The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-457 {D-C /" -' 0 q 0 . c{AJ I J)ll~ t:J~ VJjp I ~ G 1'4'1\-' ,\~k7 Amy Hiatt and Jill Silver, CAO Advisory Group FWHCA Recommendations - Marine Shorelines 05-08-2007 Recommendations for Marine ShoreUnes in the Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance Purpose and Intent: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan establishes the goal to "protect natural processes, natural conditions, and natural functions of the shoreline environment". Jefferson County's 200-plus miles of marine shorelines are the focus of intense development pressures, while also providing essential habitats for a range of species including salmon and steelhead, shellfish, marine mammals and birds, and many terrestrial species. These shorelines include high and low bluffs, rocky, gravel, and sand beaches, estuaries, and a variety of nearshore environments. Rivers and streams provide a migratory connection for fish and wildlife and deliver fresh water, sediment, and pollutants from upslope. Protection of the ecological functions of marine shorelines is a requirement under the Growth Management Act - in particular - eelgrass beds, shellfish beds, kelp beds, and surf smelt, Pacific herring, and Pacific sand lance spawning areas. The GMA also requires that counties "shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries." Overview - Ecological Context: Marine riparian areas are a critical component of the Puget Sound nearshore environment (defined as that area of marine and estuarine shoreline extending from shoreline to the depth offshore where light penetration supports plant growth, including: shoreline riparian area, beaches, mudflats, kelp and eelgrass beds, salt marshes, gravel spits and estuaries). The important role of marine riparian vegetation in protecting the functions and values of marine shorelines is well documented (Brennan et al. 2004). The terms "nearshore" and "estuarine" together comprise a diverse and complex array of shoreline-associated habitats with saltwater (marine) influence. Categories of nearshore habitat include the riparian, backshore, intertidal, and shallow subtidal zones. Within this zone, a diverse array of discrete habitats can be found: salt marshes, rock-gravel and sand beaches, mud flats, kelp beds, unvegetated sub-tidal, and algae and eelgrass inter-tidal areas (Williams et al. 2001). The nearshore zone extends waterward from shorelines to include the tidal and subtidal zone where adequate sunlight penetrates to fuel plant photosynthesis (approximately 60 feet below the mean low water level), and extends landward to include coastal landforms such as the backshore, sand spits, coastal bluffs" coastal wetlands, and the riparian zones on or adjacent to these areas. Estuaries are transition zones between rivers and saltwater, including the tidally influenced portions of river and stream mouths, and are one of the most productive aquatic environments. Because estuaries have abundant food supplies and a wide salinity gradient, they are particularly valuable to anadromous fish (salmon, steelhead and trout) for rearing, feeding, and completing the biological transition between fresh Amy Hiatt and Jill Silver, CAO Advisory Group FWHCA Recommendations - Marine Shorelines 05-08-2007 2 water and marine habitats. The vital role that estuaries play in chum and chinook sahnon ecology is a basic tenet of salmon biology (Simenstad, 1998). Nearshore habitats serve as a bridge between widely dispersed estuarine delta areas and provide productive, protected migratory corridors for salmon, forage fish (herring, sand lance and surf smelt) and many other aquatic species; consequently, one must expand beyond the watershed perspective when considering marine and anadromous fish life history requirements that span linkages across terrestrial landscapes and marine/ oceanic ecosystems. 7 Marine riparian areas, like their freshwater counterparts, stabilize banks and control sediment inputs from surface erosion; f1lter pollutants and help to regulate freshwater delivery to marine environments; contribute large and small organic matter important for habitat structure and marine food chains (including terrestrial insects important to juvenile salmon); and provide shade to intertidal beaches important for forage fish spawning (Pentilla, 2002). Marine riparian vegetation has significant habitat value. Marine riparian trees provide perching and nesting habitat for many species of wildlife, including bald eagles, osprey, and other raptors and birds. In their review of the 331 wildlife species known to inhabit all of King County, Brennan and Culverwell (2004) identified 252 wildlife species (9 amphibians; 5 reptiles; 193 birds; 45 mammals) known or expected to have an association with riparian habitat on marine shorelines in Puget Sound. Terrestrial insects make up a large component of juvenile chinook diets in the nearshore, which suggests the importance of shoreline vegetation as a food production (Brennan et al. 2004). Marine intertidal, nearshore, and sub-tidal areas provide critical habitat for salmon; they provide food, refuge from predators, and a transition zone to physically adapt to saltwater. All juvenile salmon move along the shallows of estuaries and nearshore areas during their out-migration to the sea. Returning salmon and some resident stocks use nearshore habitats as feeding areas as well. Chinook salmon, designated as threatened in Puget Sound by the federal government, extensively use nearshore marine and estuarine areas for juvenile rearing, adult and juvenile migration, and adult Chinook reside in these areas (Williams et al. 2001). Juvenile salmon also depend on nearshore small creek mouths and sub-estuaries (often referred to as pocket estuaries) and marsh environments for migration, rearing and shelter from predators. Studies have found that juvenile salmon use these creek mouths, regardless of whether spawning occurs in these creeks (Beamer et al. 2003). Surveys of salmon utilization in North Hood Canal tidal creek mouths and marsh environments indicate these areas are no less critical to salmon in Puget Sound than eelgrass beds (Hirschi et al., 2003). Dabob Bay is thought to be especially important to Hood Canal summer chum salmon, and the central and northern regions of Hood Canal yield the majority of pocket estuaries (Shared Strategy, 2005)). County PoUcy on Marine Shoreline Buffers The County's present policy on shoreline buffers is described in its "shoreline permit application information and instruction material" designed to help applicants 2 Amy Hiatt and Jill Silver, CAO Advisory Group FWHCA Recommendations - Marine Shorelines 05-08-2007 3 understand how "shorelines oUhe state" are regulated in Jefferson County; Removal of Veaetation and Other Land-Disturbina Activities alona Marine Shorelines UDC 3.6.4 addresses environmentally sensitive areas, among which are fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (FWHAs). FWHAs include marine shorelines per UDC 3. 6. 8. a, in that Type 1 waters include all marine waters of the state and at this time marine shorelines provide primary association habitat for Federal and State-listed endangered, threatened, and sensitive species (i.e., Puget Sound Chinook, Hood Canal Summer Chum, and/or Coastal/ Puget Sound Bull Trout). Among the provisions in UDC 3.6.8 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas, are general prohibitions related to the alteration of FWHCAs or their buffers (UDC 3. 6. 8.f) - including clearing, grading, and removing vegetation- regardless of whether a permit is required for the activity or not. Additionally, there are protection standards (UDC 3.6.8.g) that address drainage and erosion control, grading, vegetation retention, and buffers for activities ~m parcels that contain a designated FWHA or its buffer. UDC 3.6.8.g(5) states that FWHAs shall have buffers and building setbacks established. The FWHA buffer for marine shorelines is 30 (thirty) feet, which is the minimum "standard setbackfor residential structures" in the SMP (see previous paragraph). The buffer/setback is measured from the ordinary high water mark or the top of the bankfor banks that exceed 10 feet in vertical height Please note that land-disturbing activity in the 30-foot marine shoreline buffer, including the removal of vegetation, may occur only with Department approval under specific circumstances. Based on the important functions of saltwater shorelines and available scientific studies, the county's de facto 30-foot shoreline vegetative buffer is not supported by best available science that is more recent, widely referenced, and locally-derived. See the table from Desbonnet (1994) in Appendix A for a summary of buffer.distances for various functions. Relationship between Shoreline Management Act and Growth Management Act In 1995, the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was added as a goal in the Growth Management Act (GMA), with Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) recognized as an element of the local government Comprehensive Plan. Although critical areas in shorelines are to be identified and designated under the GMA, they are to be protected under the SMA once Ecology approves an SMP adopted pursuant to Ecology's new shoreline guidelines. The standard for that protection must be "at least equal to that provided by the local government's critical area regulations adopted under the GMA." The GMA shifts the protection of critical areas within shorelines exclusively to the SMP when Ecology approves an SMP adopted pursuant to Ecology's Shoreline Guidelines [RCW 36.70A.480(3)(a)]. Prior to the local government's update ofits SMP, its GMA 3 Amy Hiatt and Jill Silver, CAO Advisory Group FWHCA Recommendations - Marine Shorelines 05-08-2007 4 critical areas regulations continue to apply to designated critical areas throughout the Junsdiction. If the local government updates its critical areas uldillall\;t: umlt:l Ult: GMA before it updates its SMP, then the GMA's "best available science" (BAS) requirements apply to the critical area update in the shoreline jurisdiction (CTED). The County has embarked on a comprehensive SMP update. That updated SMP will assign new shoreline environment designations and appropriate protection standards based upon a complete inventory and characterization of shoreline features. In the interim, until the SMP update is completed pursuant to Ecology's new guidelines (no sooner than June 2008), the County is required by law to designate and protect shoreline Fish and Wildlife Habitat ConseIVation Areas (FWHCAs) as part of its current CAO update (CTED). FWHCA marine shoreline buffers will be revisited during the County's SMP update and adjusted to take into consideration site-specific requirements of the new shoreline environments. Marine Shoreline Buffers Few empirical studies exist within Puget Sound on the questions of varying riparian zone widths and their associated functions for supporting fish .and wildlife, water quality and hazard risk reduction. However, those studies that address marine riparian areas generally indicate that buffers for marine shorelines perform functions similar to their freshwater counterparts, and protect vital functions for maintaining nearshore habitat, i.e. they stabilize banks and control sediment inputs from surface erosion; fllter pollutants and help to regulate freshwater delivery to marine environments; contribute large and small organic matter important for habitat structure and marine food chains (including terrestrial insects important to juvenile salmon); and provide shade to intertidal beaches important for forage fish spawning. Pentilla (2001) demonstrates the marine riparian corridor has a positive effect on the survival of surf smelt spawn incubating in sand-gravel beaches in the upper intertidal zone during the summer months in the Puget Sound Basin. Marine riparian vegetation has significant habitat value. Marine riparian trees provide perching and nesting habitat for many species of wildlife, including bald eagles, osprey, and other raptors and birds. In their review of the 331 wildlife species known to inhabit all of King County, Brennan and Culverwell (2004) identify 252 wildlife species (9 amphibians; 5 reptiles; 193 birds; 45 mammals) known or expected to have an association with riparian habitat on marine shorelines in Puget Sound. In addition, Brennan et al. (2004) highlight prey production as an important function of marine riparian areas and vegetated backshore and is therefore very relevant to any discussion regarding marine shoreline buffers. While the estuarine and coastal functions of wood have not been effectively documented, and further research is needed to evaluate its habitat functions in coastal and estuarine ecosystems, the available literature clearly supports retention of marine riparian vegetation for the maintenance/creation of structural complexity along the marine shoreline. Maser et al (1988) states that "Coarse woody debris is an important part of estuarine and oceanic habitats, from upper tidewater of coastal rivers to the open ocean surface 4 Amy Hiatt and Jill Silver, CAO Advisory Group FWHCA Recommendations - Marine Shorelines 05-08-2007 5 and the deep sea floor" and that "the lower river and estuary.banks (riparian corridors) probably were the most common sourccs of the largest driftwood in the bays." .Simenstad et al (2003) state that "[I]n most estuaries and along coasts, wood is a dynamic source of organic matter, substrate, and disturbance" and concludes that "[m]anagers can help preserve [wood] sources by limiting the direct removal of local wood wherever possible and by preventing the clearing and harvesting of relocated, stranded wood from riparian, nearshore, estuarine and coastal areas." The authors list the inferred and documented functions of wood in estuarine and ocean ecosystems as: . releases organic carbon; . harbors nitrogen-fIxers; . provides substrate for micro algae and macro invertebrates; . controls the movement of matter; . dissipates the energy of flow regimes; . provides habitat for fIsh and invertebrates; . provides cover habitat for fIsh and invertebrates; . influences channel morphology; . creates hydraulic diversity that influences productivity; . serves as an interface linking terrestrial and aquatic systems; . influences water column s1:nlcture and complexity; . serves as a source of disturbance that influences plant communities; . provides wood directly consumed by invertebrates,fungi, and bacteria The authors conclude that "[d]espite the lack of past studies, sufficient evidence exists of the importance of estuarine wood and its historical prevalence in northwestern North America estuaries to recommend interim protection and prevent additional irreversible losses. " (Emphasis added.) The White Paper on Marine and Estuarine Slwreline Modification Issues (Williams et al. 2001) discusses the importance of retaining riparian vegetation on marine shorelines to both reduce shoreline erosion, which threatens lives and property, and to protect the marine environment: Live plant foliage and forest litter break the force of falling rain, reduce surface water runoff velocity, and increase the absorptive capacity of soil, whereas plant roots provide a fibrous web that stabilizes and anclwrs soil. Therefore, maintenance of existing vegetation and revegetation of bare ground on bluffs with native trees, shrubs, and herbs can improve slope stability by trapping sediment and controlling surfoce runoff (Cox et al. 1994, Manashe 1993). The following table from this paper summarizes the benefIts of different vegetated buffer widths on different functions: FUNCTION Sediment removal and erosion control Sediment fIltration Sediment control Erosion control Bank stabilization Pollutant and sediment removal BUFFER 26-600' 26-300' 200' 100-125' 100' 16-1968' REFERENCE May 2000 Knutson and Naef 1997 FEMAT, 1993 Knutson and Naef 1997 FEMAT 1993 Desbonnet, 1994 5 Amy Hiatt and Jill Silver, CAO Advisory Group 05-08-2007 6 FWHCA Recommendations - Marine Shorelines Pollutant removal 13-860' May 2000 Pollutant remo~Ja1 13-600' Knlltson and N~p.f 1 qq7 Large woody debris, potential 50-100' Pentec Consulting 2001 Large woody debris 33-328' . May 2000 Large woody debris 100-200' Knutson and Naef 1997 Large woody debris 200' FEMAT 1993 Water temperature 26-141' May 2000 Water temperature 35-151' Knutson and Naef 1997 Microclimate 148-656' May 2000 Microclimate 200-525' Knutson and Naef 1997 Microclimate up to 600' FEMAT 1993 Organic litter 100' FEMAT 1993 Organic litter 50-75' Pentec Consulting 2001 Shade 150' FEMAT 1993 Marine ShoreUne Fish and WUdUfe Habitat Conservation Areas: The Nearshore Chapter of the Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan (Shared Strategy, 2005) recommends the following for management strategies for nearshore protection: Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca., Page, 6-29. Aggressively protect functioning drift cells and feeder bluffs that support eelgrass bands and depositional features along the entire eastern shoreline and the western shoreline north of Point Whitney, including Dabob and Quilcene bays. Counties should designate these shorelines for the highest level of protection within shoreline master programs and critical areas ordinances and pass strong policies limiting increased armoring of these shorelines and offering landowner incentives for protection. Admiralty Inlet, page 150. Protectfunctioning drift cells that support eelgrass bands and depositional features along the shoreline of Discovery Bay to Fort Worden, all west Whidbey Island shorelines within the sub-basin and between Port Angeles and Agnew Hood Canal, page 169. Aggressively protect functioning drift cells and feeder bluffs that support eelgrass bands and depositional features along the entire eastern shoreline and the western shoreline north of Point Whitney, including Dabob and Quilcene bays. Counties should designate these shorelines for the highest level of protection within shoreline master programs and critical areas ordinances and pass strong policies limiting increased armoring of these shorelines and offering landowner incentives for protection. (Emphasis added.) 