in clearcuts despite higher temperatures.9 On
Vancouver Island two whole watersheds were committed to sa~on
recovery studies. Both areas were clearcut; one was restored,
including streamside vegetation. The barren watershed greatly
outproduced the revamped watershed. 10
In a review of such studies, researchers have said,
Increased temperatures following logging, together with increased
light levels and increased nutrient concentrations, often lead to
general increases in productivity in the trophic levels that for.m
the basis of fish production. Increased temperatures, light, and
nutrients all playa role. Temperature directly affects
development rates of fish; in some systems, the temperature
increases lead to earlier emergence, longer growing seasons, and
increased survivals at critical times in the life histories of
fish.ll
A book has been written about large woody debris (driftwood) in
streams12, there is much discussion in 'another,13 and much journal
literature, which tends to deify driftwood. Meanwhile the 'right'
Page 4 of 12
amount of woody debris, presumably differing greatly among sites, has
not been determined. In fact a 'let disturbance alone' view is
growing.14 In natural conifer forests a 39-stream study showed that
..Jre than 70% of the woody debris originated within 65 feet of the
stream. 15
Whether wildlife habitat is affected by a shorn environment along
streams has been studied in western Washington. Aquatic creatures are
remarkably insensitive to vegetation above the backshore. A study of
62 Olympic Peninsula streams and associated riparian zones concluded
that the characteristics and even the presence of the riparian forest
had no influence on the persistence of fishes and stream-related birds
'and mammals.16 Research on 18 Washington Cascades streams found that
total abundance and species richness of birds and small mammals using
areas close to streams before any timber harvest were comparable to
the number and kinds after harvest.17
Most Island shoreline buffers are manufactured habitat at best.
With 80% of Island shores developed, mostly for homes, buffers are
clearly created, insular habitat.
A University of Washington ornithologist has found that the array of
bird species is broader in urbanizing (suburban) areas than in
forests. This in the Seattle-Snoqualmie Pass corridor.1B The reason
is the greater range of habitats in developing areas. By extension,
birds are more varied in the present diverse landscapes along shores
than would live in a unifor.m buffer perimeter.
Fisheries and riparian scientists are skeptical about the permanence
and effectiveness of contrived habitats.19 For one thing, they may
have unintended inhabitants:
Feral cats,
Coons and rats,
Crows and bats,
all of whom we seem to have in sufficient abundance, to the
consternation of other wildlife. Well, we like bats.
Finally, there may be a heads-up in a consultant's statement, "...the
legal intent of those buffers is to protect functions in adjacent
shorelines or critical areas, not to provide upland habitat for
terrestrial species. ,,20
Everywhere, buffer research has shown d.iminishinq returns.
Buffer compilations from across the country don't apply well to the
Puget Sound lowland, but they consistently show that gain in buffer
effectiveness in not proportional to increases in width. A 20-foot
Page 5 of 12
buffer is not twice as effective as one 10 feet wide. This is
counter-intuitive if one assumes that twice as many trees or twice as
much space mean twice the absorptive capacity, but there it is. I can
provide references. It ~ppears that for sediments and nutrients, in'
far.m country, buffer efficacy is largely 'used up' at 100 feet.
:Buffers as habitat refIect declining returns to scal.e.
Conceptually any natural system, whether single- or many-species, is
driven by many factors. At any time and place any factor may be
limiting the welfare or production of the system. With aquatic or
marine riparian life, vertebrate or otherwise, some factor may be a
key stressor or limiting factor. Relieving the itch relieves all, so
that total welfare can increase a bit until some other factor become
controlling. Here again, diminishing returns prevail. An example is
probably nitrogen in Hood Canal. 'Elsewhere, candlefish or candlefish
habitat may be limiting for predatory birds and fish.' Successive
increments of candlefish will diminish in their aid to the system.
This principle of joint production functions draws blank looks from
many folks, but your technical people may think in these terms.
A vegetated buffer of trees or grass mayor may not be a constraining
factor. If not, enlarging the buffer may offer no benefit to the
natural system of concern.
There is an important difference between 'obIigate' and 'primary
association".
Lists of important species and their principal habitats tend to
obscure that difference.
Deer.mouse droppings and wood duck doo
Critter evidence it's true
But I don't know and nor do you:
Do they here reside or just pass through?
If buffering' is the order of the day, grass probabJ.y t.:cumps aII other
vegetation.
Lawns have been scorned as an unsuitable land use, particularly along
the shore. It is said that lawns contribute fertilizer nutrients,
herbicides, insecticides, and grass clippings to the Sound and all of
these are bad. In addition grassy yards use water that otherwise
would not be drawn from aquifers.
Grass outranks trees by more than two to one in nutrient absorption
and is especially effective in poorly drained soils like our hardpan.21
Page 6 of 12
(
"Oils, most metals 'and pesticides will generally not be effectively
removed by vegetated buffers once they have entered [the ground]."22
These chemicals typically attach themselves to sediment, so much
depends on whether sediment moves along.
Relative to trees and shrubs, grass can be best for erosion control.
The reason is the tendency for water moving over a bare surface to
draw itself into small channels. The channels lead to rill erosion,
and grass prevents the rills. Rills are not prevented by woodland
vegetation.23 Around Puget Sound construction sites, overgrazed
pastures, and row cropping may be our rather few erosion sites.
Grass uses less water than, say, trees. In summer trees use multiple
inches of water per month (I have data on this). Lawn watering of an
inch a week is sometimes recommended during droughty weather, though
few yards appear to get that much. An advantage of yards is that
water use can be controlled; with trees only the tree turns the tap.
Grass is biologically more productive than trees. The primary
productivity of yards is greater than that of woods.24
Grass is politically incorrect in some places.
"Native" vegetation is a provincial. prescription.
It isn't a technical matter- except for the question of whether non-
native veg is more susceptible to stressors than native kinds.
"Non-native" materials may usually be cultivars of natives rather than
truly foreign. In either case they may have been bred or selected not
only for their appearance, scent, or other utility but also for
durability. Non-native plant materials may be the rationale response
to a non-native pest or disease.
It seems unlikely that thousands of homeowners, landscapers, and
growers will gladly forego showy rhododendrons, roses, and scarlet
maples for homely native rhodies, wild r.oses, and Northwest drab
maples.
I have listed 14 benefits that have been c.1ai.med for buffers if placed
where now they do not exist.
Unfortunately they all are fairly readily refuted:
Trees planted along the shore would eventually fall with sediment
to the beach, helping marine life without smothering it,
Trees planted along the shore would stabilize the bank,
Upland vegetation would everywhere slow and absorb stor.mwater,
Page 7 of 12
Buffer vegetation would contribute useful nutrients to tidewater,
Vegetation zones would serve as barriers to harmful chemicals,
Insects from buffer trees are an important food source for marine
fish,
Vegetated buffers would displace grass, a good thing,
An ancient-forest tidewater shoreline would be restored,
Prescribed buffers are charming,
Vegetation strips would impose little cost on the community,
Requiring buffers is not conscription: it carries little value
loss nor out-of-pocket costs to owners,
OWners lose little benefit of the property,
Children enjoy buffers more than lawns, and
Buffers are generally great places for people.
Given existing buffering, wider buffers wi11 not:
Improve shade for surf smelt eggs
Increase water temperatures to enhance invertebrate production
Increase large woody debris (driftwood)
Drop more leaf litter onto the beach (wrack)
Provide more woodland, insects for salmon' diets
Improve the nutrition of passing salmon
Conserve water for infiltration to aquifers
Increase eelgrass production
Increase the abundance of juvenile nor adult salmon
Improve shoreline habitat functions for salmonids or other
resources
Increase marine habitat diversity
Broaden the diversity of riparian vegetation
Page 8 of 12
Enhance the attributes of resident plant species
Draw enthusiasm from landscape architects
Speed the dynamics of intertidal drift zones
Slow the loss of backshore to the sea
Provide useful perches for eagles
Encourage outdoor play by children
Raise property values
Reduce site-specific problems
There ~ aJ.ternatives to buffers that may be cost-effective.
Buffers are clearly not a panacea. In fact 1awns of grass appear to
be a better baseline against which to gauge alternatives:
For stor.mwater - ponds, furrows, ber.ms, arid even paved routes;
Low Impact Development
For sediment - grassy swales
For pesticides and herbicides - using short half-life materials
For toxic chemicals - abstinence
For bacteria - functioning septic systems
For wildlife - leafy verges, parks, meadows, beaches, and inland
woodlands that also serve as children's places.
Page 9 of 12
NOTES
1. Perhaps the publication most widely ,read in Puget Sound planning circles
is intended to guide tidewater buffering, yet it relies almost entirely
on inland ag and stream studies: Desbonnet, Alan, et al. 1994. Vegetated
buffers in the coastal zone, a summary review and bibliography. Coastal
Resources Center Technical Report 2064. Narragansett, RI: Rhode Island
Sea Grant and Oniversity of Rhode Island Graduate School of
Oceanography.
2. Both are found in Desbonnet et aI, above.
3. Till's nature and origin are well described in PSNP pubs:
2006-02 The geomorphology of Puget Sound beaches
2007-04 Beaches and bluffs of Puget Sound.
4. Schulz, William H. 2007. Landslide susceptibility revealed by LIDAR
imagery and historical records, Seattle, Washington. Engineering Geology
89: 67-87.
5. Baker, Frederick S. 1950. Principles of silviculture. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
6. Lemieux, J. P., et al,eds. 2004. Proceedings of the DFO/PSAT sponsored
marine riparian experts workshop, Tsawwassen, BC, February 17-18,' 2004.
Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2680.
Vancouver BC: Fisheries and Oceans Canada
7. Bisson, Peter A. and James R. Sedell. 1984. Salmonid populations in
streams in clearcut vs old-growth forests of western Washington. In:
Meehan, William R., et aI, eds. Fish and wildlife relationships in old-
growth forests, proceedings of a symposium, Apri~ 1982. American
Institute of Fishery Research Biologists.
B. Meehan, William R. 1996. Influence of riparian canopy on macro-
invertebrate composition and food habits of juvenile salmonids n several
Oregon streams. Research Paper 496. Portland: OS Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station.