6 Amy Hiatt and Jill Silver, CAO Advisory Group FWHCA Recommendations - Marine Shorelines 05-08-2007 7 . Recommendations for Marine ShoreUnes: We recommend that Jefferson County designate marine shorelines as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs), and protect these shorelines with vegetated buffers that extend landward 150 feet from the ordinary high water mark or the top of the bank if a height-to-erosion ratio requires additional protection. These buffers will provide interim protection for most marine shoreline ecological functions pending completion of the County's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update, which will more clearly identify and prioritize important habitat zones and physical processes such as the interaction between sediment sources and erosion or depositional areas. Functions to be protected include salmonid rearing and migratory habitat; fish prey production; soil and slope stability; wildlife habitat; water quality, including temperature control and pollutant removal; sediment and erosion control benefiting both 'humans and the environment; and upland, nearshore and estuarine habitat structure. Marine riparian areas are a critical component of the Puget Sound nearshore ecosystem. The Puget Sound nearshore environment is spatially limited and fragile; and is severely degraded. Major public investments are being targeted for its restoration and protection. By protecting marine shoreline riparian zones, the county will protect the integrated functions and values of marine shorelines as critical salmon and shellfish habitat, thereby supporting commercial, recreational and tribal fisheries. It is clear that marine riparian areas, like their freshwater counterparts, provide vital functions for maintaining nearshore habitat, i.e. they stabilize banks and control sediment inputs from surface erosion; fllter pollutants and help to regulate freshwater delivery to marine environments; contribute large and small organic matter important for habitat structure and marine food chains (including terrestrial insects important to juvenile salmon); and provide shade to intertidal beaches important for forage fish spawning. Based on the important functions of saltwater shorelines, the available scientific studies, and the Growth Management Act case law, the buffers on Jefferson County's' saltwater shorelines should be at least 150 feet wide. The buffer prescriptions should include provisions allowing for established uses, vegetation management (limbing especially) to allow for views, and new uses that are compatible with protection of shoreline processes and functions. We recognize that this buffer width may difficult to achieve on small. properties, but in terms of at least some ecological functions, it is significantly narrower than recommended and may not be sufficient in areas that are subject to high erosion. Reasonable use exceptions and other mechanisms are, and must be available. to those landowners that require them. 7 Amy Hiatt and Jill Silver, CAD Advisory Group FWHCA Recommendations - Marine Shorelines 05-08-2007 8 References: Beamer, E., A. McBride, R Henderson, and K. Wolf, May 2003. The Importance of Non- Natal Pocket Estuaries in Skagit Bay to Wild Chinook Salmon: An Emerging Priority for Restoration. Skagit System Cooperative Research Department. Brennan, J.S., and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program Copyright 2005, UW Board of Regents Seattle, W A. Available at: http://www. wsg. washington.edul researchl ecohealth/brenner.pdf Brennan, J.S. et al. 2004. Juvenile Salmon Composition, Timing, Distribution and Diet in Marine Nearshore Waters of Central Puget Sound in 2001-2002. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, W A. Available at: ftp:/ 1 dnr.metrokc.gov 1 dnrl library 12004 Ikcr1658.pdf Brennan, J.S.. "Riparian Functions and the Development of Management Actions in Marine Nearshore Ecosystems" p. 11 in Lemieux, J.P., Brennan, J.S., Farrell, M., Levings, C.D., a,nd Myers, D. Proceedings of the DFOjPSAT sponsored Marine Riparian Experts Workshop, Tsawwassen, BC, February 17-18, 2004. 2004. Can. Man. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 2680. Department of Ecology and Community, Trade and Economic Development. Questions and Answers on ESHB 1933 Critical Areas Protection Under the Growth Management Act and Shoreline Management Act. http://www.ecv.wa.f!.ov/proruams/sea/sma/laws rules/90-58/1933 Guidance.odf Desbonnet, A., Pogue, P., Lee, V., Wolff, N. 1994. Vegetated Buffers in the Coastal Zone: A Summary Review and Bibliography. Coastal Resources Technical Report No. 2064. University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography. Narragansett, RI. FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. Portland Oregon. Hirschi, R, T. Doty, A. Keller, and T. Labbe. 2003. Juvenile Salmonid Use of Tidal Creek and Independent Marsh Environments in North Hood Canal: Summary of First Year Findings. Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Natural Resources. Knutson, K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), 181 pp. Maser, C., R F. Tarrant, J. M. Trappe, and J. F. Franklin, technical editors. 1988. From the forest to the sea: a story of fallen trees. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-229, Portland, Oregon. 8 . Amy Hiatt and Jill Silver, CAO Advisory Group FWHCA Recommendations - Marine Shorelines 05-08-2007 9 May, C.W. 2000. Protection of stream-riparian ecosystems: a review of best available science. Prepared for Kitsap County Natural Rcsourccs Coordinator. July 2000. Pentec Environment. March 2001. Use of Best Available Science in City of Everett Buffer Regulations. City of Everett, W A. Penttila, D.E. Effects of shading upland vegetation on egg survival for summer- spawning surf smelt, Hypomesus, on upper intertidal beaches in Northern Puget Sound. Shared Strategy. Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan. 2005. Nearshore chapter prepared by the Puget Sound Action Team. June 30, 2005 Simenstad, C. A., A.Wick, S. Van De Wetering and D. L. Bottom. 2003. Dynamics and Ecological Functions of Wood in Estuarine and Coastal Marine Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 2003. American Fisheries Society. Simenstad, C. A. 1998. Appendix A: Estuarine Landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions. IN: Hood Canal/Eastern Strait of Juan De Fuca summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan, March, 1999 Williams, G. D. and R. M. Thom. 2001. White Paper: Marine and Estuarine Shoreline Modification Issues. Prepared for the Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Steering Committee and jointly published by the Washington State departments of Ecologyt Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation, Olympia. Available only in Adobe Acrobat@format at htto: Ilwww.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/marnrsrc.html 9 . Amy Hiatt and Jill Silver, CAO Advisory Group FWHCA Recommendations - Marine Shorelines 05-08-2007 10 Appendix A: Desbonnet, A., Pogue, P., Lee, V., Wolff, N.1994. Buffer Pollutant Removal Wildlife Habitat Value Width Effectiveness 16ft (5m) Approximately 50% or Poor habitat value, useful for temporary greater sediment and activity of wildlife. pollutant removal 32ft Approximately 60% or Minimally protects stream habitat, poor (10m) greater sediment and wetland habitat, useful for temporary pollutant removal activity of wildlife. 49ft Greater then 60% Minimum general wildlife and avian (15m) sediment and pollutant habitat value. removal 66ft Greater then 70% May have use as a wildlife travel (20m) sediment and pollutant corridor for some species as well as removal minimal to fair wildlife habitat. 98ft Approximately 70% or May have use as a wildlife travel (30m) greater sediment and corridor for some species as well as pollutant removal minimal to fair wildlife habitat. 164ft Approximately 75% or Minimum to fair general wildlife habitat (50m) greater sediment and value. pollutant removal 264ft Approximately 80% or Fair to good general wildlife and avian (75m) greater sediment and habitat value. pollutant removal 328ft Approximately 80% or Good general wildlife and avian habitat (100m) greater sediment and value; may protect significant wildlife pollutant removal habitat value. 656ft Approximately 90% or Excellent general wildlife and avian (200m) greater sediment and habitat value; likely to support diverse pollutant removal community. 1,968ft Approximately 99% or Excellent general wildlife and avian (600m) greater sediment and habitat value; likely to support diverse pollutant removal community; protection of significant species. 10 ~ ., Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems James S. Brennan and Hilary Culverwell Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions In Marine Ecosystems t1 By Jim Brennan* and Hilary Culverwell** . :1(<" 11] 11 *Washington Sea Grant Program I nO 3716 Brooklyn Avenue NE '\1\ \II Seattle. WA 98105-6716 "1 Phone: 206.616.3368 email: jbren@u.washington.edu www.wsg.washington.edu **Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team Office of the Governor, P.O. Box 40900, Olympia, WA 98504 Phone: (206) 721-4377; email: hculverwell@psat.wa.gov Recommended citation: Brennan, J.S., and H. Culverwell. 2004 Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant Program Copyright 2005, UW Board of Regents Seattle, WA. 34 p. ,. Acknowledgements The development and production of this manuscript evolved from the contributions of many of our colleagues, who took an inter- est in our work and. greatly imprgyed it through their comments, reviews, graphic art, and research assistance. We are especially grateful to Robert Fuerstenberg, Klaus Richter, Si Simenstad, Ron Thorn, Doug Myers, Chris May, and Greg Mazer for their review and comments on drafts of this manuscript. The final editorial review was performed by Marcus Duke, who greatly improved the flow and structure of the document. Megann Devine provided graphics support, transforming barely-legible pencil Sketches into a beautiful work of art (conceptual model) that serves as a cor- nerstone for translating text into understandable imagery. Kevin Li, Don Norman, Klaus Richter, and Kate Stenberg dedicated a substantial amount of their valuable time in the review and devel- opment of the wildlife table. Special thanks goes to our Canadian colleagues, Gary Williams, Rob Russell, Cynthia Durance, and Colin Levings for their collaboration, inspiration, lively discus- sions, and encouragement to pursue this topic and complete this manuscript. Finally, we thank Washington Sea Grant Program for producing this document, Robyn Ricks for her design and Melissa Albert for editing assistance. .. Table of Contents E . S .. >ceC:lItl"e lIl11l11ar){ .................................................................................... II Introclllc:tion................................................................................................. 1 Marine Riparian FlInctions ......................................................................... 3 Ecolog ical Fu nctions ....... ........ ......... ..... ....... ............. ....... ............... ....................... ....... ............ .........3 Social Values ............ ................ ...................... ........ .......... ............... .................... ............................. 12 A Conc:eptllal Moclel .... ................. ........................"".......... ........................ 14 Managel11ent Consiclerations .................................................................. 16 Conc:llIsions................................................................................................ 1!J . Rec:ol11l11enclations .................................................................................... ~() Referenc:es ................................................................................................. ~3 An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems i Executive Summary Marine Riparian: An Assessment Of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems Authors: J.S. Brennan and H. Culverwell While marine nearshore environments are some of the most re- . source-rich and economically important ecosystems in the world, the structure, functions, and processes that form and maintain habitats in these systems are complex and poorly understood. Of the many habitats constituting the nearshore, perhaps the least understood and most unappreciated, in terms of critical functions, are riparian areas. Riparian areas have been studied intensely in recent years because of their critical functional relationships to stream and freshwater wetland ecosystems. Marine riparian areas, on the other hand, have received little attention. Although marine riparian systems have not been subject to the same level of scientific . investigation, a growing body of evidence suggests that riparian sys- tems serve similar functions regardless of the salinity of the water bodies they border. While riparian areas and shoreline vegetation have been identified as integral and important parts of the marine nearshore ecosystem, their functions and benefits have not been ad- equately evaluated and integrated into shoreline management strat- egies. Recognizing this gap in our knowledge and the apparent links between shoreline vegetation and the nearshore ecosystem based on personal observations, we began an investigation with a preliminary review of the scientific literature and interviews with other marine scientists. Our working hypothesis is that marine riparian systems provide functions similar to those described for freshwater riparian systems and are likely to provide additional functions unique to ma- rine nearshore ecosystems. Following this preliminary assessment, we conducted a more extensive literature review and assessment of riparian functions relative to marine systems. In this paper, we review riparian functions and associated benefits (i.e., ecological or social values) as they relate to the marine envi- ronment, using the most commonly reviewed freshwater riparian function topics as a template. The functions reviewed for this paper include water quality, soil stability, sediment control, wildlife habi- tat, microclimate, nutrient input, fish prey production, shade, and habitat structure with an emphasis on large woody debris (LWD). We also briefly review and discuss social values such as human health and safety, and aesthetics. In addition, we assess the relation- ship between current regulatory and management strategies and their effectiveness in protecting riparian and marine resources and the ecosystem as a whole. In addition to presenting the above-stated reviews and assessments, we provide a foundation to enhance dis- cussions of shoreline management and improve resource protection through an increased understanding of nearshore and marine ripar- ian ecosystems. Marine Riparian Functions Water Quality: Degradation of urban waterwciys is directly linked to urbanization and has been exacerbated by the lack of adequate storage, treatment, and filtration mechanisms for runoff. Water collected in stormwater systems, sewage, and discharges from in- dustrial sources mayor 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 and vegetated buffers are known to be efficient and cost effective. However, determining ap- propriate buffer widths to provide pollution abatement functions will require some basic knowledge of environmental conditions. Soil Stability: Vegetation affects both the surficial and mass sta- bility 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 extrac- tion via evapotranspiration. Vegetation, once established, provides a self-perpetuating and increasingly effective permanent erosion control Soils, slope height and angle, drainage, and other factors are also very important in determining susceptibility to erosion. For shorelines, and particularly those in areas with steep and erod- ing bluffs, native vegetation is usually the best tool for keeping the bluff intact and for 1l1inimi7ing erosion. Removal of the vegetation that helps to stabilize the face, or excavation along the face, increas- es the chance of slumping, which results in imperiled structures, lost land, a disruption to the ecological edge-zone, and increased sedimentation to the aquatic environment. Sediment Control: The control of sediments entering waterWays is one of the most commonly identified functions of riparian ar- eas in freshwater and coastal riparian studies. Most discussions of sediment control are addressed in the context of functional mecha- nisms of pollution abatement and soil stability provided by ripar- ian buffers. In addition to the various pollutants associated with sediments, fine sediments can have a dramatic physical effect on aquatic organisms. Siltation can clog the breathing apparatus (i.e., gills) of fishes and invertebrates, inhibit proper respiratory function in eggs and larvae (suffocation), alter substrates, and bury benthic organisms. The inherent qualities of riparian vegetation to slow runoff, stabilize soils, take up nutrients and other contaminants, and reduce siltation are common knowledge and serve even greater functions in protecting water bodies from contamination. Wildlife Habitat: Healthy (i.e., intact and functional) riparian sys- tems along marine shorelines support abundant and diverse assem- blages of wildlife. Of the 331 wildlife species known to inhabit all of King County, Washington, we identified 263 wildlife species (9 amphibians, 5 reptiles, 192 birds, 57 mammals) known or expected to be associated with marine riparian habitat. This represents 79.5% of all wildlife species found in King County. Many wildlife spe. cies are dependent upon riparian areas for their entire life cycle, with requirements for feeding, breeding, refuge, cover, movement, migration, and climate that are intricately interwoven into the ecological balance of riparian structure, functions, and processes. Other wildlife may only depend on riparian areas during a specific life stage, for limited periods during seasonal migrations, or simply as a migration corridor. Regardless of the timing, the availability ii and condition of riparian habitat can determine their survival. and mAny wildlife species have been extirpated due to the dramatic al- teration and loss of marine riparian habitat. Microclimate: Riparian plant and animal communities are greatly influenced by marine waters-especially those communities im- mediately adjacent to marine waters-through temperature and moisture regulation. tidal inundation. wind exposure. and salt spray. Marine littoral communities are. in turn. influenced by ripar- ian conditions. The greatest influence of marine waters on riparian communities is temperature; marine waters keep lowland areas cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. 