9. Hall, James D. and Richard L. Lantz. 1969. Effects of logging on the
habitat of coho salmon and cutthroat trout in coastal streams. In:
Northcote, T. G., ed. Symposium on salmon and trout in streams. H. R.
MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries. Vancouver, BC: Oniversity of British
Columbia, Institute of Fisheries.
10. Ward, Bruce R., Donald J. F. McCubbing, and Patrick A. Slaney. 2003.
Evaluation of the addition of inorganic nutrients and stream habitat
structures in the Keogh River watershed for steelhead trout and coho
salmon. In: Stocker, John G., ed. Nutrients in salmonid ecosystems:
Page 10 of 12
sustaining production and biodiversity. Proceedings of the 2001 Nutrient
Conference, Eugene. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society.
11. Beschta, R. L. et al. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat:
fisheries and forestry interactions. In: Salo, E. O. and T. W. Cundy,
eds. Streamside management: forestry and fisheries interactions.
Contribution No. 57. Seattle: University of Washington, College of
Forest Resources, Institute of Forestry Research.
Quoted in Buell, J. W. 2000. Review of Kitsap County draft "Land use &
development policies", Critical Areas Ordinance" and supporting
documentation. Memorandum 21 January 2000. Portland, OR: Buell &
Associates, Inc., Consulting Biologists.
12. Maser, C., et ala 1989. From the forest to the sea, the story of a
fallen tree. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-229. Portland: Pacific
Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
13. Montgomery, David R., et al., eds. 2003. Restoration of Puget Sound
rivers. Seattle: Center for Water and Watershed Studies, University
Washington Press.
14. Tappeiner, J.C. II, et ala 2002. Silviculture of Oregon Coast Range
forests. In: Hobbs, Stephen D., et aI, eds. Forest and stream management
in the Oregon Coast Range. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
15. McDade, M. H., et al. 1990. Source distances for coarse woody depris
entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. Canadian
Journal of Forestry Research 20(3): 326-30.
16. Research by Peter Bisson and Martin Raphael, summarized in: Duncan,
Sally 2003. Science Findings 53 (May). Portland: Pacific Northwest
Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
17. O'Connell, M. A., et ale 2000. Effectiveness of riparian management
zones in providing habitat for wildlife. Final report. Timber Fish &
Wildlife report 129. Olympia: Washington Department of Natural
Resources.
18. Marzluff, John. 2003. Data presented at a seminar on urban ecology,
November 7, University of Washington, College of Forest Resources,
Seattle. '
19. For instance, Simenstad, Charles A. And Jeffrey R. Cordell. 2000.
Ecological assessment criteria for restoring anadromous salmonid habitat
in Pacific Northwest estuaries. Ecological Engineering 15:283-302.
20. Houghton, Jonathan. 2003. Review of incorporation of best
available science in proposed City of Bainbridge Island shoreline
rules. Edmonds, WA: PENTEC Environmental.,
21. Desbonnet et aI, 1994, above.
22. Desbonnet et aI, 1994, above.
Page 11 of 12
23. Desbonnet et al again, above.
24. Falk, John H. 1980. The primary productivity of lawns in a temperate
environment. Journal of Applied Ecology 17:689-696.
Page 12 of 12
December 2007
A PERSPECTIVE ON
INSECTS EATEN BY
<fl.
JUVENl:LE PUGET SOUND SALMON
Donald F. Flora
Commonly listed among the functions and values of tidewater buffers
are insects, said to fall from overhanging shoreline tre'es, to be
eaten by young salmon and forage fish swimming close to shore.
Whether that nutrition mechanism is significant or trivial relative
to other sources is the general question addressed here.
Examined specifically are four issues, relying on research
publications cited later. The questions and their short answers are:
Do young salmon ingest insects? Yes. PUget Sound studies indicate
that insects account for about 12 percent of juvenile salmon biomass
intake. For adult salmon and forage fish the figure is near zero.
Where does the insect biomass come from? Mostly from aquatic sources
(freshwater streams and wetlands) and estuaries. Some derives from
tidewa ter beaches. Some comes from upland vegeta tion. Li ttle comes
from trees.
What share of salmons' diets comes from insects dependent on trees?
Between 1 and 2 percent.
Would doubling the number of shoreside trees make a difference for
young salmon? Gl. ven the several local studies of salmon diets, a
considerable science on aquatic and near-tidal insects, and clear
knowledge of the insect inhabitants of marine riparian tree species,
the answer appears to be 'nearly none' .
Page 1 of 10
Juvenile salmon practice predation across a broad spectrum of prey.
Young salmon are avid consumers (as are many other predators) of
aquatic insects as the fish hatch upstream and, growing along the
way, the salmon move down toward estuaries and tidewater.' In Puget
Sound their diet shifts toward marine organisms and smaller fish. By
adulthood, cruising in deep water, their menu comprises mostly fish,
notably herring. Until then, insects will have played a steadily
declining role in salmons' intake.
In a recent Sinclair Inlet studyl kinds2 of prey, all from the animal
(versus plant) kingdom, were compiled from juvenile salmon stomachs.
Over a hundred kinds were marine creatures, either connected to the
bay's bottom or 'drifting or moving under their own power. Typical
were fish eggs, shrimps and tiny shrimp-like creatures, sand fleas,
pileworms, young crabs, and barnacle larvae. Remarkably, Chinook
salmon ate juvenile octopuses and squid. Not surprisingly they also
ate perch, bottom fish and (smaller) chum salmon.
Insects have been found in all tidewater juvenile-salmon diet
studies.
Perhaps more surpr1s1ng is that insects, few of which survive in
saltwater, are present in the salt chuck. Yet, in Sinclair Inlet and
other studied places, insects have not been rare in the fare of
juvenile salmon. Arriving from various places beyond the tidal
reach, they have ranged from tiny mites to hulking wasps. Rather a
let-down after an octopus presumably, though some of the insects'
quantities were large.
Three other Puget Sound studies have yielded published results in
sufficient detail to analyze biomass consumption, a better measure of
salmon welfare than numbers of creatures consumed. Biomass is what
drives both energy and growth of fish.
Brennan et al (2004)3 worked off Snohomish and King County shores,
including Vashon and Maury Islands. Fresh et al (1981)4 worked near
Anderson Island in the South Sound and off Bainbridge Island. Duffy
(2003)5 collected in the Whidbey basin and the Fox Island-Steilacoom
area south of the Tacoma Narrows.
In all four studies the capture sites were close to shore because the
emphasis was on juveniles.6
The weighted-average7 insect-biomass share of the stomach biota of all
young salmon examined (Chinook, coho, chum and pink) in these four
studies was about 12 percent. That share ranged widely, from 0
(frequently) to 50 percent (rarely) in particular times and places.
Page 2 of 10
A few kinds account for most of insects' dietary contributi.on.
Although 61 biologic types of insects were recognized by the
analysts, and several were numerous, few of them carried much heft
biomass-wise.
The significant groups are described here, including their general
habitats. Together these five groups accounted for over 85 percent
of the insect biomass consumed by salmon:
Ants and termites (Members of Hymenoptera and Isoptera) -- These
may seem unlikely visitors to saltwater, but they outweighed
every other eaten group by far, contributing 58 of the 85
percent just mentioned. Ants were prominent in Sinclair Inlet
and along central Puget Sound shores.
Carpenter ants live in dead and rotted wood. Winged adults
emerge from nests yearly in swarms to mate in the air; males
then die. Aerial swarming echoes the mating behavior of many
aquatic insects and, if trees don't interfere with wind, may
explain the presence of ants afloat on tidewater.
Most ants, the workers, don't have wings. These versions are
common in shoreline wrack, dissecting plant tissues and other
invertebrates live and dead. Anthills and portals to
underground nests are common along Paget Sound backshores. A
single nest's hunting ground can reach out hundreds of yards.
So unwinged ants may well come to salmon, accidentally, from the
marine margin.
Brennan's group published monthly diet detail. Ants were found
in Chinook taken throughout the two summers studied. This
suggests wandering surface ants rather than episodic flyers.
Dampwood termites, found in Sinclair Inlet, occupy dead wood
including snags, stranded drift logs, and branches in the wrack.
They parallel ants with their unwinged workers and winged
flyers. The winged 'ones emerge to fly annually at mating time.
As with ants, annual swarming may bring them to 'the shore.
Termites do not tumble from trees; in fact they have no use
whatever for live trees.
Curiously, in the first of two years' assessment, the Fresh team
in Sinclair Inlet found a considerable biomass of 'termites -
more than any other prey organism except fish and worms. The
next year virtually none. Yet, like ants, termites swarm every
year, in late summer. Perhaps birds got' em.
Fli.es (Dipterans) -- Three kinds of flies were found in numbers
great enough to be worth tallying, all of them well-known to fly
Page 3 of 10
(.
\.
fishermen and stream biologists. B They were midges, dance
flies, and fungus gnats. The analysts concluded that the flies
had floated downstream intO' tidewater. Fungus gnats and midges
are found in marine settings as well. They wereabO'ut 13
percent of the insect biomass.
Sal tmarsh leafhoppers and aphids (Among the Homoptera) -- Most
leafhoppers, planthoppers and their cousins live and dine on
land plants. Enough are aquatic that they are mentioned in
texts on aquatic invertebrates. Several families were found in
Sinclair Inlet. Some species are specific to streams ides and
salt marshes, where they live along th~ margins. Others hang
out on grasses just above the wrack line along marine beaches.
A popular fishing fly is tied to mimic leafhoppers.
Every rose gardener deplores the earthly habits of aphids (plant
lice), that suck juices from the leaves of shrubs, annuals,
perennials, and trees like birches that have succulent leaves.
Some are winged and may be blown about. Some live on emergent
vegetation in fresh water. And some live on bay-side plants.
Aphids are one of the two groups significant to this review that
are likely to have come, in mating swarms, from non-aquatic
vegetation. About 3 percent of the insect biomass came from
aphids.
Bark lice (Part of Psocoptera) -- Aphid-like and winged, these
insects are vegetation-dependent, living on the surfaces of
shrubs and trees. They feed on lichens and fungi. They were
found in significant numbers and biomass in Puget Sound studies,
apparently at swarm-and-mate time.9 They are the second group
that probably came from non-aquatic vegetation. About 8 percent
of the insect biomass was bark lice.
Some moths and aquatic caterpillars (Lepidopterans) -- This
group is huge across the Northwest. The analysts weren't able
to' report whether terrestrial or aquatic species were found, and
there are many possibilities of both. Those found were
presumably winged a~ults. Their larvae are famous miners and
shredders of foliage, from trees to shrubs to stream vegetation.
About 4 percent of the insect biomass was of these kinds.
An example of tree-based caterpillars in salmonid stomachs
occurred during the 2001-03 tent caterpillar outbreak. I
collected 2000 larvae (caterpillars) from one birch tree and
estimated that 6000 more were too high to reach. Billions
of adults must have flown from trees and shrubs around the
Sound. A handful were found in salmonid stomachs by the Brennan
team. Clearly most of these terrestrial moths had business away
from tidewater.
Diet proportions recited here should be considered rather general,
Page 4 of 10
for three reasons. They are based on biologic and environmental
conditions that vary immensely over space and time. Identification
of partly-digested invertebrates is not easy. And many of the
numbers were reported in charts rather than tables, so SOMe crude
scaling was required.
Stream deltas, estuaries, and thei.r marshlands may have much to do
with insect supp1ies.
Many kinds of aquatic insects, well-known to fish, were consumed by
these studies' salmon, though in small numbers in the central and
lower Sound. Examples not discussed above include many other
freshwater fly fam.ilies, diving wasps, water bugs, aquatic beetles,
fishing spiders, and water mites.
The Sinclair Inlet analysts wondered at the low occurrence of aquatic
insects, especially midges, in their part of the Sound. They
reasoned that such insects favor deltas and salt marshes, scant in
the Inlet.
Duffy, on the other hand, found that prey comprised mostly insects in
the deltas of the Whidbey Basin, fed by three rivers carrying 60
percent of the freshwater entering Puget Sound. The combination of
down-river drift and a mosaic of deltaic estuaries and marshes there
may deliver multitudes of aquatic insects and board lingering salmon
nicely. The researchers seem to agree that aquatic insects loom much
larger than this summary suggests.
Most of the salmonids' insect prey groups have l.inks to fresh
water. . .
Of 61 insect kinds found in the several studies (albeit sparsely in
most cases) 42 are strongly represented among freshwater obligates:
Some parts of their lives depend absolutely on streams or standing
water .10
. . . Whil.e a few have ties to trees.
These are bark lice, some aphids, and certain moths. The source of
bark lice is puzzling, as they are not associated with alders, firs,
cedars nor our other common shoreline trees.11 Aphids, on the other
hand, are ubiquitous and could be coming from many terrestrial
plants.
Moths, too, were mentioned earlier. Alders (our most abundant
shoreline trees) host (rarely) a leafroller, a webworm, and a tussock
moth plus (every few years) those rascally, cyclic caterpillars.
Cedars attract tussock moths and a leaf tier. That's about it for
our nearshore tree-dependent moths, and moths of all venues were
Page 5 of 10
minor in salmon stomachs. Of the tree-related moths, only the tent
caterpillar was identified in the studies.
Those insects most likely to be dependent on trees, aphids and bark
lice, accounted for about 1\t percent of the total invertebrate
biomass found in sal.Jtton. stomachs.
All other eaten insects were heavily related to non-tree upland
vegetation or to freshwater environments.
Herring and simiJ.ar fish eaten by salmon are not insect consumers.
Predators all, salmon start young at eating other fish, even other
salmon. Herring, sand lance, and surf smelt, collectively called
baitfish or forage fish, up to half the lengths of attacking salmon,
were found in salmon stomachs.
If insects were consumed by forage fish they would be contributing to
the greater welfare of salmon. However Fresh's 1981 team netted and
examined nearly 400 forage fish and reported no insects in their
diets.
The key insect groups described. here all have and use wings.
All these fulsome contributors
they use continually for local
and through dead-wood tunnels.
have wings, reserved for major
to salmon nutrition have legs, which
motion across leaf and beach surfaces
With certain exceptions they also
migration, meeting and mating.
Aside from. downstream drifting, aerial swarming JIlay be insects' prime
route to tidewater.
Mating and migration flights, and related swarming, may account for
the seemingly spontaneous, irregular appearance of many insects,
controlled by temperature and other environmental factors. That they
arrive upon tidewater is presumably nocturnal mischance.
Tidewater trees do little to assist beach-related insects.
Freshwater biologists often report seeing insects falling from trees
into streams or ponds below. These are mainly aquatic insects that
have emerged from puberty in the water to mate in flight or on any
nearby surface. Males then typically die at once, dropping back into
the water. Females usually expire post-partum, in the water. Thus
both sexes can be seen heading waterward.
There are some intertidal and near-tidal insects that may follow the
Page 6 of 10
fly-and-die protocol, including some midges, certain flies,
springtails and a beetle, but none needs trees to copulate. Some of
these are numerous along the shore though none provides significant
biomass to salmon.
In addition to swarm-and-die there is a presumed accidental,
incidental drizzle of insects from saltwater shoreline trees'
foliage, or with leaves as they fall. However insects commonly
associated with Puget Sound trees do not lose their grips easily.12
And leaf fall comes in later months than salmon feeding.
Elsewhere trees have not been essential conduits for tidewater
insects.
The salmon-diet studies reviewed here do not identify specific
vectors for the observed insects. However other studies have noted
insect swarms blown out to sea, and the abundance of woodland insects
arriving in streams adjacent to pastures and forest clearcuts. From
western Oregon to southeast Alaska research has shown that clearcuts
can generate more invertebrate supply in adjacent streams than does
oldgrowth.
In all places where insects have been trapped beside tidal beaches,
there has been a baseline catch of insects regardless of inshore
vegetation. An example is an unvegetated condominium site in the
Georgia Basin of B.C., which provided a low but significant census of
aquatic flies.13 In Puget Sound Sobocinski captured large numbers of
insects on shorelines encumbered by bulkheads and scant vegetation.14
Shoreside trees may be an impen;ment to inshore insects heading
sal.:mon-ward.
A line of shor6side trees may be a barrier to insect swarms, trapping
them inshore. The windbreak stops or slows air currents whose
ability to carry insects varies with windspeed. The insects won't
really care: They have no affinity for saltwater, and most die after
mating in any case.
Doubling the extent of shoreside trees probably would not materially
affect diets of juvenile salmon in saltwater.
The key reason for this surmise is the very low fraction of tree-
obligate insects in tidewater salmonid diets. That percentage is
estimated at between one and two. '
This low ingestion rate occurs despite the relative abundance of
wooded shores. For instance 21 percent of the shore in Sinclair
Inlet, a seemingly industrial inlet, is wooded,15 and most of the
juveniles found there came down a woodland stream. Around nearby
Page 7 of 10
Bainbridge Island, past which Sinclair Inlet salmon swim, 27 percent
of the shoreline has overhanging vegetation.16 Yet tree insects made
up only 12 percent of the insect biomass consumed by fish examined in
the inlet and only about 1.7 percent of their' total biomass intake.
These disparate numbers - over 20 percent of the shoreline providing
only 1.7 percent of diet - suggest that trees are intrinsically low
yielders of salmon welfare relative to other insect sources and other
shores. An example is given by insect trap studies in Howe and puget
Sounds, the former in British Columbia.17 Tree-dependent aphids and
other Homopterans trapped were found almost exclusively along wooded
shores, but they were minor in number and minuscule in biomass
relative to other insects.
Further, the invertebrate beach trap studies mentioned earlier
typically captured significant numbers of insects at sites close to
permanent or seasonal fresh water. This was true for all insects -
tree obligates, dependents on otner vegetation, and of course the
aquatic sorts. Curiously, freshwater presence has not been analyzed
statistically as a predictive variable, but it appears to be more
relevant than presence or absence of. trees. If this is so, adding to
the mileage of overhanging trees may do little to expand insect
abundance because freshwater presence, not verdure, is likaly the
limiting factor.
Conclusions and Impl.ication
While marine invertebrates and fish generally figure large in the
nutrition of juvenile salmon after they reach the Sound, insects
comprise a wide-ranging but overall minor share, about 12 percent.
Forage fish, on which salmon rely, apparently do not eat insects.
Adult salmon largely forego insects. About 88 percent of the insects
consumed by young salmon. apparently come from non-tree sources, mainly
aquatic ,(stream, estuary). Of salmons' total invert biomass content,
about l.~ percent appears to be tree-sourced.
Several factors suggest that adding shoreline trees will not make life
better for juvenile sa~on. (1) the forage fish on which salmon
depend ingest few if any insects; (2) juvenile salmon eat few tree-
obligate insects, perhaps because, while (3) trees are already rather
abundant, (4) few kinds of insects require the presence of puget
Sound's backshore trees; and in any case (5) streams and standing
water rather than trees may govern the supply of insects at shoreside.
These conclusions support a statement made to Bainbridge Island's
Planning Commission by a city-hired expert.1B He said that he could
not predict an increase in fishery welfare significantly greater than
zero if the mileage of shoreline vegetation were doubled.
Page 8 of 10
NODS
1. Fresh, Kurt L., et al. 2006. Juvenile salmon use of Sinclair
Inlet, Washington in 2001 and 2002. Technical Report No. FPT 05-08.
Olympia: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The study
included 258 inshore Chinook, 77 offshore Chinook, 41 inshore chum
and 34 inshore cutthroat.
2. ~Kinds" is meant as the biologist's ~taxa". Anna Jones, James
Jones, and Other Joneses comprise three taxa.
3. Brennan, James S., et al. 2004. Juvenile salmon composition,
timing;' distribution, and diet in marine nearshore waters of central
puget Sound in 2001-2002. Seattle: King County Dept of Natural
Resources and Parks. A 2-season catch of 819 Chinooks, 89 cohos, and
56 cutthroat trout.
4. Fresh, Kurt L., et al. 1981. Food habits of Pacific salmon,
baitfish, and their potential competitors and predators in the marine
waters of Washington, August 1978 to September 1979. Progress Report
No. 145. Olympia:- Washington Department of Fisheries. 210 Chinook,
166 coho, and 287 chum were examined from nearshore habitats less
than 20m deep. They ran studies elsewhere as well, and covered other
fish species.