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. Removing vegetation in upland and riparian areas increases exposure of the land and water to sun and decreases organic matter. resulting in elevated runoff and increased temperatures for water entering marine systems, desiccation of soils. and increased stress for animals dependent upon cool, moist conditions. Shade: Solar radiation (which leads to increased temperatures and desiccation) has long been recognized as one of the classic limiting factors for upper intertidal organisms and plays an important role in determining distribution, abundance, and species composition. Although the influence and importance of shade derived from shoreline vegetation in the Puget Sound nearshore ecosystem is not well understood, it is recognized as a limiting factor to be consid- ered and has prompted investigations to determine direct linkages between riparian vegetation and marine organisms. One such link is the relationship between shade and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretio- sus). a common nearshore forage fish found throughout the Puget Sound basin. On the basis of a comparison of adjacent shaded and unshaded spawning sites sampled in northern Puget Sound. Pent- tila (2001) found significantly higher egg mortality on the unshaded (sun-exposed) beaches. Considering the influences of temperature. moisture, and exposure on the diversity. distribution, and abundance of organisms that use upper intertidal zones. additional benefits of natural shading likely will be discovered as we investigate further. Nutrient Inputs: One of the characteristics that makes marine nearshore areas so productive is that they act as sinks for nutrients derived from upland and marine sources. The primary source of nutrients in the system is derived from primary producers (ie., aquatic and terrestrial vegetation. phytoplankton). although ter- restrial-derived organic contributions have not been well studied. Alterations of intertidal and subtidal areas by dredging. filling, dik- ing, overwater structures. and shoreline armoring have dramatically affected marine wetland and other aquatic vegetation (ie.. eelgrass. algae). Similarly. upland development has greatly reduced the amount of vegetation and nutrients available to the marine system. Such modifications have resulted in decreased abundance and taxa richness in both benthic and infaunal invertebrate and insect as- semblages. Fish Prey Production: Of the dietary studies of marine fishes that were reviewed for this study, it appears that salmon benefit most from riparian vegetation. For those species of salmonids (ie., cut- throat trout, chinook and chum salmon) known to be most de- pendent upon shallow. nearshore waters. insects derived from the terrestrial envirorum:llL ilppear to play an important r.g1e in their diets. Because of limited sampling and dietary analysis of juvenile salmonids and other fishes in the nearshore environment, we need additional studies to understand the contribution of riparian veg- etation to nearshore food webs and the impacts of vegetation loss along marine shorelines- However, as vegetation is eliminated. the food supply. and thus the carrying capacity of the coastal ecosys- tem. is likely to be reduced. Habitat StrUcturelLWD: Riparian vegetation and large woody de- bris (LWO) provide a multitude off unctions in aquatic ecosystems and riparian forests. One primary role of vegetation and LWO is habitat structure. The role and importance ofLWO in freshwater lotic systems has been well documented and has led to increasing efforts to use LWO for bank stabilization and habitat restoration. Course woody debris is also an important part of estuarine and oceanic habitats, from upper tidewater of coastal rivers to the open ocean surface and the deep sea floor. The ecological functions of ri- parian vegetation and LWO in the estuarine environment are much the same as those in freshwater systems. but many of the wildlife species. and most of the fish species that have direct and indirect dependency upon riparian functions are different. Stnlcturally. LWO provides potential roosting, nesting, refuge, and foraging opportunities for wildlife; foraging, refuge, and spawning substrate for fishes; and foraging. refuge. spawning. and attachment sub- strate for aquatic invertebrates and algae in the marine/estuarine environment. As the source of this material has diminished. so have the many functions provided to fish and wildlife. Human Health and Safety: At least three riparian functions-wa- ter quality. soil stability, and the ability to act as a separation zone (ie., absorb the impacts of storm surges and other natural. physi- cal assaults on shorelines)-apparently serve direct benefits to humans, especially in areas like the Puget Sound region. In addi- tion to heavy metals, petroleum, and other chemical constituents. pathogenic bacteria and viruses pose a serious health risk to hu- mans. Shoreline erosion, landslides. and tidal inundation also pose threats to development along shorelines. Prohibiting buildings in slide-prone areas. establishing proper buffers and setbacks, con- trolling drainage, and maintaining native vegetation would greatly reduce hazards to humans and maintain ecosystem integrity. . Aesthetics: Aesthetic qualities ~e not physical or biological func- tions of riparian areas. but they are societal values. Aesthetic qualities of riparian areas enhance livability and add to the quality of life for residents and visitors and are of economic value for ecological func- tions and outdoor activities (e.g., wildlife viewing, boating, hiking). Findings This study focuses on riparian functions and marine ecosystem issues in the Puget Sound region. The lack of directed marine ripar- ian studies in this region required a review and assessment of the national and international literature to determine whether studies performed in other coastal regions may be helpful in understanding An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems iii the importance of individual riparian functions for Puget Sound. Our findings indicate that both freshwater and marine riparian sys- tems serve almost identical purposes, and that manne npanao sys- tems provide additional functions important for supporting marine biota and the integrity of nearshore ecosystems. Unfortunatdy, the lack of directed studies for defining the full suite of marine riparian functions and values in this region (and elsewhere) leaves much uncertainty and has resulted in a lack of standards and practices to protect riparian systems and other coastal resources. The Puget Sound region has realized some of the most rapid coastal population growth in recent years and is expected to support con- tinued growth in the coming decades. This will inevitably result in an increasing demand for shoreline development Living right next to the water is highly valued in our society, but usually results in the clearing of native vegetation for view corridors, buildings, land- scaping, and appurtenant structures such as bulkheads and docks. Unfortunatdy, shoreline devdopment activities have significantly altered the natural structure, functions, processes, and beauty of our shorelines. Much of the historical destruction occurred without regard for the long-term consequences. Furthermore, science and public education have certainly not kept up with the level of devd- opment However, despite the fact that current scientific knowledge and public sentiment support protection of natural resources for a variety of reasons, including aesthetics, existing environmental protection programs have proven to be woefully inadequate and ineffective at stopping the losses. While research and empirical data to quantify functional character- istics of marine riparian systems in Puget Sound are substantially lacking, this review and assessment indicates that marine riparian functions play an important role in marine nearshore ecosystems. Our assessment also indicates that the lack of attention to marine riparian areas and poor protective standards have resulted in sub- stantialloss and degradation of marine riparian and nearshore ecosystem components, which are of value to fishes, wildlife, and human health and safety. 1here is a critical need to devdop and implement a research program and protective standards to learn more about marine riparian systems and prevent further degrada- tion and loss of riparian functions and benefits. Recommendations The following recommendations should be considered as a part of any coastal management strategy and development of shoreline regulations. Use the Precautionary Principle: "Do No Further Harm" Preventing additional losses is both critical and cost effective. Once riparian functions are lost, they are difficult and expensive to re- store, if restoration is pOSSIble at all. Fill Data Gaps The lack of empirical data for northwest coastal ecosystems and limited recognition of riparian functions has led to poor manage- ment practices and protection standards for coastal resources. Re- search and documentation are critical for establishing a scientific foundation for creating adequate policies and practices for protec- tion and restoration. Establish Appropriate Buffers and Setbacks Buffers and setbacks are essential, functional and cost effective tools for preserving important processes and functions, prevent- ing environmental degradation and protecting valuable coastal resources. Maintain and/or Restore Riparian Vegetation for Human Health and Safety Flooding, storm and erosion hazards are a common problem in coastal areas and become a greater threat when shoreline devdop- ment does not consider the functions and values of maintaining riparian vegetation buffers (see Beatley et al1994; NRe 2002). Identify, Evaluate and Incorporate Multiple Functions Into A Management Strategy Any management strategy should be based upon maintaining all natural processes and functions, determined by an evaluation of the specific requirements for maintaining individual and collective functions over space and time (e.g., LWD recruitment; life history requirements of multiple species of fishes and wildlife). Use a Multidisciplinary Approach in Developing Riparian Man- agement Zones Experts in a wide range of natural sciences should collaborate on an integrated and multidisciplinary assessment Maintain and/or Restore Riparian Vegetation for Pollution Abatement and Soil Stability Vegetative buffers would likely be of benefit by reducing contami- nants in runoff and reduce costly reactionary measures to clean up waterways. Maintain and/or Restore Riparian Vegetation for Fish and Wddlife It is clear that as vegetation is eliminated, the food supply, and thus the carrying capacity of the coastal ecosystem, is reduced. Protect Marine Riparian Areas From Loss and Degradation Riparian areas provide a wide range of functions, which are ben- eficial to humans, fish and wildlife. Every effort should be made to preserve remaining marine riparian areas from further degrada- tion, fragmentation and loss. Increase Public Education and Outreach It is critical that decision-makers and the general public be educat- ed about the outcomes of their actions, especially those that have the greatest influence on outcomes (ie., those that live, work and play along our shorelines). Develop and Implement Conservation Programs Use ecological principles to guide actions and incorporate multiple functions and processes in developing goals and objectives for con- servation actions. Develop Incentives for Conservation Programs Land acquisition, tax incentives, regulatory incentives and other measures have been used and should be considered in the devdop- ment of conservation programs. iv Introduction While marine nearshore environments are some of the most re- source-rich and economically important ecosystems m the world, the structure, functions, and processes that form and maintain habitat in these systems are complex and poorly understood. Of the many habitats constituting the nearshore, perhaps the least un- derstood and most unappreciated, in terms of critical functions, are riparian are~. Riparian areas have been studied intensely in recent years because of their critical functional relationships to stream and wetland ecosystems. Marine riparian areas, on the other hand, have received little attention. As a result, most definitions of ripar- ian systems are oriented to freshwater. In defining riparian systems, most authors omit any reference to tidal waters, which seems to be more of a reflection of the study area than a definition of the functi~nal relationship (e.g., Gregory et al1991, Naiman et al 1993). However, riparian areas are generally understood to be the interface between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Therefore, early in the development of this manuscript (which began in 2001) we merged language used by Swanson et al (1982) and Hall (1987) for a simplified definition that captures all aquatic systems. In order to be more inclusive, we initially defined riparian systems for this paper as follows: Riparian systems are located in those areas that are on or by land bordering a wetland, stream, lake, tidewater, or other body of water, and which constitute the interface between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Subsequently, the National Research Coun- cil (NRC 2002) developed the following definition, which is largely in line with our original definition by recognizing marine riparian areas and we recommend using this definition: Riparian areas are tnmsitional between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and are distinguished by gradients in biophysical conditions, ecological processes and biota. They are areas through which sur&ce and subsur&ce hydrology connect waterbodies with their adjacent uplands. They include those portions of terrestrial ecosystems that ~grt;fi(""ntly influence exchanges of energy and matter with aquatic ecosystems (Le., zone ofinfluence). Riparian areas are adjacent to perennial. intermittent. and ephemeral streams, lakes, and estuarine-marine shorelines (NRC 2002). The interface of these two systems results in mutual influences and unique characteristics. In general, healthy riparian systems are defined by characteristics that may include some or all of the fol- lowing: · long linear shapes · high edge-to-area ratios . microclimates distinct from those of adjacent uplands . standing or flowing water present all or much of the year, or a capacity to convey or retain water . periodic flooding, which results in greater natural diversity . composition of native vegetation differing somewhat from upland (inland) systems (e.g., different species abundance, diversity, and structure) . support systems for terrestrial and aquatic biota These characteristics create a unique environment (i.e., ecotone) that is complex, provides distinct functions not found in other ecotones, and typically supports higher species diversity and rich- ness than non-riparian areas. While nested within and connected to other ecosystems within the landscape, riparian systems are themselves distinct ecosystems. Adjacevt to marine waters. marine riparian systems are directly linked to, and are a part of, marine nearshore ecosystems owing to the mutual influences and depen- dencies upon similar processes and functional relationships. Marine nearshore environments, particularly estuarine systems, are some of the most biologically productive and economically important systems in the world. As such, they are also among the most popular places for human habitation. In the United States, over half of the human population lives in coastal watersheds, and more than 37 million people and 19 million homes have been added to coastal areas during the last three decades (BPA 2004). Peoples' decisions to live near the water and use its resources for residential; commercial, industrial, and recreational purposes has resulted in significant modifications to shorelines (i.e., dredg- ing, filling, armoring, clearing and grading, overwater structures, shipping and wastewater disposal). This has in turn negatively im- pacted the quality of nearshore habitats and the numerous estua- rine-dependent species that rely on them. In Puget Sound, Wash- ington, the nation's second largest estuary, seven salmon stocks are already extinct, and estuarine-dependent chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and summer chum (Oncorhynchus ketal salmon have been listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), which are thought to use the nearshore for feeding and migration, are also listed as threat- ened under the ESA Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) are being considered for ESA listing and 19 additional marine fishes, all of which are associated with nearshore habitat, were petitioned for listing because of critical population declines. Furthermore, the system's top-predator, the orca whale (Orcinus orca), whose prime food source includes sahnon, has been petitioned for listing. While many factors have contributed to population declines, habitat loss and degradation resulting from human development has been identified as a major contnbuting factor. In many U.S. estuaries, resource managers are studying various management tools to better protect these fragile and valuable ecosystems. One such tool being investigated (and in some cases used) is protective riparian "buffers" or "setbacks" along estuarine shorelines, which is similar to the more common establishment of buffers and setbacks along freshwater streams and rivers. A buffer is defined as a horizontal distance separating a coastal feature or resource from human activities and within which activities are typ- ically regulated or controlled (i.e., limited) to protect the resource or minimize the risk of creating a coastal hazard. Buffer widths are typically based upon the desire to maintain a healthy "separation zone" and are determined by functions. A setback is defined as a distance landward of some coastal feature (e.g., the ordinary high- water mark) within which certain types of structures or activities are prohibited (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 1998). Unlike buffers, setbacks seldom account for ripar- ian or other coastal functions. The use of riparian buffers and setbacks as tools to protect water quality, prevent erosion, and protect habitat structure and other functions in streams and rivers is well established; it is largely the An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems 1 result of an extensive body ofliterature documenting these func- . . associated socio-economic and biophysical benefits. Although marine riparian systems have not been s ~ect to e same level of scientific investigation, a growing body of evidence suggests that riparian systems serve similar functions regardless of the salinity of the water bodies they border (see Desbonnet et al. 1994, Levings and Jamieson 2001). Desbonnet et al. (1994) con- clude 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, including pollutant removal, soil stability, wildlife and fish habitat, and stormwater control. Their conclusions support our hypothesis: Marine riparian systems provide functions similar to those described for freshwater riparian systems and are likely to provide additional functions unique to marine nearshore ecosys- tems. The recent salmon crisis in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) is of particular interest in this study because it illustrates how narrowly we have focused our attention as resource managers. Most of what we know about salmonids comes from extensive studies of the freshwater phases of their life history. The information derived from decades of study has taught us much about the importance of water quality, sediments, flows, and the influence and importance of healthy riparian areas in freshwater systems. Yet, relatively little is known about salmon as they move from freshwater to marine conditions-for example. early life-history requirements and how these fish use the nearshore environment-even though these are critical stages in their life cycle. Similarly, we know relatively little about their life at sea. These marine phases of their life are critical to sustaining healthy salmonid populations in addition to provid- ing critical links in our understanding of PNW ecosystems. The interdependency between upland and aquatic systems is illustrated in recent publications by Gresh et al. (2000) and Cederholm et al. (2000), who discuss the importance of marine-derived nutrients (i.e., returning salmon) in PNW forest and stream ecosystems. Their studies suggest that we not only need to preserve salmon in the system, but we need to look beyond salmon and maintain im- portant estuarine and marine functions that will support healthy salmon populations. Without a doubt, this