5. DUffy, Elisabeth J. 2003. Early marine distribution and trophic
interactions of juvenile salmon in puget Sound. Master of Science
thesis. Seattle: University of Washington, School of Aquatic and
Fishery Sciences. This study involved 697 Chinook, 195 coho, 292
chum, and 156 pink salmon. These figures include juveniles from
nearshore and offshore (surface) captures. Her report did not
include biomass findings.
6. Excluded from the figures are adult salmon tallied in the 1981
Fresh study. No insects were found in adults.
7. Weighted by numbers of salmon examined in each study/species
group.
8. To be acknowledged, a species or group had to occur in more than 1
percent of stomachs (Fresh et al 1981) or more than .1 percent (Fresh
et al 2006), or exceed occurrence, count, and biomass thresholds
(Brennan et al).
9. Brennan et al 2004, and Fresh et al 2006, both above.
Page 9 of 10
10. This is a tighter criterion than the uprimary association" test
commonly used by naturalists. It was applied presumptively to
studies' listed taxonomic families when a family includes some non-
aquatic members but the family is well-known for its aquatic
siblings, as determined from the taxonomic literature.' References
included:
McCafferty, W. Patrick. 1998. Aquatic Entomology. Boston: Jones and
Bartlett.
Merritt, R. W. and K.. W. Cummins. 1996. An Introduction to the
Aquatic Insects of North America. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt.
Tho'rp, James H. and Alan P.Covich, eds. 2001. Ecology and
Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates. New York:
Academic Press.
Furniss, R. L. and V. M. Carolin. 1977. Western Forest Insects.
Miscellaneous Publication No. 1339. US Forest Service. Washington,
DC: Superintendent of Documents.
11. Furniss and Carolin, above.
12. Furniss and Carolin, above.
13. Romanuk, T. N. and C. D. Levings. 2003. Associations between
arthropods and the supralittoral ecotone: Dependence of aquatic and
terrestrial taxa on riparian vegetation. Environmental Entomology
32(6):1343-53.
14. Sobocins-ki, Kathryn L. 2003. The impact of shoreline armoring on
supratidal beach fauna of central Puget Sound. Master of Science
thesis. seattle: University of Washington, School of Aquatic and
Fishery Sciences.
15. Fresh et al 2006, above, p. 70.
16. Williams, G.D., et al. 2004. Bainbridge Island nearshore habitat
characterization & assessment, management strategy prioritization,
and monitoring recommendations. Sequim: Battelle Memorial Institute.
Table A-2.
17. Romanuk and Levings 2003, and Sobocinski 2003, both above.
18. Gregory D. Williams, Battelle Memorial Institute's Marine
Sciences Laboratory.
Page 10 of 10
Best Available Science Review of
Proposed Overwater Structure RestrIctions
in Blakely Harbor
Bairibridge Island, Washington
Prepared for
Blakely Harbor Group
October 24, 2006
12652-01
AL
Deliverlnq smarter solutions
.
PENTEC
www..oentecenv.com
Delivering smarter solutions
Best'A vallable Science Review of
Proposed Overwater Structure Restrictions
In Blakely Harbor
Bainbridge Island, Washington
Anchorage
Boston
Prepared for
Blakely Harbor Group
Denver
October 24, 2006
12652-01
Edmonds
Prepared by
Pentec Environmental
Philadelphia
Portland
Seattle
A Division of Hart Crowser, Inc.
120 Third Avenue South, Suite 710
Edmonds, Washington 98020-8411
Fax 425-778-9417
Tel 425-775-4682
CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS IN BLAKELY HARBOR 1
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF OVERWATER STRUCTURES 2
Behavior Barriers and Migration 3
Prey Resource Production and Availability Limitations 5
Macro-Vegetation Production 7
Predator-Prey Relationships Associated with the Physical Structure
and Lighting 10
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF NEW DOCKS IN BLAKELY HARBOR 11
Direct Impacts 12
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 14
SUMMARY 16
REFERENCES 17
Pentec Environmental Page j
12652-01 October 24,2006
BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE REVI'EW OF
PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE RESTRICTIONS
IN BLAKELY HARBOR
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WASHINGTON
INTRODUCTION
Pentec Environmental has been asked by the Blakely Harbor Group to provide a
critical review of the degree to which best available science has been
incorporated into the recently proposed restrictions on new docks to Blakely
Harbor, Bainbridge Island, Washington. This report first provides a brief
summary of existing conditions within Blakely Harbor followed by an assessment
of existing literature on the ecological effects of overwater structures. In looking
at this literature, we have considered the context in which individual studies
were conducted in relation to conditions in Blakely Harbor. For example, much
of the available information has been developed in studies of large commercial
docks and may be of limited relevance to a small. recreational dock. This
scientific basis is then used to evaluate the most likely effects on nearshore
ecology of the numbers and sizes of docks likely to occur in the absence of a
total ban on such structures. Based on this analysis, the effectiveness and
necessity of proposed restrictions on small docks and piers within the harbor is
then discussed.
For purposes of this paper, we have adopted the broad definition of "dock" as
any structure that extends from the shore out, over, or into the water and may
include any combination of fixed, pile-supported piers and/or floats as well as
connecting ramps.
EXISTING CONDITIONS IN BLAKELY HARBOR
Blakely Harbor is located along the southeastern shore of Bainbridge Island in
Central Puget Sound. The City of Bainbridge Island (City) Cumulative Impact
Assessment (Bainbridge Island 2002) and the Bainbridge Island Nearshore
Characterization (Williams et al. 2004) have summarized existing information on
the physical and ecological conditions extant in the harbor; thus, these
conditions are only briefly described here. The harbor runs east-west and is
bounded on the north by Jasmine Point and on the south by Restoration Point.
The harbor can be subdivided into three relatively distinct areas; the log pond to
the west, the inner harbor, and the outer harbor. Habitats and shorelines within
the harbor are considered to be in relatively good condition when compared to
other embayments within Puget Sound (Williams et al. 2004). The Cumulative
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October 24,2006
Page 1
( . 5
' ,
Impact Assessment reported six existing docks within the harbor, four of which
are functional: one on, the southeastern shore and the other three on the north-
central shore (Bainbridge Island 2002). Existing docks occupy approximately
12,700 square feet (sf) of water surface area.
!'
Blakely Harbor is geographically varied with several different habitat types that
could possibly be characterized as sensitive to overwater structures.
Anadromous fish use of the several small streams that discharge to the harbor is
likely limited by low, or seasonal stream flow. Streams reportedly may be used
by chum salmon, coho salmon, and/or sea-run cutthroat trout (City of Bainbridge
Island 2002) although direct confirmation of this use has not been found.
Nearshore vegetation within the harbor is predominantly composed 'of annual
green algae VIva spp. within the inner harbor. VIva spp., rockweed (Fucus
gardneri; now F. distichus subsp. evanescens) and bands of kelp (including
laminaria sp.; now Saccharina sp.) have been reported along the northern shore.
These species and a patchy distribution of eelgrass (Zostera marina) have been
reported along most of the southern shore (Bainbridge Island 2002). Shoreline
marshes also occur around much of the log pond area and in Blakely Harbor
Park. Surf smelt spawning has been documented in areas of suitable habitat
along the southern shoreline, although the timing of spawning is not well defined
(Penttila 2000). Riparian conditions are among the most favorable around the
island with approximately 59 percent of land cover in the shoreline zone
(200 feet from ordinary high water, [OHW]) comprised of naturally vegetated
area (Williams et al. 2004).
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF OVERWATER STRUCTURES
Reviews of literature on the ecological effects of overwater structures have been
conducted by Simenstad et al.. (1999), Nightingale and Simenstad (2001), Haas
et al. (2002), and Williams et al. (2001,2003) in Puget,Sound and other regions.
In addition, specific concerns regarding docks in Blakely Harbor. have been
raised by The Suquamish Tribe and WDFW in letters to P. N. Best, City of
Bainbridge Island, regarding the City's Blakely Harbor Dock Shoreline
Amendment (letters dated August 17, and August 16, i006, respectively).
Studies referenced in this literature have determined that there are a number of
potential impacts of overwater structures that can effect changes in the
nearshore environment. These potential risks can be broadly categorized into
four areas:
· Creation of behavioral barriers that can deflect or delay migration.
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October24.2006
Page 2
· Reduction in prey production and availability.
· Reduction in macro-vegetation coupled with habitat modification.
· Alterations of predator-prey relationships associated with the physical
structure and lighting.
Secondary effects on water quality could result from any increase in vessel use in
the Harbor that resulted from presence of additional docks (accidental or
incidental discharges of hydrocarbons, sewage, or gray water). These potential
effects could result equally from moored vessels or vessels tied to docks, and
there is little reason to believe that the total number of moored vessels in the
Harbor is dependent on the number of docks present Also, because such
discharges are well regulated and controlled by existing regulations, they are not
discussed further in this report. This issue of access to usual and accustomed
fishing areas raised by The Suquamish Tribe is a legal one, also not addressed
here.
Behavior Barriers and Migration
Numerous studies have documented changes in fish behavior upon
encountering overwater structures; of particular importance is the potential
impact to juvenile salmon migration along shorelines. Pentec (1997) found that
juvenile salmon encountering large piers (-100 feet wide) milled around for a
time, with some schools breaking up before eventually continuing their
migration either underneath the pier or around the pier. For general reference,
more schools were observed along riprap shorelines than along the piers. The
study was unable to quantitatively assess the net effect to juvenile salmonid
survival or health as a result of encounters with the dock. Weitkamp (1982) in a
study of large piers at Seattle Terminal 91 found that schools of juvenile chum
and Chinook salmon fed along the western side of piers and near log booms,
but were reluctant to pass underneath, except where piers were open to light
Similarly, Salo et al. (1980) documented an offshore movement of juvenile chum
salmon around piers and found that outmigration speed decreased as the
migration period progressed. Prinslow et al. (1979) found that artificial lighting
at the Bangor (Hood Canal) submarine piers could delay migration at high light
intensities but was inconsequential at lower intensities:
In contrast, Taylor and Willey (1997), also studying larger piers on the Seattle
waterfront, found .that juvenile salmon appeared to migrate underneath the piers
using fish passage openings, shorelines, and edges of dock structures. Similarly,
Roni and Weitkamp (1996) found that juvenile chum salmon were not traveling
out around the end of the Manchester pier, but were traveling beneath the pier
Pentec Environmental
12652~1 ~ober24.2006
Page 3
( ,
remaining in shallow nearshore areas. Shreffler and Moursund (1999) found in a
one-time experiment that juvenile salmon released near the southern edge of the
Port Townsend Ferry Terminal were not delayed or diverted to deeper water
upon encountering the facility. Ratte and Salo (1985) found that juvenile coho
and pink salmon appeared to prefer dark under pier habitats during their early
marine life history. Penttila and Aguerro (1978) and Heiser and Finn (1970)
studying fish use in marinas found high abundances of juvenile salmon in
protected marinas with lots of docks and floats and noted that these areas may
attract the fish.