holds true for a multi- tude of other species as well. While riparian areas and shoreline vegetation have been identified as integral and important parts of the marine nearshore ecosystem, their functions and benefits have not been adequately evaluated and integrated into shoreline management strategies. Recognizing this gap in our knowledge and the apparent links between shore- line vegetation and the nearshore ecosystem based on personal observations, we began an investigation with a preliminary review of the scientific literature and interviews with other marine scien- tists. Following this preliminary assessment, we conducted a more extensive literature review and assessment of riparian functions relative to marine systems. In this paper, we review riparian func- tions and associated benefits (i.e., ecological or social values) as they relate to the marine environment, using the most commonly reviewed freshwater riparian function topics as a template. The functions reviewed for this paper include water quality, soil stabil- ity, sediment control, wildlife habitat, microclimate. nutrient input, fish prey production, shade, and habitat structure with an emphasis on argewoo yens ..' social values such as human health and safety, and aesthetics. In addition, we assess the relationship between current regulatory and management strategies and their effectiveness in protecting riparian and marine resources and the ecosystem as a whole. This paper is not intended to provide an exhaustive review of the litera- ture, but rather a review of the scientific, planning, and resource management studies, concepts, and tools that have been used to identify and protect functions and values of riparian systems and their relationship to marine ecosystems. In addition to presenting the above-stated reviews and assessments, we provide a founda- tion to enhance discussions of shoreline management and improve resource protection through an increased understanding of near- shore and marine riparian ecosystems. The terms "marine" and "estuarine" are used interchangeably in this report to cover the diverse and complex array of shorelines with saltwater influence found in Washington State. We also use the term "nearshore" to describe the area that tends to have the highest productivity, is the part of the marine ecosystem that in- cludes and is most likely influenced by riparian interactions, and is also affected the most by anthropogenic disturbances/modifica- tions. For this review, the nearshore is defined as the outer limit of the photic zone (approximately -20 m below MllW) extending landward to include coastal landforms such as the backshore, sand- spits, coastal bluffs, coastal wetlands, and riparian areas on or adja- cent to any of these areas. In addition, the nearshore environment includes subestuaries such as the tidally influenced portions of river and stream mouths. Puget Sound is the focus of our attention in this report for a number of reasons, including the following: 1. It is the second largest estuary in the United States, exhibiting a wide range of both marine and estuarine characteristics. 2. It supports the richest and most complex fish and wildlife habitat and species diversity found in Washington .State. 3. It supports the greatest urban density and growth of any region in the state. 4. It has a history of substantial habitat modification, loss, and degradation; species extinction and extirpation; and fish and wildlife population reductions. 5. Resource managers are currently charged with finding recovery solutions for several Puget Sound salmonid species listed under the Endangered Species Act. 6. A significant portion ofPuget Sound's shorelines has already been modified by development and the remainder is increasingly threatened. 2 Marine Riparian Functions Ecological Functions Hydrological, geological, biological, oceanographic, and meteoro- logical processes form and maintain marine habitat structure and functions. The interactions of these processes determine the natu- ral physical, chemical, and biological elements of the ecosystem. Water delivered to the Puget Sound basin in the form of rain and snow percolates through the soils and off the land. The water enter- ing Puget Sound in streams, springs, and seeps delivers sediments, nutrients, and organic matter. It may also deliver harmful levels of silt and contaminants. The rate and mechanism of delivery greatly influences the quality of the water and its influence on associated biotic communities. Therefore, the character of the land adjacent to marine shorelines and the transport mechanisms have a significant influence on the health and integrity of the nearshore ecosystem. The processes, structure, and functions of marine nearshore sys- tems are complex and not well understood. However, with the lim- ited information that we do have for the nearshore environment, along with an understanding of other aquatic ecosystems and the application of basic ecological principles, we are able to identify factors that result in habitat degradation and potentially limit spe- ciessurvival. One element of the nearshore ecosystem that has received very little attention is the contribution of riparian functions. Our review of the literature has revealed many marine-riparian ecosystem . linkages that have previously received little attention or discus- sion. It has also enabled us to better understand the importance of marine riparian systems and the environmental impacts associated with altered or lost riparian functions. For example, Shre1Ber et at (1994) conclude that altering the physical conditions of the shore- line can cause changes in the biological structure and functioning of shoreline habitats and can also alter use of these habitats by fish, shellfish, birds, and other organisms. Furthermore, removal of shoreline vegetation reduces shade and large woody debris (LWD), which affects the supply ofterrestrial insects (that salmon feed on), epibenthic prey resources, and the spawning habitat ofbaitfish, which are prey resources oflarger juvenile and resident salmon (Si- menstad 1998). Marine riparian areas provide a variety of ecologi- cal functions integral to the marine ecosystem. They also provide a number of social benefits as well These functions and benefits include the following: Ecological functions: 1. soil and slope stability 2. sediment control 3. wildlife habitat 4. microclimate 5. water quality 6. nutrient input 7. fish prey production 8. habitat structure (e.g., large woody debris) 9. shade Social values: 1. human health and safety 2. aesthetics The following sections provide a review of each of these ecological functions and social values. Cultural and commercial values (e.g., marketable fish and shellfish), among other social values, are also important, but were not reviewed for this manuscript Soil and Slope Stability The effects of natural or geological (surface) erosion are every- where to be seen, but this natural erosion works slowly.... Because it works so slowly, the effects of this type of erosion are hardly felt and present no serious problem. The real problem today is not natural erosion, but the intensification of this action, known as accelerated erosion. Unlike natural erosion, accelerated erosion is the result of human activities. (Wood 1938) Vegetation affects both the surficial and mass stability of slopes in significant and important ways, ranging from mechanical reinforcement and restraint by the roots and stems to modifica- tion of slope hydrology as a result of soil moisture extraction via evapotranspiration. In a mature forest, approximately one-third of rainfall may be absorbed and evaporated back prior to reaching the ground. The remaining wat~ is absorbed by forest duff and roots with a small percentage left to infiltrate into the ground. One dra- matic example of this process is that a mature conifer can absorb up to 100 gallons of water per day (Dunne and Leopold 1978). The end result is that only a small fraction of the total rainfall actually infiltrates into the ground, or runs off of the land through this ex- tensive, natural filtration system. Considering the relatively high level of annual rainfall in the Pacific Northwest (relative to many other marine regions), water that is not intercepted by the tree canopy, understory, or shrubs will in- filtrate into the ground, or run off the surface. This can lead to sig- nificant surficial erosion of soils that results in lost topsoil, siltation, burial of aquatic environs, and the introduction of contaminants into waterways. In addition, rainfall not intercepted or absorbed by vegetation also increases soil saturation, increasing the poten- tial for landslides. Landslides appear to be much more frequent in areas where vegetation has been removed by development than in undisturbed areas of Puget Sound. Vegetation, once established, provides a self-perpetuating and increasingly effective penilanent erosion control (Kittredge 1948. Menasbe 1993)- Soils, slope height and angle, drainage, and other factors are also very important in determining susceptibility to erosion. However, for all shorelines. and particularly those in ar- eas with steep and eroding bluffs, native vegetation is usually the best tool for keeping the bluff intact and for minimizing 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 by the many field and laboratory studies reported in the technical literature. Disturbing the face or toe ofa bluff or bank may cause destabilization, slides, and cave-ins (Clark et al. 1980). An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems 3 Removal of the vegetation that helps to stabilize the face, or excava- tion along the f;orp, increases the chance of slumping, which results in imperiled structures, lost land, a disruption to the ecological edge-zone, and increased sedimentation to the aquatic environ- ment (Clark et al. 1980). Often, it is not simply the removal of native vegetation and for- est duff that contributes to decreased soil stability. As shoreline properties are developed, the increase in impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, driveways, foundations, etc.) concentrates and increases runoff. This exacerbates erosional problems by increasing the volume of water and energy of flows that cut away and destabilize the land. Despite attempts to use detention, infiltration, and other forms of stormwater control, erosion and destabilization problems are often realized in other areas "downstream" or result in direct discharge to waterways, producing another set of problems (e.g., water quality, hydrology, siltation, habitat loss, and degradation). The relationship of these problems to riparian and aquatic ecosys- tems is clearly one oflost functions, reductions in fish and wildlife, and an increased threat to human health and safety. Sediment Control The control of sediments entering waterways is one of the most commonly identified functions of riparian areas in freshwater and coastal riparian studies. Most discussions of sediment control are addressed in the context of functional mechanisms of pol- lution abatement and soil stability provided by riparian buffers. Since most pollutants associated with stormwater are adsorbed to sediments (Karr and Schlosser 1978), trapping sediments also removes a certain percentage of the pollutant load carried in sur- face runoff (Desbonnet et al. 1995). Desbonnet et al. (1995) also state: "Pollutants that adsorb to sediments, and therefore can be effectively treated by riparian vegetation, include most forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, hydrocarbons, PCBs, most metals, and pesticides. Bacterial and viral pathogens are additional contami- nants of concern (Thorn et al. 1988, PSWQA 1995, Desbonnet et al. 1995) that may also be attenuated by riparian vegetation. While sediments are the most easily removed pollutant (Desbonnet et al. 1995), total suspended solids (TSS) and other pollutants, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, require wider buffers for filtration and uptake by vegetation. Desbonnet et al. (1994) determined that a 25-m riparian buffer would remove approximately 80% of the sedi- ment load, whereas removing approximately 80% of nitrogen and TSS required 60 In. Removing approximately 80% of phosphorus required an 85-m buffer. But while sheet and subsurface flows through a buffer make use of the soils and vegetation, conveying stormwater through a buffer via a ditch or pipe will provide little filtration and defeat the purpose of the buffer in providing protec- tion to the aquatic system. In addition to the various pollutants associated with sediments, fine sediments can have a dramatic physical effect on aquatic or- ganisms. Siltation can clog the breathing apparatus (ie., gills) of fishes and invertebrates, inhibit proper respiratory function in eggs and larvae (suffocation), alter substrates, and bury benthic organ- isms. Siltation and erosion controls have long been recognized as best management practices for development projects regardless of their proximity to a water body. Yet, many control practices have proven to be madequate, 1:5pewally for projects conducted during winter in the Pacific Northwest The most common recommenda- tions for silt and erosion control in the technical literature are to minimi7.e vegetation removal in the area being cleared, maintain vegetated buffers, detain runoff on site, and provide water-quality treabnent. The inherent qualities of riparian vegetation to slow runoff, stabi. lize soils, take up nutrients and other contaminants, and reduce siltation are common knowledge and serve even greater func- tions in protecting water bodies from contamination. However, the functional ability of riparian areas to handle sediment loading depends greatly upon vegetation structure (ie., type, age, density), steepness of slope, width of buffer, and level of disturbance and volume of contaminants being introduced from above the riparian area. Maintaining riparian vegetation can be a relatively simple, long-term, and cost-effective method of pollution abatement. Re- establishing riparian vegetation may be costly, but the long-term benefits are likely to greatly outweigh such costs. Wildlife Habitat Healthy (i.e., intact and functional) riparian systems along marine shorelines support abundant and diverse assemblages of wildlife. Of the 331 wildlife species known to inhabit all of King County, Washington (King County 1987; Kate Stenberg, King County De- partment of Natural Resources, Seattle, pers. comm.) we identified 263 wildlife species (9 amphibians, 5 reptiles, 192 birds, 57 mam~ mals) known or expected to be associated with marine riparian habitat. This represents 79.5% of all wildlife species found in King County (Table 1). The Table lUsting represents only those species suspected of having a dependence on, or association with marine riparian zones (e.g., utilization for feeding. migration, reproduc- tion, prey/nutrient production) and does not reflect species such as marine mammals, other birds and fishes that may have less well- defined associations with marine riparian functions. This would potentially include hundreds of additional species. Many wildlife species are dependent upon riparian areas for their entire life cycle, with requirements for feeding, breeding, refuge, cover, movement, migration, and climatethat are intricately inter- woven into the ecological balance of riparian structure, functions, and processes. Other wildlife may only depend on riparian areas during a specific life stage, for limited periods during seasonal mi- grations, or simply as a migration corridor. Regardless of the tim- ing, the availability and condition of riparian habitat can determine their survival, and many wildlife species have been extirpated due to the dramatic alteration and loss of marine riparian habitat. Vegetation and other characteristi<:s of riparian areas in Puget Sound are diverse and greatly influenced by myriad physical processes such as exposure, tidal inundation, waves, hydrology, littoral drift, and erosion potential. However, excluding subestuar- ies (stream and river mouths), most riparian areas immediately adjacent to the waters of Puget Sound comprise mixed conifer and deciduous forests. In terms of habitat type and species com- 4 I II. . . ..1..... ... ..1-$ J .... ....i$i ;;'. ... ..... ...1' ... .... .. ...: . ......... 1....1. ". '..I~I. ...llil~ '. ..1 ..1 '. ..~ 11< .,1111111,1 t lit II ..8. 8 .. 8.8 00 0 D ...0 II CO. I I] ....... .. ". I. . .. ......1.1...11.1 Ii ..i..B<, . !ll..lll~ll I'll ....111 ~tlll,.lllltldllll .. gg.llllJlI. lJll....JlllltJJI. PQPellI.1I I 1111111-<. ...lJltlilll~ ...1 ..1.fl.lilllII11<IJ 1111.11.11111 .. II .......1'.0110 coo .0080..>0 ..... cu ::c ~ Ie....... ..1 .111 ..1.. ...1 ... .... ..., I... .1. ...1.. · .... .. ..... ...1 ..ll<l<, #t;. 'lllllltllUII 11..0 C ....8'.. ..0.00 ~. " .....~.. .. .$1.. .1. ..... .i......i ,..5 ~I [ g ..... ....... ... ...... s .~I~ll l'li.l~ ~;111 h. ..1.1.'1>. 1...1...............1......1....... ...........'h .......11...; .'........... ."'..................Qo. ............1.. ..:........ Q... ... - 1;1& .-= .!i I 8. "ill "C.... ............-. ............'..&.. :. sv.5'1'i ill.....1 1-1,1 Zi ,W);i!'1 1.1.. ....x>,S......... IS '-11 i...> .......1............1...... ~..I.Wl t~>~;.I... t'.i!...". ... ...1. .............. .........~.... ................. .......... ..,. ..;g lioli .... J!.........~...'!iit.... ........ ...... .9.3.. .. P,. a-::ji:i..U.lL..". JJ.ii!~ l<l ill,. ..1.11 U'.I... .111 11111. .IIU .aD ...i.C.ODO An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems 5 , , ...III11.IIIIII.BII.II .........81111..1111 6 position. these riparian areas are similar to those found along Puget SOUlld lGwland streaJTll: lmd other riparian areas in western Washington State. Therefore. a similar value assessment of ripar- ian wildlife habitat is warranted. Wildlife habitat requirements in riparian systems are complex and have received much review and analysis. For example, Knutson and Naef (1997). Desbonnet et al (1994). and Wenger (1999) have performed extensive literature reviews to determine buffer widths required to maintain riparian functions for wildlife. For Washington State. Knutson and Naef (1997) determined that the average width reported to retain the riparian function for wildlife habitat was 88 In. In their literature review of wildlife habitat protection, Desbonnet et al (1994) rec- ommend 60-100 m for general wildlife habitat, 92 m for protecting important wildlife habitat, and 600 m for protecting critical spe- cies. Unfortunately, little discussion and even less effort has been focused on preserving marine riparian areas for wildlife species in Puget Sound or elsewhere. This has resulted in a dramatic loss and fragmentation of riparian habitat and associated wildlife. Buffer requirements for freshwater systems may be substantially less than for some marine and estuarine systems because of the influences of wind. salt spray. desiccation, and general microclimatic effects on vegetation and associated wildlife (Klaus Richter, King County. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle. pers. comm.). One of the greatest impacts of urbanization on wildlife comes from habitat fragmentation (Stenberg et al. 1997. Knutson and Naef 1997). The isolation of remnant habitat parcels makes utilization and recolonization by wildlife difficult or impossible (Knutson and Naef 1997). This is of particular concern for species with low mo- bility such as amphibians (Richter 1995, Knutson and Naef 1997). Because many wildlife species depend upon wide. continuous corridors. and separation from the disturbance of urbanization, fragmented and discontinuous riparian habitat provides limited value to a wide range of species and will ultimately support greatly reduced species diversity and abundance. This is not to say that small tracts of remaining riparian habitat are of no value. Rather, it suggests that species diversity and abundance. along with other wildlife benefits and riparian functions, may be improved with efforts to reconnect and expand remaining riparian (and upland) areas. Washington State claims to have nearly 2.5 million wildlife watch- ers over the age of 16, with expenditures of $980 million for wildlife watching activities in 2001 (U.S. Fish and WIldlife Service [USFWS] 2(01). Much of this wildlife viewing occurs along ma- rine shorelines, from the land and from the water. Considering the species diversity and abundance of wildlife supported by riparian areas, there appears to be both economic and biological arguments for their maintenance and protection. Microclimate Riparian plant and animal communities are greatly influenced by marine waters-especially those communities immediately adja- cent to marine waters-temperature and moisture regulation. tidal inundation, wind exposure, and salt spray. Marine littoral com- munities are, in turn, influenced by riparian condition. The inter- action 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 wadlife. The greatest influence of marine waters on riparian communities is temperature; marine waters keep lowland areas cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter. Temperature and moisture are also regulated by the amount of vegetative cover on the land. To- gether, these factors contribute to microclimates upon which fish and wildlife depend, especially climate-sensitive species such as amphibians. Even the quality of the soil (biological. chemical. and physical properties) is influenced by climate, thereby affecting con- ditions for plants and animals. Removing vegetation in upland and riparian areas increases ex- posure of the land and water to sun and decreases organic matter, resulting in elevated runoff and increased temperatures for water entering marine systems, desiccation of soils, and increased stress for animals dependent upon cool. moist conditions. Cleared areas become hotter in the summer and colder in the winter, have in- creased evaporation due to wind and sun exposure, have reduced humidity, and may experience increased soil instability. Microclimates contribute to higher species diversity and abun- dance along marine shorelines compared with nonriparian areas. As marine shorellneshave become urbanized, large volumes of riparian vegetation have been displaced by concrete. asphalt, struc- tures. and landscaping, which changes habitat structure and results in temperature and moisture changes. Changes in microclimate and habitat strUcture also result in concurrent changes in species composition. Water Quality Degradation of urban waterways is directly linked to urbanization and has been exacerbated by the lack of adequate storage. treat- ment. and filtration mechanisms for runoff. The major pollutants found in runoff from urban areas include sediment, nutrients, oxy- gen-demanding substances (e.g., organic compounds), road salts, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons. pathogenic bacteria, and viruses (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 1993). Many contaminants bind to sediments, which, when suspended, constitute the largest mass of pollutant loadings to receiving wa- ters from urban areas (USEPA 1993). Clearing, grading, and other constrUction practices are the major source of sediment erosion. In addition to the damages caused by chemical constituents, exces- sive sedimentation results in burial and siltation. which can have severe. adverse effects on aquatic biota. TypiCally, clearing and grading is followed by the installation of impervious surfaces such as roads, buildings. sidewalks, and park- ing lots. Furthermore. landscaping practices and the compaction of soils that occurs with development results in vast areas of relatively impermeable soil. Rainfall and other runoff is not retained and gathers in volume. velocity, and contaminants as it flows over the now-converted landscape toward its ultimate destination-a water- way such as Puget Sound. Water collected in stormwater systems. sewage, and discharges from industrial sources may or may not be An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems 7 treated and contains varying levels of silt, waste, and chemical con- stituents that CQlllcl otherwise be absorbed or removed by allowing for infiltration, detention, and absorption by soils and vegetation. Pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer application can have dramatic impacts on fish and wildlife through direct and indirect contact. Improper application, excessive concentrations. and overuse of pesticides and fertilizers are common practices in urban shoreline areas where artificial landscapes are desired by landowners. Harmful chemical constituents are transported to marine and estuarine waters through a nwnber of transport mechanisms (ie., sediments, surface runoff, springs, seeps, streamS) and are taken up by aquatic organisms in the water through prey organisms and other food sources. Con- taminants also acaunu1ate in sediments that can affect benthic and epibenthic organisms through physical contact. Direct effects include mortality to adults, juveniles, or embryos; reduced reproductive suc- cess; birth defects; anorexia and loss of body-weight; retarded growth; and changes in species composition. Indirectly. treatments with pesticides (particularly insecticides and herbicides) can reduce plant and insect food sources for wildlife species (Knutson and Naef 1997) and fishes. Reduced and contaminated food sources can cause stress, reduced growth and survival, relocation, and higher susceptibility to predation. Fertilizers and other urban and agricultural runoff contribute to additional indirect impacts by introducing high levels of organic nutrients, petroleum byproducts, and other contaminants into the aquatic system. The increase in nutrients can cause plankton blooms, which may consume oxygen as the plankton die. This pro- cess is known as eutrophication. Eutrophication in the nearshore has been identified as a concern by resource managers and scien- tists (Broadhurst 1998). It is often the result of poorly functioning septic systems and other unfiltered runoff. Eutrophication is par- ticularlyacute in water bodies with poor tidal flushing or extended residence times like Hood Canal, Whidbey basin and South Puget Sound. It can also occur in embayments, particularly in heavily urbanized areas. Contamination has also had a direct economic effect on the region's shellfish industry. Washington is the second largest pro- ducer of oysters and clams in the nation and the leading producer of farmed oysters and clams. Clean water is critical for the industry and the public who enjoy harvesting shellfish (Washington Depart- ment of HealthlPuget Sound Action Team [WDOHlPSAT] press release, June 2003). In 1992, 32% of classified commercial shellfish- growing areas in Puget Sound and Juan de Fuca Strait were either restricted or prohibited for harvesting owing to water-quality issues (Levings and Thom 1994). In 2003, the WDOH identified 20 threatened shellfish areas in a record number of counties (12) according to their Early Warning System (WDOHIPSAT 2003). In most urban and urbanizing areas of Puget Sound, sport harvest of clams is restricted because of contaminants derived from urban runoff, failing septic systems, and other nonpoint pollution sourc- es. Despite efforts to upgrade and expand wastewater treatment facilities, increasing urbanization and destruction of riparian zones will continue to contribute to degraded water quality and will likely result in increased harvest restrictions. The effects of these contaminants become most apparent through analysis of higher-order predators such as marine mammals. In his review uf l.Oiltaminants found in Puget Sound marine mammals, Calambokidis (1995) found that concentrations of PCBs in harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in the 1970s were among the highest re- ported worldwide. He also reported that these contaminants have been linked to a variety of disorders in marine mammals, includ- ing premature births, reproductive failure, and immunosuppres- sion. More recently, high levels of PCBs have been found in orca whale tissues, which is suspected as a possible cause of population decline. This concern has led to the listing of oreas as endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wlldlife inOtpada (COSEWIC) and a petition for listing orcas under the Endangered Species Act in the United States. According to state water-quality assessments, the leading non- point pollution contributors to estuarine waters are urban runoff (including construction and development activities and onsite disposal systems) and agriculture (USEPA 1993). Other significant nonpoint contributors in some coastal watersheds include silvicul- ture, marinas, and hydromodification. Furthermore, the loss and degradation of wetlands and riparian areas has adversely in1pacted coastal water quality (USEPA 1993). The use of riparian areas for pollution abatement is.well document- ed (e.g., Phillips 1989, Groffman et al. 1990, Desbonnet et al. 1994, Knutson and Naef 1997, Lorance et al. 1997a,b,Rein 1999, Wenger 1999). In addition, vegetated buffers are known to be efficient and cost effective. Our review of the literature regarding the use of ri- parian buffers for pollution control in estuaries indicates that the level of effectiveness depends upon a number of factors including the following: · soils . geomorphology · hydrology . biological processes (e.g., microbial activity) . vegetation type . steepness of slopes annual rainfall level of pollution type of pollutants surrounding land uses buffer width . . . . . In an analysis of multiple soil types found in several states along the Atlantic coast, Phillips (1989) found that a 91-m vegetated buffer area would provide sufficient filtration for nonpoint pollu- tion concerns around estuaries. Clark et al. (1980) recommended 24-m minimum buffers for slopes of 20% with slight erosion, and 46-m minimum buffers for 30% slopes with severe erosion for controlling agricultural runoff Lee and Olsen (1985) found that the majority of nitrogen loading in estuarine lagoons (70-90%) and resultant algal blooms and eutrophication resulted from upland res- idential development and application of herbicides and pesticides. In addition, a number Of studies link declines in seagrasses (ie., Zostera spp.) and changes in species composition to degraded water quality associated with shoreline development (Short and Burdick 1996, Pennings et al. 2002). Resolving these problems entailed rec- ommendations that included maintaining and replacing septic sys- tems, reducing further development, and a requirement for natural vegetation buffers. Rein (1999) not only recommended vegetated buffer strips to reduce siltation and pollutants from agriculture, 8 but quantified the economic benefits to the grower and society that result from using vegt'tlltion for erosion control and filtration of contaminants. Similarly, in a study of the cost of nutrient control in Chesapeake Bay, Butt and Brown (2000) conclude that the past decade of nutrient control experience has proven that pollution prevention would have been a much cheaper alternative in the long run. Knowing that vegetative buffers can provide significant reduc- tions in pollutants. it can be inferred that requiring such buffers would be of great benefit and reduce costly reactionary measures to clean up waterways. However, determining appropriate buffer widths to provide pollution abatement functions will require some basic knowledge of environmental conditions (i.e., factors listed above~. Nutrient Input One of the characteristics that makes estuaries so productive is that they act as sinks for nutrients derived from upland and marine sources. Estuarine ecosystems have a functional dependency on capturing and processing organic matter to support detritus-based food webs. Furthermore, this function depends 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, phyto- plankton). Alterations of intertidal and subtidal areas by dredging, filling, diking, overwater structures, and shoreline armoring have dramatically affected marine wetland and other aquatic vegetation (i.e., eelgrass, algae). Similarly, upland development has greatly reduced the amount of vegetation and nutrients available to the marine system. Organic detritus is the principal energy source for food webs in es- tuarine and shallow, marine benthic portions of the ecosystem; the principle source of this detrital carbon is debris from macrophyteS in the system (Gonor et al. 1988). For large woody debris, isopods (Limnoria), mollusks (Bankia. Teredo), fungi, and bacteria play important roles as agents of wood conversion and dispersion in the carbon and energy cycles of estuaries. For example, the wood- boring isopods, Limnoria (grlbbles), transfer fine wood particles to the carbon pool of the benthic sediment system by enormously increasing the surface area of wood and effectively converting trees directly into nonbuoyant wood powder. The breakdown of this material and its contribution to carbon cycling in detrital systems is not well understood, but it may provide an important source of carbon where LWD (and other upland vegetative material) is available. Thus, reductions ofLWD in the nearshore likely result in reduced detrital carbon. Beach wrack (organic/plant material deposited on beaches that is derived from marine and upland sources) provides habitat for several taxa that, in turn, process the material for introduction into the detritus-based food web and serve as prey for higher tro- phic levels (i.e.. fish and wildlife). Beach wrack is also processed by the mechanical action of waves and the grinding action of the sand and gravel on the beach. The structural benefits of wrack include cover and refuge from desiccation and predators. While beach wrack tends to attract both terrestrial insects and marine invertebrates, it appears that the most abundant taxonomic group is crustaceans. For example, in a survey of beach wrack infauna at North Beadl, ueat the West Point WastewateT ~dlity in Seattle, Washington, the numbers of crustaceans found in some beach wrack samples exceeded 10,000 per square meter (Shimek 1993). While some shorebirds are known feed on these crustaceans, little is known about links to higher trophic levels. While food webs and trophic interactions in the nearshore are gen- erally understood. there remain significant data gaps in our under- standing of specific linkages and pathways between inputs and tro- phic levels. Most studies of trophic interactions are species-specific, linked to specific projects in space and time, or lack the design and goals for a larger-scale understanding of the ecosystem. Studies are typically performed by different agencies, for different purposes, and often, using different methodologies. Also, the designs of in- dependent studies often do not lend themselves to comparing and interpreting data. For example, it is well known that fishes in the marine environment prey on a suite of organisms from various trophic levels supported by detritus. Although the importance of detritus in maintaining a prey base is well accepted. the contribu- . tion of riparian vegetation to the detritus base of the marine food web has received little attention. In their assessment of shoreline armoring effects on selected bio- logical resources in PugetSound. Shreffler et al. (1994) note that increased beach erosion caused by shoreline 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, resulting in lowering of the beach profile and loss of intertidal area due to the placement of armoring. The assessment by Shreffler et al. (1994) also illustrates that armoring results in a direct loss of riparian vegetation. alterations of sediment input, deposition and retention, nutrient flux, spedes assemblage shifts and ultimately, negative effects on aquatic organisms such as forage fishes, sal- monids, clams, crabs, and other invertebrates. The losses due to shoreline armoring have been identified in numerous studies and reports (see Kozloff, 1974, Macdonald et al. 1994, and Broadhurst 1998 for summaries and references). Yet, little attention and fewer studies have been focused on quantifying the cumulative impacts of such losses. However, a recent study by Sobocinski (2003) clearly identifies and quantifies biological impacts associated with ar- mored shorelines. Natural beach sites had larger amounts ofbeach wrack (organic debris) and significantly higher species diversity and abundance of insects and invertebrates when compared with armored/altered sites, which illustrated that shoreline armoring decreases abundance and taxa richness in both benthic and infau- nal invertebrate and insect assemblages. Fish Prey Production Numerous studies have identified functional linkages between ri- parian areas and marine aquatic systems. However. few have estab- lished direct linkages between specific prey resources derived from riparian vegetation and marine fishes. Of the dietary studies of ma- An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems 9 rine fishes that were reviewed for this study, it appears that salmon benefit most from riparian vegetation. The direct input of insect prey (fallout) from riparian vegetation for salmonids in freshwater systems has been well documented. However, the importance of insect fallout from riparian vegetation in juvenile salmon (and juvenile and adult cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki) diets in the marine environment is just being realized. and this resource may play an important role in early marine survival. The success of salmon feeding in shallow estuarine and marine areas may have an important influence on the early marine growth and survival of the fish utilizing these areas for rearing (Pearse et al. 1982). Successful feeding and growth depends upon the availability of preferred prey in the right space and time. In the nearshore envi- ronment, sporadic dietary studies of juvenile salmonids have shown interspecific differences in prey selectivity, and intraspecific differ- ences in space and time.However, for those species of salmonids (i.e., cutthroat trout, chinook and chum salmon) known to be most dependent upon shallow, nearshore waters. insects derived from ~~~alen~nm~appearto~animportant~intheir diets. Several studies have shown that chum salmon prey on terrestrially derived insects in Pacific Northwest estuaries. Simenstad (1998) found that summer chum collected in Hood Canal preyed upon in- sects. In the central Puget Sound Basin, Cordell et al. (1998; 1999a, b) found that insects were a dominant prey item in chum stomachs and consisted of chironomid fly larvae. pupaeJemerg~ adults, dipteran illes, and spiders. The predominance of insects, especially chirono- mid&, found in these studies is similar to results of chum salmon diets from other estuarine sites (Congleton 1978, Northcote et at 1979, Shreffler et al. 1992, Cordell et al. 1997. Fresh et al. 1979). Juvenile chinook salmon have also been shown to prey upon in- sects in the Puget Sound nearshore and other estuaries in Wash- ington State. Insects were identified as a significant dietary com- ponent of juvenile chinook collected off Bainbridge and Anderson islands by Fresh et al. (1981). Miller and Simenstad (1997) found that insects (chironomids and aphids) were the most important prey items for juvenile chinook at created and natural channels in the Chehalis River estuary. Studies by Cordell et al. (1997; 1998; 1999a,b) have shown similar results in juvenile chinook salmon diet studies but have also shown prey species variability among years and seasons studied in the Duwamish and Snohomish river estuaries. The importance of insects in juvenile chinook diets is also supported by studies in the Frasier River estuary (Levings et al. 1991, Levings et al. 1995), the Nisqually estuary (Pearce et al. 1982), the Puyallup River estuary (Shreffler et al. 1992), the Na- naimo estuary (Healey 1980), the Nisqually Reach area ofPuget Sound (Fresh et al. 1979), and central Puget Sound (Sobocinski 2003). More recently, juvenile chinook salmon stomach contents analyzed from beach seine samples collected throughout King County shorelines in central Puget Sound show a predominance of terrestrial insects in their diet (Brennan et al2004) (Figure 1). This suggests that riparian vegetation on open marine shorelines may play an important role in producing prey for juvenile salmon. The results of these studies provide direct evidence of the impor- tance of salt marsh and upland riparian vegetation as vital ecosys- tem components for providing detritus and habitat for salmonid tood orgamsms~ PUI aample, Lc.;ings et al. (1980) rolrnd that of the 10 prey species used by chinook, chironomid larvae, pupae, and adults were most abundant in the vegetated zones, and there- fore, their density might be used as an index of fish food abun- dance directly related to vegetation presence or coverage. Other invertebrates, such as mysids and amphipods, are connected to vegetation via detritus-based food webs as shown on the Fraser Figure 1. Stomach contents of a 143 mm juvenile chiflook salmon captured off of Maury Island (Puget Sound shoreline) on September 14. 