These studies taken as a whole are largely inconclusive with regard to whether
juvenile salmon migrations are adversely affected by the presence of overwater
structures. Also not known, is whether the behavior of the fish upon
encountering an overwater or floating structure affects the overall fitness or
survival of the fish in the short~term or later in life. For the purpose of this
document, it should be noted that the majority of these studies were conducted
on large industrial or commercial pier structures that are substantially larger than
the residential or community docks that would be constructed in Blakely Harbor.
Lack of demonstrated quantitative impacts from these large structures and
observational data (J. Houghton, personal observations) strongly suggest that
smaller private docks, inch.iding piers or floating docks, would have
immeasurable effects on the migration patterns and fitness of juvenile salmon ids
and thus no measurable impact on salmon populations using Blakely Harbor.
Juvenile salmonids moving along a shoreline and encountering an elevated pier
or ramp structure less than about 8 feet wide would generally be expected to
continue their movements unimpeded or perhaps to use the shade for cover on
bright days as suggested with the current knowledge base. Very small juveniles
such as pink or chum salmon that leave their native streams immediately after
emergence from stream gravels have been observed to follow along the face of
a floating obstruction such as a log or marina float before either passing under or
around them. Thus, offshore floats would not significantly impact their
migrations. Floats or floating docks that ground at low tide may divert fish
offshore unless gaps are provided in the still-floating portions of the structure. If
such structures are relatively narrow, e.g., 6 feet wide or less, fish would
ultimately pass under or around them with little delay. In studies in the Everett
Marina (Pentec 2003b) and in the personal observations of one of us
(J. Houghton, personal observations) juvenile salmonids have been observed to
move freely along floating structures, ultimately passing under them in response
to uncertain stimuli, or through gaps between floating sections, e.g., spaces
between segments of a log boom. The fish often appeared to be feeding on
small invertebrates that may have been associated with algal growths on the
structures.
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October 24, 2006
Page 4
Prey Resource Production and A vailability Limitations
Several studies have found or implied the potential for losses of, or changes in
prey resources for juvenile salmonids or other species as a result of the
placement of overwater structures in the nearshore. This is particularly probable
if bulkhead or fill material at the base of such structures has modified or
encroached on the upper intertidal areas where forage fish spawn. The
construction of a bulkhead below mean higher high water (MHHW) at Lincoln
Park in Seattle' provides an insightful example of the progression of habitat
impacts that can occur when an extended reach of shoreline is hardened well
below MHHW. At this site, a seawall placed within the upper intertidal zone
caused a shift in sediment transport rates as wave energies focused against the
barrier creating beach scour. Over time, the beach shifted from a sandy
substrate to one composed of mostly cobble and gravel. The seawall also
prevented the recruitment of new substrates to the upper beach, which further
increased scour and loss of upper beach habitat, deepening water depths in the
upper intertidal zone. Loss of sandy habitats may also cause a shift in the
epibenthic community and the loss of valuable eelgrass habitats (Thom and
Hallum 1989), however, suc~ changes are unlikely to result froin a small
bulkhead placed above MHHW in an area with relatively low wave energies
such as Blakely Harbor.
Where new bulkheads are required to secure the shoreward attachment of a
pier or float in Blakely Harbor, existing regulations mandate location away from
areas of known forage fish spawning. According to WDFW (letter from J. Davis
to P. N. Best, City of Bainbridge Island, dated August 16, 2006) studies are
planned in the fall and winter of 2006 to identify areas of forage fish spawning in
the Harbor. If new bulkheads were to encroach below OHW, mitigation would
be required for lost habitat Mitigation, for this and for shading effects of new
docks could occur in the form or one of several habitat restoration actions.
These could include such things as:
· Removal of unused overwater structures or pilings.
· Removal of debris from intertidal or subtidal areas.
· Softening of existing bulkheaded shorelines, for example using approaches
described by Zelo et at (2000).
· layback of artificially steepened or filled shorelines.
· Placement of large woody debris along the shoreline.
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October 24,2006
Page 5
· Artificial nourishment of beaches starved of fine sediment by presence of
bulkheads that interdict sediment delivery to the beach.
Haas' et al. (2002) found significant decreases in epibiota preferred by juvenile
salmonids at three ferry terminals in Puget Sound. This study found that ferry
terminals induce decreases or changes in epibiota density, diversity, and
assemblage composition probably caused by the following six factors:
· Direct disturbance and/or removal by regular vessel disturbance;
· Reduced benthic vegetation or compromised benthic vegetation function
due to shading and physical disturbance;
· Physical habitat alterations (e.g., grainsize distribution from prop wash or
piling effects);
· Biological habitat alterations (e.g., increased shell hash from sea star,
foraging);
. Reduced eelgrass density due to shading; and
. Benthic macrofaunal disturbance (from prop wash).
The study also noted that it is difficult to use these results to predict the
magnitude of impact from other types of overwater structures. Ferry terminals
are wide (typically greater than 100 feet wide) and therefore shade large areas.
Impacts from relatively high frequency and intense disturbance from ferry
docking events is greater than prop wash or scour associated with residential
boat use. Several other studies found significant losses of marine
macrovegetation, altered bottom substrates, and ~hifts in the epibenthic and
benthic infaunal communities as a result of ferry operations at terminals within
Puget Sound (Thorn et al. 1997; Thorn et al. 1996; Thorn and Shreffler 1996;
Olson et aI1997).
Penttila and Aguerro (1978) suggested that prey resources may be compromised
within the Birch Bay Marina by co-occurring juveniles of several species that
share specific prey resource species such as calanoid and harpacticoid
copepods. ' Marine fish species.such as Pacific herring, surf smelt, anchovy, and
Pacific sand lance were found in high abundances in the marina along with
juvenile salmon.
These studies found, in some cases, profound changes in nearshore marine
vegetation and epifaunal communities associated with overwater structures.
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October24,2006
Page 6
However, in almost all cases, the changes in nearshore ecologies were the result
of very large overwater structures, ferry operations.(prop wash), or improperly
placed bulkheads in the intertidal- zone and marine nearshore.
It is highly unlikely that these si,gnificant ecological results would occur with the
placement of small private docks. Prudent mitigation or regulatory statutes in
place that prevent encroachment of bulkheads into the intertidal zone and -
restrict dock width and sizes will likely reduce or eliminate such impacts.
While benthic algal production is likely to decline in shaded areas, docks less
- than 8 feet wide allow substantial light penetration underneath them, especialiy
during periods of low sun angles. Indications (e.g., high green algal production)
are that Blakely Harbor has prim~ry production rates in excess of those that can
be assimilated by local consumers. Shading- of upper intertidal areas may
actually allow increased primary and secondary productivity, which, at upper
elevations is limited by desiccation. Intertidal species extend their upper tidal
ranges upward in shaded areas.
Certainly pilings and dock structures provide hard substrate, which is limited in
Blakely Harbor. These structures will be colonized by epibiota such as barnacles
and mussels that are in turn preyed upon by sea stars, crabs, and shrimp. Shell
hash that accumulates around older pilings provides habitat diversity that may be
exploited by a number of species including newly settled Dungeness crab.
Changes in resource production resulting from placement of small docks are
minimal and localized and unlikely to significantly affect the productivity or
nature of food webs in Blakely Harbor.
Macro-Vegetation Production
Several studies conducted over the past 30 yeilrs have documented losses of
marine macro-vegetation, particularly eelgrass, as a result of the placement of
overwater structures in the marine nearshore. Penttila and Doty (1990) found
net losses in vegetation due to the shading caused by docks. Fixed docks within
eelgrass beds reduced eelgrass densities to zero within the shade footprint The
docks in these studies were mostly small, privately owned structures used for
recreational swimming and boating. Many of the ferry studies cited in the
section above also found decreases in eelgrass production caused by both
shading and prop wash scour. Haas et at. (2002) found consistently reduced
photosynthetically active radiation under ferry terminals. At the Clinton Ferry
Terminal, a continuous band of eelgrass around the structure was disrupted by
the complete absence of vegetation underneath and directly adjacent to the
terminal decking. Observed decreases in eelgrass were probably caused by a
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October 24, 2006
Page 7
combination of shading, bioturbatien by macrofauna (specifically crabs and sea
stars), and erosion from prop wash.
These studies censistently reported significant decreases in macroflora in the
vicinity ef beth large and small docks and pier structures with the decumented
reduction in light levels a likely driving ferce. Penttila and Doty (1990) reperted
that the design ef small docks can mitigate some impacts. Burdick and Short
(1995) found dock height over the marine bottom the most impertant variable
for predicting the relative light reaching eelgrass and hence eelgrass bed quality
under docks. Increased dock height diminishes the intensity of shading by
providing a greater distance for light to diffuse and refract around the dock
surface before reaching the macroflora. A nerth-seuth dock orientation has
been shown to increase un"der\l\:'ater light availability by aUowing varying shadow
periods as the sun meves across the sky, thus decreasing the stress impesed on
eelgrass and other macroflora (B"urdick and Short 1995; Olson et al. 1997; Fresh
et al. 1995). As evidence to this fact, we have documented substantial quantities
of eelgrass growing directly underneath a 15-foot wide north-south eriented
deck (in Guemes Channel, Anacertes; Pentec 1998).
In contrast, Blanton et al. (2001) found that east-west dock orientation
decreased light availability to an extent that preclud~d the light requirements fo.r
eelgrass survival. Fresh et al. (2000) reported that adequate spacing between
pilings is important to reduce light limitations to. the underwater environment
and prevent interference with water and sediment movements. Concrete and
galvanized steel pilings have also been recommended over wood pilings as they
shade less of the water column due to. use of smaller diameter pieces and lewer
piling density, and refract more light under docks from their relatively light-
colored surfaces.
The existing scientific knowledge clearly identifies a range of potential effects en
marine macrovegetation and nearshere habitats, depending upon shoreline
habitat and setting, and on the type, size and orientation of the structure.
Hewever, fer small private docks, studies also indicate that mitigation actions
and regulations governing the structures can adequately minimize or prevent
such effects. Approaches to mitigating the impact ef small overwater structures
to macroflora include:
. First and feremost: aveid dock placement in areas with'eelgrass.
· Increase height to allow light,transmissien under the dock (ebviously not
possible fer floats).
. Decrease deck width to decrease shaded area.
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 ~ober24.2006
Page 8
· Align dock in north-south orientation to allow arc of sun to cross
perpendicular to dock to reduce duration of light limitation.
· Insert glass blocks or' grating at intervals to allow under-dock light
transmission.
· Use materials (e.g., concrete, metal, or light colored plastics) that reflect light
as opposed to darker materials.
· . Use the fewest pilings necessary to allow light into under pier areas.
Several of these measures are mandated by the state Hydraulic Code (WAC
220-110-300) and in Blakely Harbor, it can be assumed that all new docks, in
response to existing state and local regulations, would be located to avoid
eelgrass shading unless adequate mitigation in the form of creation of new
eelgrass beds was provided in advance of the dock construction. Given this
requirement, an elevated dock up to 6 or 8 feet wide or a floating dock up to
4 or 5 feet wide will have only a minimal and localized effect on benthic macro-
and micro-algal production that will be offset, in part, by production of algae
colonizing the dock structure.
An additional form of vegetation modification that can result from dock
construction is the loss of riparian vegetation to provide dock access. Riparian
vegetation serves a number of potential functions affecting the quality and
function of adjacent marine habitats including shading; leaf litter and insect fall;
and large woody debris contributions (e.g., see summary in Williams et al. 2003).
Shading by vegetation (or structures) reduces the incidence of sunlight on upper
beach areas and may allow an upward extension of the ranges of marine species
by reducing desiccation. Shading by overhanging vegetation is typically less
complete than that resulting from docks and riparian shading typically has
correspondingly lesser effects on the distribution of fringing marsh or intertidal
marine vegetation. Shading of the upper beach by riparian vegetation is also
essential for successful spawning of surf smelt during summer months (as
reported in Eagle Harbor; Penttila 2000). Timing of spawning of surf smelt in
Blakely Harbor is not well defined, but is most likely to occur in the fall and
winter months.
Riparian vegetation contributions of leaf and woody litter may comprise a
significant source of detrital carbon for marine ecosystems in enclosed or semi-
enclosed embayments. There is little likelihood that ecosystem function in
Blakely Harbor is carbon (or nutrient) limited. Perhaps the most important
function of riparian vegetation is the contribution of terrestrial insects to the
water surface where they comprise a high percentage of the diets of juvenile
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October 24, 2006
Page 9
salmon (Brennan and Higgins 2003). However, we have seen no data that
indicate a higher rate of insect prey in the stomachs of Chinook salmon
swimming along shorelines with well vegetated buffers at water's edge, versus
those swimming along shorelines with vegetated hill sides, well behind the
beaches.
As further evidence, work by Cordell et al. (2001) has shown that Chinook
salmon moving down the heavily industrialized Duwamish River, which largely
lacks riparian vegetation (Pentec 2003a), consume a much wider range of insect
prey than do Chinook in a relatively natural, heavily vegetated marsh in the
Snohomish Estuary. In fact, Chinook of the size common along Bainbridge
Island shorelines are known to be highly opportunistic feeders, switching with
ease from benthic to planktonic crustaceans to small fish or insects, depending
on what is most available (Healey 1991).
As noted, some reduced benthic primary productivity due to shading is
unavoidable with most overwater structures. Mitigation for this loss is tYpically
required so that each dock results in no net loss of the productive capacity of
fish and shellfish habitat The range of mitigation actions described above is
applicable to this impact Also, where riparian vegetation is impacted by dock
construction, restoration of native riparian vegetation elsewhere around the
harbor is an appropriate compensatory mitigation action.
Predator-Prey Relationships Associated with the Physical Structure and Lighting
Several studies have made observations on the effects of overwater structures
on juvenile salmon predation. Most of these studies have included speculation
on the potential for increased levels of predation. Overwater structures could
increase the exposure of juvenile salmon to potential predators by:
. Providing predator habitat near salmon refugia.
. Reducing refugia, such as eelgrass beds.
. Diverting juveniles into deeper waters upon encountering docks.
. Altering prey detection through alterations to light and turbidity.
However, there is little empirical evidence to support the above possibilities of
increased predation (e.g., Williams et al. 2003). Lists of potential predators have
been cited through the literature over the past 30 years with very little empirical
validation. Simenstad et al. (1999) reported that the significance of predation to
migrating populations has never been empirically assessed. No studies have
Pentec Environmental
12652-ot ~ober24,2006
Page 1 0
examined mortality due to predation much less that mortality attributable to
overwater structures. Narrowing down the list to those empirically validated
predators associated with overwater structures leaves only cormorants, searun
cutthroat trout, and Pacific staghom sculpin as validated predators, and existing
studies have not indicated that these species are found in substantial
aggregations around the overwater structures that were studied. In ferry
terminal studies in Puget Sound Simenstad et al. (1999) reported that the most
common abundant species under terminals were such non salmonid predators
as pile perch, sanddabs, unidentified flatfish, sculpins, English sole, and
saddleback gunnels. Common, but moderately abundant species included
striped perch, copper rockfish, Chinook salmon smolts, and ratfish.
Fresh et al. (1979) listed 17 potential predators of juvenile salmon in the south
Puget Sound region finding only three (maturing Chinook salmon, copper
rockfish, and Pacific staghbrn sculpin) to prey extensively on nearshore fishes.
Their analysis of food habits by stomach content showed only staghorn sculpins
had juvenile salmon in their stomachs. Their study did not show staghorn
sculpins in greater abundance around docks than elsewhere in the study area.
Ratte (1985) found sea perch and pile perch to be the most abundiuit fish under
docks and these fish are not known to be, predators of juvenile salmon. This
study suggested that there was no indication that predatory fish aggregated
under pier habitats. In fact, the most often reported potential predators were
other salmonids. There was no evidence of predatory fish targeting juvenile
salmonids during the spring outmigration period and gut contents of potential
predators did not show a single salmonid. Similarly, Heiser and Finn (1970)
noted that predation in marina areas was less than expected. Weitkamp (1982)
also observed no fish preying on juvenile salmon at Pier 91 in Seattle. Finally,
Salo et al. 1980 found less than four percent of the total diet of suspected
predatory species in Hood Canal (cutthroat trout, staghorn sculpin, and Pacific
cod) to be juvenile salmon.
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF NEW DOCKS IN BLAKEL V HARBOR
In the Cumulative Impact Analysis, the City of Bainbridge Island (2002) has gone
to some lengths to characterize the potential ecological impacts of overwater
structures from the literature and used that information to describe potential
impacts of new docks in Blakely Harbor. What is lacking in this analysis is a
repres.entation of the probable real significance of these potential impacts in the
ecosystem of the Harbor, given the scale of possible. new dock construction.
The potential number of new docks appears to be inflated in the Cumulative
Impacts Analysis, with a projected maximum of 59 new docks and a "predicted"
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October 24, 2006
Page 11
(presumed to be realistic) number of 45 new docks (City of Bainbridge Island
2002). The City also presumed that a portion of the pilings will be wood,
presumably treated wood - such piles are ,no longer allowed in the marine
waters of Puget Sound. The Blakely Harbor Group estimates that the maximum
realistic build out would be eight communal docks that would be shared among
adjacent land owners (J. Sutherland, personal communications). Thus the total
new area and the area that would be occupied by new pilings in the City's
analysis would appear to be high by at least a factor of six.
In the discussion of potential direct impacts of these new docks, the City lists a
series of potential impacts (based in part on the extensive literature on effects of
much larger docks, as described above) but does little to put those impacts into
a local perspective or scale. Examples are provided below with reference to the
"predicted" buildout numbers in Tables 3 and 9 from City of Bainbridge Island
(2002; 45 new docks) and the number of new facilities estimated by the Blakely
Harbor Group (eight new docks).
Direct Impacts
Loss of benthic habitat, vegetation, and infauna in the bottom area occupied by
piles is given as 565.5 sf (for epibenthos) and 1,696.5 cubic feet ([cf]; for infauna
- calculated to a depth of 3 feet). Given that Blakely Harbor has an area of
approximately 300 acres (13 million sf), this represents a loss of approximately
0.004 percent of the bottom area or volume in the harbor. While 565.5 sf of ,
mud surface would be los~ to epibiota in the "predicted" scenario, at least
10 times this much area would be provided for epibiota by the surfaces of the
pilings ~nd floats that would be colonized by these plants and animals. This is
clearly an insignificant negative impact The Blakely Harbor Group's estimated
maximum number of docks (eight) would have a maximum of one sixth of this
impact
Increased turbidity during pile installation is the next direct impact cited by the
City. Such increases in turbidity resulting from installation of the few piles
needed for a residential pier would be well below in space, intensity, and
duration those that could potentially have the types of impacts described. For
example, installation of a single pile may take on the order of a half hour to an
hour of pile driving. Sediment suspension is most likely when the pile is first
contact with the bottom and with the initial few minutes of driving (by impact or
vibratory hammer). Pile driving is not allowed during periods when juvenile
salmonids or forage fish may be present in the area. Minor local increases in
suspended sediment that last on the order of 10s of minutes at the most are not
expected to significantly alter the,health of any marine species. Each individual
pile driving action will be separated from the next pile by perhaps another half
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October24.2006
Page 12
hour to an hour during which any initial plume will have settled, dissipated, and
been transported away from thework area. levels of sediment suspension and
redeposition in adjacent areas will not reach levels that could possibly impact
primary production, interfere with fish respiration, alter the suitability of
spawning areas, reduce bottom habitat diversity, or smother benthic organisms.