2001. Note that contents are comprised entirely ofterrestrial insects. Although juvenile salmon ids feed on both marine and terrestrial organisms. this illustrates that they do have some dependency on prey derived from the adjacent uplands. estuary (Healey 1982) and in studies of other areas (e.g., Simen- stad and WlSSlllaf 1985, Levings et al. 1991). A current food-web analysis by the University of Washington (Cordell et al., School of Aquatic &: Fishery Sciences. Seattle, unpubL data) has identified important habitats and food-web connections for chinook salmon in Puget Sound, including: . Intertidal and shallow subtidal areas that produce amphipods and other epibenthic crustaceans. As has been established for juvenile chum salmon, these probably include intertidal flats as well as vegetation and areas of high detritus buildup. . Nearshore vegetated ~estrial habitats that are the source of . terrestrial insects in the diets. . Feeding on planktonic grazers such as euphausiids, shrimp, and crab larvae, planktonic amphipods, and copepods. . Feeding on other secondary pelagic consumers such as herring and other fish. Because of limited sampling and dietary analysis of juvenile salmo- nids and other fishes in the nearshore environment, we need addi- tional studies to understand the contribution of riparian vegetation to nearshore food webs and the impacts of vegetation loss along marine shorelines. However, as vegetation is eliminated, the food supply, and thus the carrying capacity of the coastal ecosystem, is likely to be reduced (d. Levings and Jatnieson 2001 for review of riparian vegetation/food web linkages). 10 Habitat StructurellargeWoody Debris (LWD) Riparian .~etation and large W(lody debris (LWD) provide a multitude of functions in aquatic ecosystems and riparian forests. One primary role of vegetation and LWD is as habitat structure. The role and importance ofLWD in freshwater lotic systems has been well documented and has led to increasing efforts to use LWD for bank stabilization and habitat restoration (e.g., Cramer et al. 2003. Johnson and Stypula 1993). Course woody debris is also an important part of estuarine and oceanic habitats, from upper tidewater of coastal rivers to the open ocean surface and the deep sea floor (Gonor et al. 1988). Yet, long before we understood or were concerned about freshwater or marine riparian systems. vast amounts of trees were cut along rivers and Puget Sound shorelines for timber and land development. Shoreline riparian forests likely were some of the earliest wood harvested owing to the ease of ac- cess and transport (logs could be floated down rivers, or rafted up the estuary for delivery to a mill site). This assumption is at least partially supported by Sedell and Duval (1985). Maser and Sedell (1994) provide a historical review of reported wood accumulations on estuarine and coastal beaches, and a number of past activities (and continuing operations) that help to understand the fate of LWD, including the following: . West coast survey reports in the 1850s recorded that many of the drift trees in the lower Columbia River were as large a 150 feet long by 13 to 18 feet in circumference; the largest was 267 feet long (Secretary of the Treasury 1859). . Swan (1857) reported drift trees as large as 250 feet long by 8 feet at the base, with a root span of some 20 feet, on the beach near the mouth of the Quillayute River in the Washington territory. . The lower river and estuary banks (riparian corridor) probably were the most common sources of the largest driftwood in the bays. In the 1860&, the banks of the upper half of the Coquille estuary were lined with mature hardwoods that made travel on the Coquille like walking "dim aisles in ancient cathedrals" (Dodge 1898). . The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) reported that Pacific Northwest estuarine shorelines and river-mouth beaches had often been covered with driftwood in the 1870s. . The USACE's responsibility to improve and maintain navigability led to removing significant amounts of driftwood (snags) and cutting trees along riparian corridors: "In the Tillatnook River system in 1904, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cut down all overhanging trees along the banks of the estuary in an attempt to alleviate the woody debris problem" (Report of the Secretary of War 1904-5). . Fishermen were also troubled by the snags and formed cooperatives to clear the rivers and estuaries of snags. . Many sources oflarge wood for estuaries and beaches along the Pacific Northwest coast were exhausted by 1920. Although similar historical data for Puget Sound were not avail- able, the fate ofLWD likely is similar to that found elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest. For example, in Puget Sound, the USACE continues to remove drift logs to reduce navigation hazards, and others snag logs for firewood, furniture, artwork and other uses. The ecological functions of riparian vegetation and LWO in the es- tuarine environment are much the same as those in freshwater sys- tems, but many of the wildlite speCies, and most of the fish spc:uC:l> that have direct and indirect dependency upon riparian functions are different. Structurally, LWD provides potential roosting, nesting, refuge, and foraging opportunities for wildlife; foraging, refuge, and spawning substrate for fishes; and foraging, refuge, spawning, and attachment substrate for aquatic invertebrates and algae in the ma- rine/estuarine environment. As the source of this material has di- minished, so have the many functions provided to fish and wildlife. Bald eagles, kingfishers, and other birds use logs on beaches, tide- flats, and estuarine channels as perches, which provide visibility for foraging, resting areas, and to reduce flight times (energy conserva- tion) between foraging areas and nesting sites. Herons and egrets will use drifted trees that are partially out of the water, as well as floating logs and log rafts, for foraging and resting. Cormorants, pelicans. small shorebirds, and some waterfOwl also require perches . and platforms for rest between periods of foraging to spread their wings to dry their feathers and for preening themselves. Purple martins and other cavity-nesting birds will use rotting snags on beaches for nesting. This has become more common because rot- ting trees on land near the water have become searce (Gonor et al. 1988). Richter (King County, DNRP, unpubL data) has found that gulls (western, glaucous-winged. and hybrids) along the Pacific coast prefer log beaches and estuarine meadows tologless beaches and other areas for breeding. Nests are built adjacent to logs that perform many functions. including visual isolation from adjacent nesters, thermoregulatory benefits for egg development (prevents addling), and cover for newly hatched chicks. Logs enable gulls to spend less time protecting the nest and more time foraging. Hence, fewer eggs and chicks die and the remaining ones grow larger in less time. LWD is suspected to serve similar functions for other ground nesting wildlife. The importance ofLWD to aquatic organisms varies and depends highly upon LWO location. Logs high in the intertidal may become embedded 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. Although the species assemblages that use woody debris and other beach wrack are not well ~escnoed. per- sonal observations have found diverse taxonomic groups, including flying insects, spiders, mites, worms, beetles, isopods, amphipods, and many other unidentified insects and larvae. The role of beach wrack has not been well studied in the PNW: However, similar to the importance of gribbles, many of these insects may play an im- portant role in the breakdown of organic material and contnoute to carbon cycling in the nearshore ecosystem. They may also play an important role as prey for higher trophic levels in the nearshore food web, such as shorebirds and fishes. Logs may also become waterlogged and provide substrate in in- tertidal zones. In estuaries where the intertidal areas comprise predominantly shifting sands and gravels, or silty substrates, solid surfaces are limited. As logs become immobilized, numerous organ- isms will colonize this habitat for feeding, refuge, and reproduction. Mobile invertebrates supported by this habitat (i.e., crabs, snails, An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems 11 limpets, nudibranchs) will find feeding opportunities, refuge, and spawning substrate Sessile llpE'de.~ (j e , mussels, oysters, barnacles, and tube worms) use the space for attachment, as will algal species (e.g., Fucus spp.). As the logs become colonized. the surface area and habitat complexity increases. Other species will move into the area in search of prey that have colonized. or are associated with, the log while others, such as herring and other fishes, may use the attached algae or protected crevices as spawning substrate. Vegetation and woody debris also provide refuge for fishes. While most studies have described the importance of vegetation in es- tuarine marshes, similar functions likely would be afforded by overhanging shoreline vegetation and woody debris on the beaches around Puget Sound. Gregory and Levings (1996) showed that, un- der laboratory conditions, predation by cutthroat trout on juvenile salmonids was significantly reduced in the presence of vegetation (Aitkin 1998). Considering that juvenile salmonid predators come from aquatic and terrestrial environments. the added habitat com- plexity and cover provided by vegetation may be a critical element of survival. Trapping and stabilizing sediments in salt marshes and on beaches is another important structural function of vegetation and LWD in the marine environment. Gonor et al. (1988) defines salt marshes as densely vegetated. low coastal wetlands at elevations within the annual vertical range of regular tidal fluctuations that con- tain plants capable of growing in saturated estuarine sediments and withstanding stresses from salinity and tidal inundation. Salt marshes are important parts of estuarine systems in the PNW be- cause of their high annual plant production rates. These marshes provide numerous functions including the following: (1) They export a significant fraction of their plant matter to the rest of the estuarine ecosystem as detritus; (2) they function as hydraulic buf- fers to flood and storm surges because of their extensive area; and (3) they provide important habitat to migratory waterfowl and ju- venile fishes, especially salmonids, who use tidal channels (Gonor et al. 1988). Logs play important roles in forming and maintaining tidal channels by trapping sediments, which in turn become colo- nized by salt-marsh vegetation, further stabilizing sediments and creating complex habitat and flow patterns. Similarly, LWD dropped onto beaches from adjacent riparian ar- eas, or deposited during high tides, influences sediment transport and deposition. Some logs are transient while others may become embedded and serve as effective traps for sand and gravel. As sedi- ments 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 (i.e., halo- phytes). The logs retain moisture that becomes available to dune plants and play an important role in these plants' establishment and survival. The plant stems, leaves, and complex root structure provide additional stability to the sediments. The evolution of these beach types generates new habitat for wildlife, contrIbutes moisture and nutrients for the establishment of vegetation, adds detrital car- bon to the marine system, and can greatly reduce the rate of wave- induced shoreline erosion. Shade For freshwater systems, shade plays an important role in regulating water temperature, which influences the sUfVlval of aquatic organ- isms (Beschta et al. 1987). Unlike the influence on small streams and rivers, a shaded fringe along coastal or. estuarine waters is not likely to have much influence on marine water temperatures. How- ever, solar radiation (which leads to increased temperatures and desiecation) has long been recognized as one of the classic limiting factors for upper intertidal organisms and plays an important role in determining distribution, abundance, and species composition (e.g., Ricketts and Calvin 1968, Conne1l1972,). Foster et al. (1986), in their literature review of causes of spatial and temporal patterns in intertidal communities, found that the most commonly reported factor responsible for setting the upper limits of intertidal animals is desiccation. Along Puget Sound shorelines, distinct differences have been noted for substrate moisture and air and substrate tem- perature between shaded and unshaded beaches (personal obser- vations). Although the influence and importance of shade derived from shoreline vegetation in the Puget 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 organisms. One such link is the relationship between shade and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus), a common nearshore forage fish found throughout the Puget Sound basin. According to Penttila (2001), surf smelt (and sand lance, Ammodytes hexapterus) are unique among local marine fishes in their requirement for mixed sand and gravel beaches in the upper intertidal zone as "critical habitat" for depositing and incubating eggs. Both species are considered to be important trophic links in the nearshore food web. Surf smelt also supports a fishery for human consumption. On the basis of a comparison of adjacent, shaded and unshaded spawn- ing sites sampled in northern Puget Sound. Penttila (2001) found significantly higher egg mortality on the unshaded (sun-exposed) beaches. The study also suggests that reduced substrate moisture (increasing the potential for desiccation) in addition to direct solar radiation (direct sun exposure and elevated temperatures) may have an important influence on egg viability. However, in addi- tion to other factors such as groundwater seeps, shading would contribute to reduction in direct exposure, temperature modera- tion, and higher substrate moisture. Considering the influences of temperature, moisture, and exposure on the diversity, distrIbution, and abundance of organisms that use upper intertidal zones, ad- ditional benefits of natural shading likely will be discovered as we investigate further. Social Values Human Health and Safety Human health and safety are rarely identified in the scientific liter- ature as one of the primary functions of riparian areas. However, at least three riparian functions-water quality, soil stability, and the ability to act as a separation zone (i.e., absorb the impacts of storm surges and other natural, physical assaults on shorelines)-appar- 12 ently serve direct benefits to humans, especially in areas like the Puget Sound region. In urban areas, most people get their drink- ing water from a municipal water supply that comes from surtace waters stored in reservoirs. These water supplies would be of much lower quality if it were not for the cleansing action of riparian forests and restrictions on forestry and development practices ad- jacent to these water supplies. In rural areas, many people depend upon surface and groundwater, the quality of which depends upon adequate recharge and the cleansing action of the forest and soils that act as filters. In both cases, vegetation provides stability to soils, further reducing the potential for landslides and siltation (con- tamination of a water supply). However, as vegetation is cleared for development and impervious surfaces displace vegetation, negative results are realized including the following: 1. The loss of filtration for surface water flowing into drinking and recreation water supplies 2. Reduced filtration for groundwater supplies 3. Reduced water volume for recharging groundwater supplies 4. Increased collection and concentration of runoff (with associated siltation and contaminants feeding into receiving waters) 5. Contatnination of fish (finfishes and shellfish), game, and algal species harvested for human consumption 6. Destabilization of soils, leading to increased slide activity and threats to property and life 7. The loss of a protective "separation zone" In addition to heavy metals, petroleum, and other chemical constit- uents, pathogenic bacteria and viruses pose a serious health risk to humans. Most shoreline residential properties around Puget Sound were developed using on-site septic systems. Frequently, these sys- tems were placed between the residential structure and the water, with minimal setbacks and allowance for adequate infiltration. The drainage from these systems often infiltrates to a shallow, imperme- able layer, then out through the bank and into Puget Sound. This, in conjunction with stormwater outfalls, surficial runoff, and industrial and municipal discharges, reduces water quality that has a direct link to potential human health risks. Thom et al. (1988) and oth- ers have documented eutrophication problems in Puget Sound and have expressed a concern about the likely effects on human health and biological resources. In addition, they expressed concern about predicted increases in nutrient input (thereby increasing eutrophica- tion) as a result of increasing population. . The addition of water from a septic system, rainfall, and other runoff contributes to the likelihood of destabilized soils where the benefits of vegetation have been reduced or eliminated. Surface erosion, shallow soil creep, and deeper sliding activity is exacerbated by changes in hydrology that result from shoreline development. Shore- line erosion and sliding is a natural phenomenon on Puget Sound shorelines, where approximately half of the shorelines are classified as geologically hazardous. The overall rates of shoreline retreat are usually minor, maybe an inch or two a year, but in some areas may average as much as a half a foot per year (Macdonald et al. 1994). However, changes in hydrology, vegetation removal, and increasing impervious surfaces have had a dramatic influence on slope stability and rates of erosion. Shoreline erosion has become a critical issue to shoreline property owners, resource managers, and policy makers. The literature is replete With d1sCUSSiOllli of l.Cluses and recommendations for ayoid ing and controlling bluff or bank erosion. While much of the lit- erature focuses on engineering designs for controlling erosion, the most common recommendations are simply to avoid development in geologically hazardous areas, establish development setbacks, and maintain vegetation that helps to stabilize the bank or bluff via moisture extraction, interception, and root structure. In our review of the literature of coastal slides and erosion, the earliest reference we could find in addressing erosion concerns was found in a publication prepared by The Conservation Foundation (Clark et al. 1980): Coastal slides and erosion have long been recognized as problems in siting buildings. For example, in the 1790~ George Washington re- portedly studied the erosion of the Long Island coast. He ordered that the Montauk Point lighthouse at the eastern tip be built at least 200 feet back from the edge of the cliff so the lighthouse would last 200 yeaTS. At the present rate of erosion, it will last just about that long. Many coastal structures in Washington state are often built danger- ously close to the shoreline, where natural erosion can threaten property (Canning and Shipman 1994). This fact has been dem- onstrated many times in recent years around Puget Sound where development on or near steep shoreline slopes has caused losses of structures, property damage, high repair and replacement costs, and loss of human lives (Figure 2a,b,c). Many, if not most, of these disasters could have been avoided if we used the wisdom and will of George Washington. Prohibiting buildings in slide-prone areas, establishing proper buffers and setbacks, controlling drainage, and maintaining native vegetation would greatly reduce hazards to hu- mans and maintain ecosystem integrity. In addition to avoiding erosional areas and maintaining vegetation, prior recommendations (e.g., Terich 1987, Lynn 1998, Williatns et al. 2001) for Puget Sound shorelines have included avoiding plac- ing bulkheads on the beach at the expense of wetlands or produc- tive shallow-water habitat and relocating endangered structures rather than cutting off the supply of sand to the beach. The con- struction of bulkheads is a common response to real or perceived erosion problems. Yet, bulkheads are not a panacea. Their installa- tion often exacerbates bluff erosion and does not address a number of concerns, including (1) individual and cumulative environmen- tal impacts, (2) limitations in stabilizing slopes and providing pro- tection from wave-induced erosion, (3) loss of sediments that feed beaches, (4) loss of riparian vegetation and associated functions, (5) beach erosion and associated loss of habitat caused by bulkhead installation, and ( 6) other factors such as geology, hydrology, and drainage that may be the primary cause of erosion. Additional re- view of shoreline erosion discussion and recommendations may be found in the Coastal Erosion Management Studies prepared for the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE 1994), Terich (1987), Manashe (1993), Myers et al. (1995), Broadhurst (1998), and WIl- liatns et al. (2001). An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems 13 a. Perkins Lane, Seattle, WA. b. Manzanita Bay, Bainbridge Island, WA. Figure 2. Examples of modified (developed) steep shoreline areas, which have resulted in losses of structures (a;c), high costs of repair and environmental damage (b), and loss of human lives (c). [Photos courtesy of Washington Department of Ecology (www.ec.y.wa.gov/ prograrnslseallandslidesl)] In summary, it appears that human health and safety would ben- efit greatly by maintaining appropriate setbacks from shorelines, reducing impervious areas, controlling drainage, and maintaining well-vegetated marine riparian zones. Aesthetics Aesthetics is not commonly recognized as a function of riparian areas, but rather as a societal value and appreciation for the visual pleasures derived from viewing natural shoreline features. Al- though aesthetics is not a physical or biological function of ripar- ian areas, they do provide a function to mankind Aesthetic quali- ties of riparian areas are difficult to quantify, but when preserved or restored. they enhance livability and add to the quality of life for residents and visitors (Knutson and Naef 1997). A discussion of aesthetics is difficult because it involves how people perceive their environment and where their values are rooted One of the reasons people and businesses are attracted to the Puget Sound region is because of the aesthetic qualities and access to shorelines. Most en- vironmental policies and regulations are founded on societal values and seek to preserve and protect them for future generations (e.g.. Shoreline Management Act, RCW 75.20). Many Pacific Northwest- erners view themselves as having an appreciation for their natural environment. Puget Sound is considered by some as "the boating capitol of the world: with watercraft ranging from kayaks to large sailboats and motor vessels being used to enjoy the areas aquatic resources and natural shoreline beauty. Living on and having ac- cess to shorelines is also highly valued Businesses often choose to locate in the Puget Sound region based on "livability" criteria Fishing, wildlife viewing, hiking, cycling, and other outdoor activi- ties are very popular, support the regional economy, and are the very reasons people get outside to enjoy the water, trees, wildlife, and incredible views available to us. c. Rolling Bay, Bainbridge Island, WA A Conceptual Model Future progress in riparian management and marine ecosystem conservation not only requires additional empirical data, but a conceptual foundation for establishing linkages and stating as" sumptions. On the basis of our literature review and understanding of the Puget Sound nearshore ecosystem, there appears to be suffi- cient evidence of direct and indirect riparian-aquatic linkages that enable us to display known or assumed functions in a conceptual model (Figure 3). This conceptual model provides a foundation for illustrating how we think the system works and for fonnulating hypotheses that can be tested to improve our understanding. The assumptions and supporting evidence from which we derived this model are provided in the preceding sections of this report and this graphic is simply a means of illustrating many of the important functions and benefits that may be provided by the marine ripar- iap system. This generalized conceptual model is not weighted by any individual function and does not represent the diverse array of marine shorelines found in Puget Sound (e.g., high bluffs, low bank, river mouth estuary). However, it does represent the suite of ecological functions reviewed for this report. It also identifies the need for buffers (i.e., separation zones) that serve to prevent modi- fication of important processes and limit external influences that may impair functions. Two buffers are identified in our conceptual model: (1) a separa- tion from the water and maintenance of native vegetation to al- low for certain functions (e.g., LWD and organic input, pollution abatement), and (2) a separation from the initial buffer to assure that functions are not impaired and will persist for some time. The need for this secondary buffer is identified repeatedly in the scientific literature as an essential component for preserving and maintaining riparian functions. For example, if development (i.e., vegetation clearing, soil compaction, installation of impervious surfaces, introduction of contaminants) occurs up to the edge of the initial buffer, functions may be impaired by overloading the primary buffer (e.g., with sediments, contaminants, noise). This exemplifies the need to recognize both latitudinal and longitudinal connectivity .and the establishment of buffers at the appropriate temporal and spatial scales. 14 ~ =: <:) t =: ~ =: .c:s ~ c:s .~ e:: ~ =: . .... ~ ~ f..t-. <:) -- ~ -c:s <:) ~. -- c:s :: t. ~ =: a ty"j CI1 s.. ::s 0) u: 15 An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems Management Considerations The current dogma in resource m~ement encourages the incor- poration of a watershed perspective in programs dealing with habi- tat, resource productivity, and conflicts in resource use. Although progressive, the watershed, or catchment basin perspective remains inadequate when considering, for example, how marine and anad- romous fishes and wildlife life-history requirements span linkages across terrestrial landscapes and marine/oceanic ecosystems. There- fore, while we attempt to improve our understanding of watershed- scale processes and functions, it is critical that we be mindful of the openness and connections to larger- and smaller-scale ecosystems, levels within ecosystems, and elements that constitute ecosystems. The number and complexity of elements involved in the form and functions of ecosystems can be difficult to understand and often re- quire us to work at a scale that helps us to understand individual ele- ments or ecosystems that are embedded within larger scale systems. In order to do this, we need to identify the pieces to this complex puzzle and determine how they fit. Marine riparian ecosystems are one such piece. Recognizing and developing an improved under- standing of marine riparian systems enhances our ability to properly manage natural resources at multiple scales (i.e., local. watershed. landscape) by incorporating previously neglected elements. This study focuses on riparian functions and marine ecosystem is- sues in the Puget Sound region. The lack of directed marine riparian studies in this region required a review and assessment of the national and intemationalliterature to determine whether studies performed in other coastal regions may be helpful in understanding the impor- tance of individual riparian functions for Puget Sound. Our findings indicate that both freshwater and marine riparian systems serve almost identical purposes. and that marine riparian systems provide additional functions important for supporting marine biota and the integrity of nearshore ecosystems. Unfortunately, the lack of directed studies for defining the full suite of marine riparian functions and values in this region (and elsewhere) leaves much uncertainty and has resulted in a lack of standards and practices to protect riparian sys- tems and other coastal resources. The recognition of declining coastal resources has never been more apparent and is now acknowledged as a high priority for manage- ment by regional, national, and international organizations. We have summarized a representation of these perspectives in the following sections to illustrate the severe reduction in coastal eco- system services and importance of improved coastal management strategies, which should include recognizing and protecting marine riparian processes, structure, and functions. In addition to per- spectives on the status and management of coastal systems, we dis- cuss and summarize the role riparian functions serve, identify data gaps, provide recommendations, and offer some likely outcomes for inadequate consideration of riparian functions in developing coastal management strategies. Regional Perspective From a regional perspective, it is clear that substantial losses of marshes and riparian habitat have occurred over the past century in Puget Sound. Estimates based upon evaluation of 11 major del- tas in Puget Sound indicate at least a 76% (556 km') loss in tidal mllrl:hel: and riparian habitat (Levings and Thom 1994). Coastal urban areas have lost 90-98% of their estuarine wetlands and water quality is in good condition in only 35% ofWashingtons estuaries (Washington Department of Natural Resources [WDNR] 1998). Riparian areas within urbanized shoreline areas, such as King County, are approximately 100% altered and are rapidly being fur- ther modified or lost as a result of upland development. This is not to say there are not remnants of undeveloped shorelines. Instead, we are referring to the loss of proper functioning conditions from a larger-scale (i.e., landscape) perspective. For example, the fact that a 200-foot stretch of shoreline is not armored and contains native vegetation does not necessarily mean that it is functioning to its fullest capacity. Remnant patches are dramatically influenced by adjacent land use and development practices, which ~y ~es~t in reduced functions at locations that appear to be relatively pns- tine." The diffieulty in evaluating the extent ofloss, quality of riparian habitat, or level of function stems from the lack of empirical data. Few empirical studies have been conducted because of the lack of recognition, funding, and evaluation of individual or cumulative adverse project impacts. However. recent studies do indicate that the composition of vegetation (i.e., volume, type, age, continuity) and associated functions have been greatly diminished. For ex- atnple, a survey conducted by Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) in Watershed Resource Inventory Areas 8 and 9 (King County) determined that overhanging shoreline vegeta- tion remained in only 1 % and 11%, respectively, along marine shorelines in these areas (WDNR 1999). Additional lessons may be learned from studies of similar ecoregions. For example, Mayet al. (1997) developed quality indices for lowland streams in Puget Sound as a measure of urbanization impacts on salmon. As the level of basin development increased above 5% of total impervious area (%TIA), results indicated a precipitous initial decline in bio- logical integrity as well as the physical habitat conditions (quality and quantity) necessary to support natural biological diversity and complexity. A wide (>30 m) and near-continuous (<2 breaks/km) riparian zone appears to be necessary although not a wholly suf- ficient condition for a natural level of streatn quality and biotic integrity. Similar inferences can be made when evaluating rip~ condition for wildlife needs (see Knutson and Naef 1997). ConSId- ering that Puget Sound marine shorelines occur in the same ecore- gion as lowland streatnS (similar geologic history, soils, land-form, vegetation succession, and land-use patterns), we suggest that riparian functions are similar and that the loss of marine riparian vegetation and concurrent increase in impervious area are likely to result in environmental degradation similar to that for lowland streatnS. Understanding the linkages between landscape or water- shed level processes, physical habitat structure, and the organisms that inhabit aquatic ecosystems is a key to successfully managing these resources. While population growth and development are rapidly diminish- ing the ability of these urban riparian and estuarine system~ to assimilate cumulative human impacts, managing urban estuaries in Puget Sound is constrained by the lack of a scientific founda- 16 tion for decisions about intervention to improve these degraded Thom 1995 . Furthermore, d ite owin support from the scientific community, the concept of estuary- wide conservation and restoration planning is constrained by a regulatory process that fosters a fragmented, permit -by-permit ap- proach to ecosystem management. In some cases, activities that re- sult in modifications of shorelines require no environmental review or permits at all. For example, based on the Shoreline Management Act, single fatnily residential (SFR) developments are exempt from shoreline substantial development permits and compensatory mitigation is generally not required for construction projects, such as bulkheads and docks at SFR's (Broadhurst 1998). Single fatnily residential development usually results in signifieant clearing and grading of shoreline riparian areas for placement of buildings, view corridors, walkways and driveways, landscaping, shoreline armor- ing, and often, bank stabilization structures (Broadhurst 1998). Residential development along shorelines seldom accounts for nat- ural erosion and often exacerbates erosion potential. In response, bulkheads are frequently constructed. which further disrupts physical and biological processes. While little quantifiable data . exist, many researchers and resource managers have observed the linkages between the changes in physical processes and potential impacts to marine biota, such as changes in hardshell clam growth and distribution (Elliffrit et al. 1973), shifts in biotic communities (Antrim et al. 1993, Thom and Shreffler 1994), and loss of feeding habitat for benthic feeding fishes and spawning habitat for forage fishes (Macdonald et al. 1994). Commercial and industrial development have had similar impacts (see Bortelson et al. 1980, Blomberg et al. 1988). However, as the regional population continues to grow, so will transportation needs and commercial, residential, and industrial development. Despite the fact that larger-scale transportation, commercial, and industrial projects receive a higher level of scrutiny and environmental re- view, mitigation for impacts is usually incomplete and inadequate. The lack of adequate compensatory mitigation and continued degradation stems from a poor understanding of nearshore eco- systems, a lack of monitoring, a lack of individual or cumulative impact assessment, and the lack of oversight and enforcement of environmental regulations by resource managers (see Kunz et al. 1988, Broadhurst 1998, Lynn 1998). The protection, restoration, and enhancement of marine ripar- ian areas are of particular importance in the Puget Sound region owing to the fairly recent listings of chinook and chum salmon and bull trout. In February 2000, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) designated "Critical Habitat" for ESA listed spe- cies (chinook and chum salmon). "Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and adjacent riparian zone of estuarine and river- ine