It is true that grounding of construction barges, or movement of barges under
tug power can scour or compact the bottom crushing organisms. Prop wash
can erode eelgrass from the substrate. It is also true that pile driving noise
(especially if an impact driver is used) can stress nesting birds and damage fish,
possibly interrupting feeding or migration. Accordingly, Corps Sec. 10/404 and
Washington Departrrient of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Hydraulic Project
Approval permits issued for dock construction will contain very specific
restrictions to avoid or minimize those impacts. Restrictions will include work
windows that avoid salmon migration, forage fish spawning, and eagle nesting
pedods; requirements for sound dampening if impact driving is used; and
requirements for monitoring to ensure that no Endangered Species Act listed
birds or mammals are in the potential damage area.
Other potential direct impacts of docks cited by the City (City of Bainbridge
Island 2002) include shading, and bulkhead construction. Shading, as descrit:>ed
above, is a real concern and WDFW requires that docks be a maximum of 8 feet
wide and placed to avoid impacts to eelgrass. The typical residential (including
communal) pier and access ramp would be less than 8 feet wide (most likely
5 feet or less) and offshore floats may be on the order of 6 to 8 feet wide. If
each new residential dock had an average total surface area of 2,000 sf (1,500 sf
for each pier and 500 sf for each dock) the total water area coverage would be
approximately 16,000 sf for the Blakely Harbor Group's estimate of 8 new docks
(approximately 0.1 percent of the harbor surface area), compared to the
"predicted" estimate by the City of almost 84,000 sf (City of Bainbridge Island
2002, Table 3; approximately 0.6 percent ofthe harbor area). As noted above,
state and federal permitting processes require that dock siting avoid shading of
eelgrass areas.
Thus, neither scenario will result in direct loss of eelgrass productivity in Blakely
Harbor. Some loss of primary productivity can be expected over that area'
directly shaded by new docks. This loss would be less than 1.0 percent of the
algal productivity in the harbor under either scenario - descriptions of existing
conditions in the harbor (e.g., the seasonal abundance of the annual green alga
VIva spp.) suggest that the ecosystem in the area is not currently limited by lack
of primary productivity. As noted above mitigation will be required for the area
directly shaded by any new dock. Potential mitigation actions are listed above.
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October 24,2006
Page 13
Primary productivity of macroalgae and microalgae on floats that, by definition,
are always at the water surface where maximum light is available for
photosynthesis, as well as on pilings will also be substantial, and will partially
offset the losses due to shading. For example, a 6- by 80-foot float will directly
shade at least 480 sf of bottom where algae can be expected to be severely
reduced or eliminated. This float would have a perimeter of 172 feet; if the
floats draw 1.5 feet of water, there would be 258 sf of surface area for the
attachment of epibiota including algae, thus, the 480 sf of shaded sea bed (that
may be in depths, or have soft substrates that don't favor algal growth) will be
partially offset by an area over half as large, but that may support more algal
growth per area.
Bulkheads are often required at the base of a pier. Bulkhead impacts can be
significant when they are placed below ordinary high water line (OHW) or in
areas with active feeder bluffs that provide sediments for redistribution along the
shoreline. The bulkhead can usually be placed above the OHW avoiding most
impacts to the nearshore. Placement of a dock from a shoreline with an active
feeder bluff will not happen in Blakely Harbor.
A 6-foot wide dock should require no more than an 8- or 1 O-foot maximum
clearing through existing riparian vegetation. For 45 new docks this could
become a cumulatively significant portion of the shoreline (to 450 feet; less than
4 percent of the approximately 12,000 linear feet of shoreline west of the park
areas around the harbor entrance). However, some of these docks would likely
be built from already altered shorelines with bulkheads and/or lawns. For the
Blakely Harbor Group's estimate of 8 new docks, this would be only about
80 feet of riparian disturbance (less than 1 percent of the harbor shoreline);
again some of this would be built in areas lacking a robust riparian zone. These
impacts are of a magnitude that could be readily and fully mitigated through
riparian enhancements around the harbor. Any such unavoidable impacts of
bulkhead placement would require mitigation; potential mitigation actions
available in Blakely Harbor are listed above.
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
A number of potential indirect impacts are known to result from the presence of
docks and bulkheads (e.g., Bainbridge Island 2002). However, much of the
literature that describes these impacts, relates to conditions that are wholly or
partially inapplicable to resid~ntial docks in Blakely Harbor. For example, these
small structures, supported by a few piles and having limited .f1oat area, are
unlikely to significantly alter patterns of wave energy reaching beaches. The pile
density necessary to support residential piers and floats is low and the piles
themselves will be ineffective at altering wave energy reaching beaches. While
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 ~ober24,2006
Page 14
narrow floats (e.g., 6 to 8 feet or less) can attenuate small waves in their direct
lee, the limited size of these floats limits the area of shoreline that can be
affected.
Similarly, the piles and floats of new residential docks in Blakely Harbor will not
alter local sediment characteristics or dynamics with one exception. As noted
above, shelled epibiota (e.g., barnacles and mussels) that attach to pilings or
floats will die or be preyed upon such that their shells may fall to the sea bed
around the piling, resulting a coarsening of the substrate in the surrounding area.
This change may be beneficial to some species (e.g., Dungeness crab) that use
the piles for feeding and the shell hash for hiding and nursery areas. However,
over time, these accul1lUlations smother some infaunal species such as
polychaetes (worms) and bivalves and alter the nature of the local infauna.
While presence of pile-supported docks and floats may alter the species
composition of fish fauna in the area, there is no evidence, despite many efforts
to find it, that such structures in marine waters lead to a concentration of
predators on juvenile salmonids or increased vulnerability of juvenile salmonids
to those predators that may be present (e.g., Nightingale and Simenstad 2001).
On the other hand, areas around docks and floats are frequently used as cover
or as a source of prey by schools of juvenile salmonids and forage fish (e.g.,
Cardwell et al. 1980, Pentec 2003b, J. Houghton, Pentec, personal
observations).
The change in light regime under docks and the changes in substrate
represented by the placement of hard structures (piles and floats) in otherwise
soft bottomed areas will somewhat alter the animal and plant assemblages in the
local area, as described above. These changes may be construed as neutral,
bad, or good for the overall function of the harbor's ecosystem, depending on
one's per~pective and values. For example, is a change that may reduce the
nlimber of-clams in the dock vicinity (by pile placement) "adverse'"if it results in
a greater number of Dungeness crab?
There is no reason to expect that the City's "predicted" or Blakely Harbor
Group's estimated number of new docks (45 or 8, respectively) would be of
sufficient cumulative magnitude to increase the rate of introductions of exotic
species, toxics, nutrients, or bacteria into Blakely Harbor. Increased numbers of
boats, coupled with poor or illegal boating practices such as careless spillage of
fuels or dumping sewage, could impact rates of chronic hydrocarbon or fecal
coliform introductions to the harbor. This increased boat usage is likely to occur
with or without new docks considering the use of Blakely Harbor as a temporary
or permanent moorage.
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October 24, 2006
Page 15
There is no reason to expect that the City's "predicted" or Blakely Harbor
Group's estimated number of new docks (45 or 8, respectively) would be of
sufficient cumulative r(lagnitude to significantly affect the hydrology, water
quality, microclimate, or upland wildlife habitat Inevitable changes in upland
land uses may have these effects with or without new docks.
SUMMARY
We have reviewed the best available scientific information regarding effects of
docks and overwater structures on marine nearshore environments and
resources and we have used these data to assess- the potential direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects of the construction of new docks in Blakely Harbor. We
have recognized that permitting each new structure will require review by the '
City of Bainbridge Island and the WDFW, and possibly by the Corps of Engineers
and federal services with authorities under the Endangered Species Act Each of
these permitting entities has regulations and guidelines for minimizing effects on
nearshore habitat and ,each has a demonstrated record of imposing them. As
noted above, primary among the restrictions placed on new docks are the
requirements to minimize overwater coverage, avoid harm to eelgrass, and to
avoid harm to forage fish spawning habitat; in cases where such impacts cannot
be fully avoided, they must be mitigated by full replacement of the ecological
functions lost Appropriate mitigation actions are available within Blakely
Harbor.
While \lot specified .in the current Hydraulic Code (WAC 220-110), there is a
growing preference among resource and regulatory agencies for permitting of
shared or community docks rather than the "one dock per shoreline residence"
approach of the past (e.g., D. Thompson, WDFW, personal communications;
Bainbridge Island draft Shoreline Management Master Program). Agency
personnel now look more critically at single-user facilities than at shared-use
facilities; this trend is expected to become more prevalent and possibly to
become codified at some time in the future. In any case, it is unlikely that
agencies would permit a profusion of new docks in Blakely Harbor much
beyond the eight new shared-use docks that would be allowed under the Blakely
Harbor Settlement Agreement
Given these regulatory constraints, and given the probable scale and sizes of
docks that may be built in Blakely Harbor, we conclude that the impacts to
,nearshore ecological functions will be:
. Small in scale, relative to the size of the Harbor;
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October 24,2006
Page 16
· Temporary (in the,case of construction disturbances);
I'
I '
· Neither strongly adverse nor positive to the ecological health of the harbor;
and
· Fully mitigated by restoration actions 'that can be taken within the confines of
Blakely Harbor.
This conclusion is particularly supportable for the number of new docks
estimated by the Blakely Harbor Group (eight) under the Settlement Agreement,
but would also possibly be the case for the num,ber of new docks "predicted" by
the City (45). In each scenario, the size and area of effects are small (usually less
than 1 percent) in relation to the scale of the Harbor. Each individual dock will
have a small, and unmeasurable impact on nearshore species and ecological
processes except for minor local effects as discussed above. The cumulative
effect of multiple new docks would similarly be unmeasurable except as a non-
interactive accumulation of small local effects and would be offset by required
compensatory mitigation actions.
Based on the application of available scientific information to the conditions in
Blakely Harbor, and given the regulatory constraints that will be placed on dock
size, materials, and location, we conclude that there is little risk that a moderate
level of additional docks will adversely affect the existing nature of nearshore
habitats and resources. Further, we conclude thatthere is no credible evidence
that cumulative effects of these additional docks would degrade habitat
conditions or ecological processes in Blakely Harbor to a degree that would
negatively affect recovery efforts for species listed as threatened under the
Ef"!dangered Species Act '
REFERENCES
Bainbridge Island, City of, 2002. Blakely Harbor Cumulative Impact Assessment
City of Bainbridge Island Department of Planning and Community Development
Working Draft. February 22, 2002.
Blanton, S.L., R.M. Thom, and J.A.Southard, 2001. Documentation of Ferry
Terminal Shading, Substrate Composition, and Algal and Eelgrass Coverage.
Prepared for University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Seattle, Washington.
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October 24, 2006
Page 1 7
Brennan, J and K. Higgins, 2003. Fish Species Composition, Timing and
Distribution in Nearshore Marine Waters: A Synopsis of 2001-2002 Beach
Seining Surveys in King County, Washington. Presentation to 2003 Georgia
Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference. March 31 to April 3, 2003.
Vancouver, B.C
Burdick, D.M. and F.T. Short, 1995. The Effects of Boat Docks on Eelgrass Beds
in Massachusetts Coastal Waters, Waquoit Bay National Resear~h Reserve,
Boston, Massachusetts.
Cardwell, RD., M.1. Carr, and E.W. Sanborn, 1980. Water Quality and Flushing
of Five Puget Sound Marinas. Washington Department of Fisheries, Technical
Report 56, Olympia, Washington.
Cordell, j.R., L.M. Tear, K. jensen, 2001. Biological Monitoring at Duwamish
River Coastal America'Restoration and Reference Sites: A Seven-Year
Retrospective. University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery
Sciences, SAFS-UW-D1 08, Seattle, Wash'ington.
Fresh, K.L, Rabin, D., Simenstand, C, Salo, E.O., Garrison, K., and L. Matheson,
1979. Fish Ecology Studies in the Nisqually Reach Area of Southern Puget
Sound, Washington. Final Report Weyerhaeuser Company.
Fresh, K.L., B. Williams, and D. Penttila, 1995. Overwater Structures and Impacts
on Eelgrass in Puget Sound, Washington. Puget Sound Research '95
Proceedings. Seattle, Washington: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority.
Fresh, K., B.W. Williams, S. Wyllie-Echeverria, and T. Wyllie-Echeverria, 2000.
Mitigating Impacts of Overwater Floats on Eelgrass Zostera Marina in Puget
Sound, Washington using Light Permeable Deck Gratin& Draft
Haas, M.E., CA. Simenstad, j.R. Cordell, D.A. Beauchamp, and B.S. Miller, 2002.
Effects of Large Overwater Structures on Epibenthic Juvenile Salmon Prey
Assemblages in Puget Sound, Washington. University of Washington, School of
Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. Prepared for the Washington State Transportation
Center, Washington State Department of Transportation.
Healey, M.C, 1991. Life History of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha). C Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Pacific Salmon Life Histories.
UBC Press. Vancouver, B.C
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October 24,2006
Page 1 8
Heiser, D.W., and E.L Finn, jr., 1970. Observation of juvenile Chum and Pink
Salmon in Marina and Bulkhead Areas. Supplemental Progress Report, Puget
Sound Studies, Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washingtoh.
Nightingale, B. and c.A. Simenstad, 2001. . Overwater Structures: Marine Issues.
Prepared for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington
Department of Ecology, and Washington Department of Transportation.
, University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences.
Olson, A.M., S.V. Visconty, B.W. Witherspoon, K.Sweeny, R.M Thorn, and D.K.
Shreffler, 1997. Light Environment and Eelgrass Shading around Three WSDOT
Ferry Terminals. Mitigation between Regional Transportation Needs and
Preservation of Eelgrass Beds. Research Report Washington State
Transportation Commission.
Pentec Environmental, Inc., 1998. Trident Seafoods Corporation Ramp Addition
Eelgrass Delineation. Proj. No. 007-018 Revised Final Report by Pentec
Environmental, Inc. to Trident Seafoods Corporation, Anacortes, Washington.
january 5, 1998.
Pentec Environmental, Inc., 1997. Movement of juvenile Salmon through
Industrialized Areas of Everett Harbor, Prepared for Port of Everett, Everett,
Washington by Pentec Environmental, Inc., Edmonds, Washington.
Pentec Environmental, 2003a. Inventory of Shoreline Habitat and Riparian
Conditions of the Green/Duwamish River Within the City of Tukwila. Prepared
for the City of Tukwila, Washington, by Pentec, Edmonds, Washington.
Pentec Environmental, 2003b. Movement of juvenile Salmon Through Modified
Nearshore Habitats in the Lower Snohomish Estuary. Prepared for Port of
Everett, Everett, Washington, by Pentec, Edmonds, Washington.
Penttila, D. and M. Aguerro, 1978. Fish Usage of Birch Bay Village Marina,
Whatcom County, Washington in 1976, Washington Department Fish P~ogress
Report No. 39. WDFW.
Penttila, D. and D. Doty, 1990. Results of 1989 Eelgrass Shading Studies in
Puget Sound, Progress Report Draft. WDFW Marine Fish Habitat Investigations
Division.
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October 24, 2006
Page 1 9
Penttila, D.E., 2000. Impacts of Overhanging Shading Vegetation on Egg Survival
for Summer-Spawning Surf Smelt, Hypomesus, on Upper Intertidal Beaches in
Northern Puget Sound, Washington. Briefing Report. Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Division.
Prinslow, T.E., E.O. Salo, and B.P: Snyder, 1979. Studies of Behavioral Effects of
a Lighted and an Unlighted Wharf on Outmigrating Salmonids, March-April
1978, Final Report March-April 1978. Fisheries Research Institute, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington:
Ratte, LD., 1985. "Under-Pier Ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus
spp.) in Commencement Bay, Washington." University of Washington.
Ratte, Land E.O. Salo, 1985. Under-Pier Ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon in
Commencement Bay, FRI-UW-8508. University of Washington Fisheries
Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Roni, P. and LA Weitkamp, 1996. Environmental Monitoring of the Manchester
Naval Fuel Pier Replacement, Puget Sound, Washington 1991-1994, Contract
N62474-91-MP-00758. Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division, Northwest
Fisheries Science Center, NMFS.
Salo, E.O., N.j. Bax, T.E. Prinslow, ~.j. Whitmus, B.P. Snyder, and C.A Simenstad,
1980. The Effects of Construction of Naval Facilities on the Outmigration of
juvenile Salmonids from Hood Canal, Washington. Final Report FRI-UW-8006.
University of Washington. Fisheries Research Institute.
Shreffler, D.K. and R. Moursund, 1999. Impacts of Ferry Terminals on Migrating
juvenile Salmon along Puget Sound Shorelines: Phase II Field Studies at Port
Townsend Ferry Terminal, Contract GCA-1723. Washington State Department
of Transportation.
Simenstad, Charles A, B. Nightingale, R.M.Thom, and D.K. Shreffler, 1999.
Impacts of Ferry Terminals on juvenile Salmon Migrating alongPuget Sound
Shorelines: Phase I Synthesis of State of Knowledge. Research Project T9903
Task A2. Washington State Transportation Center.
Taylor, W.S. and W.S. Wiley, 1997. Port of Seattle Fish Mitigation Study: Pier
64/65 Short-stay Moorage Facility: Qualitative Fish and Avian Predator
Observations. Seattle, Washington.
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 October 24,2006
Page 20
Thorn, R.M. and L. Hallum, 1989. Beach Nourishment, Post Project Ecological
Monitoring at Lincoln Park Beach: Initial Observations, Summer 1989. Final
Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Evans-Hamilton, Inc., Seattle,
Washington.
Thorn R.M., AB. Borde, P.j. Farley, M.C Horn, and A Ogston, 1996. Passenger-
only Ferry Propeller Wash Study: Threshold Velocity Determinations and Field
Study, Vashon Terminal. Report to WSDOT PNWD-2376/UC-OOO.
Thorn, R.M., and D.K. Shreffler, 1996. Eelgrass Meadows near Ferry Terminals in
Puget Sound. Characterization of Assemblages and Mitigation Impacts. Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Sequim, Washington.
Thorn, R.M., L.D. Antrim, AB. Borde, W.W. Gardiner, D.K. Shreffler, P.G. Farley,
J.G. Norris, S. Wyllie-Echeverria, and T.P. McKenzie, 1997. Puget Sound1s
Eelgrass Meadows: Factors Contributing to Depth Distribution and Spatial
Patchiness.
Weitkamp, D.E., 1982. juvenile Chum and Chinook Salmon Behavior at
Terminal 91, Report to Port of Seattle. Parametrix.
Williams, GoO., R.M. Thom, j.E. Starkes, J.5. Brennan, J.P Houghton, D. Woodruff,
P.L. Striplin, M. Miller, M. Pedersen, A Skillman, R. Kropp, A Borde, C Freeland,
K. McArthur, V. Fageniess, S. Blanton, and L Blackmore, 2001. R~connaissance
Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem: Eastern Shore of Central
Puget Sound, Including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRIAs 8 and 9). Prepared
for King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, Washington.
Williams, GoO., R.M. Thom, M.C Miller, D.L Woodruff, N.R. Evans, and P.N.
Best, 2003. Bainbridge Island Nearshore Assessment: Summary of Best
Available Science PNWD-3233. Prepared for the City of Bainbridge Island,
Washington by Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington.
Williams, GoO., R.M. Thom, and N.R. Evans, 2004. Bainbridge Island Nearshore
Characterization & Assessment, Management Strategy Prioritization, and
Monitoring Recommendations. Prepared for the City of Bainbridge Island,
Washington by Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, Sequim, Washington.
Zelo, L, H. Shipman, and J. Brennan, 2000. Alternative Bank Protection Methods
for Puget Sound Shorelines. Ecology Publication #00-06-12. Olympia,
Washington.
00652\OOl\Bainbrldge Island BAS Report (10-24-2006)\Balnbridge Island BAS_R(10-24-2006),doc
Pentec Environmental
12652-01 Omober24,2006
Page 21 '