reaches...:: Critical habitat is designated to include all marine, estuarine, and river reaches accessible to listed salmon in Puget Sound (NMFS 2000). These areas are considered "essential to the conservation of the species" and "may require special management considerations or protection:' In consideration of this and other salmon conservation and management guidance (e.g., Spence et al. 1996, NMFS 1996), it is clear that marine riparian areas serve im- portant functions toward the conservation and recovery of salmon stocks in Puget Sound. While we are not suggesting that marine ri . an areas be rotected sold for the sake of salmon, this desig- nation and definition of critical habitat lends recognition an pos- sibly credibility) to our argument for recognizing and protecting marine riparian vegetation and associated functions. The National Research Council (2002) has also recognized the importance of riparian systems on marine shorelines and includes these areas in their definition of "riparian:" National and International Perspectives Marine systems, especially nearshore ecosystems, contain some of the most expansive and productive ecosystems worldwide. Estuaries in particular are the most biologically productive and economically valuable systems in the marine environment. Estu- aries are bodies of water that are semi-enclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the ocean, and in which seawater is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land (Dethier 1990). The unique "mixing zone" of fresh- water and saltwater within estuaries derives nutrients from both the land and the sea, forming nutrient-rich, shallow-water habitat that supports abundant fish and wildlife. About 80% of all fish and shellfish worldwide use estuaries as primary habitat or as spawning and nursery grounds. Many species are dependent upon estuaries for their entire life cycle, while others depend upon the protected. nutrient-rich environment for reproduction and early rearing, ref- uge, and feeding of young. Reproduction suecess and early survival is critical to the maintenance of valuable fisheries and regional economies. The ecological wealth of estuaries has contributed sub- stantially to the economic wealth of a number of the world's coastal countries. In the United States, home to 28 federally listed "estuaries of national significance: natural resources derived from estuar- ies contribute approximately $111 billion per year to the nations economy. As one of the 28 estuaries in the National Estuary Pro- gram (NEP), Puget Sound is governed by a comprehensive coastal management plan. The Puget Sound Action Team. a state agency in the Governor's office, oversees the NEP for Puget Sound. The United Nations Environmental Programme, Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 (as adopted by the Plenary in Rio de Janeiro; United Nations Environmental Programme [UNEP] 1992) states that the marine environment-including the oceans and all seas and adja- cent coastal areas -forms an integrated whole that is an essential component of the global life support system. Klaus Toepfer, UNEP Director, noted that the value of marine and coastal ecosystems is equivalent to half of the annual global gross national product, yet we continue to treat coasts and oceans as if they were not an important economic resource. Degradation of the marine environ- ment results from a wide range of sources. Land-based sources contribute nearly 80% of marine pollution. and result from human settlements, land use, construction practices, agriculture. for- estry, urban development, tourism, and industry. Many polluting substances originating from land-based sources are of particular concern with regard to the marine environment since they exhibit at the same time toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation in the An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems 17 food chain. A number of federal agenoes m the Umred States (e.g., EPA, NMFS, USFWS, USACOE) have jurisdiction and regulations (e.g., Clean Water Act, Magnuson Fisheries Conservation Act) that rec- ognize and guide management of coastal resources. However, the Coastal Zone Management Act probably provides the most broad- based set of guidelines for protecting coastal resources through land-use practices. The following is from NOAA (1998): Section 303 of the Coastal Zone Management Ad declares that it is the national policy to encourage states to develop and implement manage- ment programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone. Coastal wetlands (both tidal and nontidal) are among the most productive areas on earth. They are essential habitat for spawning. feeding. and growth of a majority of the natiom living marine resources (Chambers 1991). At the same time, they are among the most stressed natural ecosystems. Since 1780, nearly half of all coastal wetlands, excluding those in Alaska, have disappeared through draining. diking. filling. excavating and other alterations for agricul- ture, port and urban expansion, and recreational uses such as marinas (Dahl 1990 ). Stresses on the remaining coastal wetlands are the result of pollutants from non point sources such as farms, forest harvest activi- ties, construction sites and urban areas. Today, coastal zones are most at risk from development pressures brought about by rapid coastal population growth and the demands for housing. transportation, and commercial and recreational facilities (Good et al. 1997). The toast is home to over half of the nation's population (Culliton 1998), is a popular vacation destination, provides key transporta- tion avenues for over 90% of US international trade (NOAA 1995), and supports over $56 billion in commercial and recreational fish- ing activity each year (NOAA 1994). The coastal human popula- tion is expected to increase by an average of 3,600 per day, reach- ing 165 million by the year 2015 (Culliton 1998, NOAA 1998). Therefore, finding ways to protect sensitive and valuable coastal resources is imperative. Bringing this review of issues back to our study area, the Puget Sound region has realized some of the most rapid coastal popula- tion growth in recent years and is expected to support continued growth in the coming decades. This will inevitably result in an in- creasing demand for shoreline development. Living right next to the water is highly valued in our society, but usually results in the clear- ing of native vegetation for view corridors, buildings, landscaping, and appurtenant structures such as bulkheads and docks. Unfortu- nately, shoreline development activities have significantly altered the natural structure, functions, processes, and beauty of our shorelines. Much of the historical destruction occurred without regard for the long-term consequences. Furthermore, science and public educa- tion have certainly not kept up with the level of development. How- ever, despite the fact that current scientific knowledge and public sentiment support protection of natural resources for a variety of reasons, including aesthetics, existing environmental protection programs have proven to be woefully inadequate and ineffective at stopping the losses. These perspectives illustrate common themes, including the follow- ing: . Coastal areas are of great economic value due to the productivity and value of natural resources. . Coastal areas are among the most stressed of natural ecosystems owing to land-use and development practices. . The health, integrity, and viability of biological resources depends upon the protection and maintenance of natural ecosystem processes, structure, and functions. There is a distinct need to provide protection and improve management practices in coastal areas because of the increasing pressures of human habitation and use. . The recognition of marine riparian functions and benefits, research to better understand marine riparian systems, and the implementation and enforcement of regulations to protect or restore riparian systems are severely lacking. 18 Conclusions On the basis of our review of the literature and the application of ecological principles, we conclude that riparian systems perform similar functions regardless of whether the adjacent water body is freshwater or saltwater. Desbonnet et al. (1994) argue that the functional mechanisms that apply to freshwater riparian areas should be similarly applied to marine systems. They point out that marine and freshwater riparian areas serve almost identical pur- poses, including pollutant removal, soil stabilization, stormwater control, and provision of wildlife and fish habitat. Furthermore, we concur with National Research Council (2002), which states that no justifiable reason exists to exclude shorelines of estuaries and marine coasts in defining riparian areas. It is true that most ripar- ian studies have focused on freshwater (i.e., riverine and wetland) systems. However, studies that have focused on marine shorelines not only support findings similar to those found in freshwater ri- parian studies, but indicate that additional functions may be linked to marine biota. For example, recent studies in the Puget Sound nearshore ecosystem are finding riparian linkages to salmonid prey production (Penttila 2001, Sobocinski 2003, Brennan et al2004). While research and empirical data to quantify functional charac- teristics of marine riparian systems in Puget Sound are substan- tially lacking, this review and assessment indicates that marine riparian functions play an important role in marine nearshore eco- systems. Our assessment also indicates that the lack of attention to marine riparian areas and poor protective standards have resulted in substantial loss and degradation of marine riparian and near- shore ecosystem components, which are of value to fishes, wildlife, and human health and safety. There is a critical need to develop and implement a research program and protective standards to learn more about marine riparian systems and prevent further deg- radation and loss of riparian functions and benefits. This requires identifying data gaps. developing appropriate research questions, dedicating adequate funding and manpower resources, public edu- cation and outreach, and the political will to develop, implement; and enforce regulations that are designed to preserve, protect, en- hance, and restore riparian functions and benefits. Following this section, a set of recommendations is offered to begin this process. In conclusion the preceding review provides evidence that mdi- . cated the following: 1. A number of riparian functions have critical values and are important for sustaining healthy marine and riparian ecosystems. 2. Marine riparian systems provide a number of ecosystem services that are beneficial to humans, fish, and wildlife. 3. The importance of marine riparian vegetation and associated functions has been recognized at regional, national, and international levels. 4. Increasing human population and development in coastal areas are resulting in the loss of riparian vegetation and adverse effects to the health of marine ecosystems, coastal economies, and human health and safety. 5. The specific requirements for maintaining individual and collective riparian functions and benefits are poorly studied in most areas. 6. Management of coastal areas has been inadequate in protecting natural resources and maintaining ecosystem functions. The shorelines ofPuget Sound have experienced significant modifications and continue to be modified. An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems 19 I Recommendations The science, planning, and policy literature reviewed for this re- port indicate that much work needs to be done to advance our knowledge and improve management of coastal areas to better protect and restore riparian functions and their inherent values. Human population growth and poorly designed or unregulated de- velopment practices have taken a serious toll on marine nearshore resources. Despite recent advancements in science and the devel- opment of new educational and management tools, coastal areas, and marine riparian systems in particular, lack adequate protection standards and continue to be degraded Although Washington State has recognized the ecological importance and social values of shoreline areas (i.e., Shoreline Management Act), marine riparian vegetation and associated functions are not specifically recognized or protected The following recommendations should be considered as a part of any coastal management strategy and development of shoreline regulations. Use the Precautionary Principle: "00 No Further Harm" Two of the most important actions to be taken in natural resource management are to preserve and protect for resource sustainability, values, and services. Until we learn more about the full suite of marine riparian functions, we should rely on existing informa- tion and address uncertainty by taking a precautionary approach, providing buffers that protect marine shorelines in Puget Sound from additional degradation. Preserving important riparian areas and preventing additional losses is both critical and cost-effective. Once riparian functions are lost, they are difficult and expensive to restore, if restoration is possible at all. Fill Data Gaps Early in the process of identifying and evaluating marine riparian functions, we noticed that empirical data were lacking, particularly for Pacific Northwest coastal ecosystems. This lack of data and limited recognition of riparian functions has led to poor manage- ment practices and protection standards for coastal resources. The functions and benefits of marine riparian systems need to be studied and documented in the scientific literature to provide a better understanding of riparian processes and functions relative to nearshore ecosystem integrity. Research and documentation is also critical for establishing a scientific foundation for creating adequate policies and practices for protection and restoration. The following is a list of data needs that would improve our understanding and management of marine riparian systems (adapted from Williams et al.2oo1): 1. Determine the role of marine riparian vegetation (MRV) in upland and marine food webs and in energy transfer (i.e., contribution of organic carbon, insects, etc). 2. Determine the role of marine riparian vegetation in providing water quality functions, especially nonpoint source pollution. This will require multidisciplinary investigations of vegetation (type, density, continuity. age structure, etc.), soils, hydrology; and other factors. 3. Identify levels of impervious surfaces (type and extent) in coastal areas and their influence on vegetation, water quality, hydrology, and other riparian processes and functions. 4. Map MRV; including extent (length, width, continuity), type, density, composition, and age structure. 5. Quantify the role ofMRV in providing microclimate functions. 6. Quantify the linkages between MRVand important habitat functions for fishes and wildlife that use coastal areas. 7. Conduct additional quantification of the importance of shade and habitat structure to aquatic and terrestrial biota. 8. Quantify the role ofMRV and large woody debris (LWD) in increasing slope and beach stability. 9. Determine the cumulative impacts of shoreline armoring and other shoreline development and land-use practices on MRV and MRV functions. Establish Appropriate Buffers and Setbacks Buffers and setbacks are essential, functional, and cost-effective tools for preserving important processes and functions, prevent- ing environmental degradation, and protecting valuable coastal resources. Delineating riparian areas and establishing appropriate buffers should be based upon maintaining or reestablishing natural processes and functions in addition to providing for human health and safety and other ecosystem services. This will require scientific investigations that may use freshwater riparian studies as a model for determining functions and benefits. The development of a buf- fer model would be an important and useful tool for developing buffers. The scientific support on riparian buffer functions is clear and abundant. There are literally hundreds of articles and dozens of books written on the subject of riparian buffer zones (Wenger 1999). Establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers have long been used to protect wetlands, lakes and streams, but oddly, such buffers are only beginning to be recognized as important marine ecosystem management tools (i.e., within the last decade or so). Although many approaches have been taken in establishing riparian management zones, most set a minimum width with ad- ditional setback requirements for steep slopes. Buffer-width con- siderations should include amount of remaining, intact riparian area along specified reaches of shoreline; impervious surface limi- tations; and connectivity within and between reaches. As a part of the Tri-County Salmon Recovery Response, a technical workgroup has developed a riparian management zone proposal that might be helpful in developing a management strategy for the State. This proposal recommends both standard and flexible buffers, depend- ing upon the level of urbanization and ability or p~cality ofbuf- fer implementation. In Puget Sound, where shoreline retreat is expected (and may oc- cur at an increased rate with sea level rise), wide buffers are needed 20 to allow for wildlife habitat, LWD recruitment, and other functions over time. As in freshwater systems, the functions and benefits pro- vided by the marine riparian zone will vary and be determmed by a number of factors (e.g., soils, slope, vegetation type and density). Therefore, determining functional characteristics and .associated benefits through empirical studies is critical to establishing appro- priate buffer widths. Until we have more empirical data to support marine buffer width determinations, we must rely on models or examples in freshwater systems and take a precautionary approach when developing along marine shorelines to prevent further, ir- reparable damage. Maintain or Restore Riparian Vegetation for Human Health and Safety The discussion of soil stability issues and recommendations for prevention and remediation can be found throughout the techni- cal and non-technical literature (e.g., USEPA 1993, ~enashe 1993, Myers et al. 1995; WDOE 1994). From our review of the current literature, it is apparent that maintaining and using native vegeta- tion is a common theme for addressing soil stability concerns. This is particularly true in developing coastal management strategies. Flooding. storm, and erosion hazards are a common problem in coastal areas and become a greater threat when shoreline develop- ment does not consider the functions and values of maintaining riparian vegetation buffers (see NRC 2002). Identify, Evaluate and Incorporate Multiple Functions Into A Management Strategy Riparian functions and benefits should be evaluated as a whole to define the ecosystem. Management should not be piecemeal and should not be selective for individual functions (i.e., fish prey pro- duction, pollution abatement) that may only benefit a select few organisms in the system while ignoring other important ecosystem services (e.g., LWD recruitment, wildlife habitat). Any manage- ment strategy should strive to maintain all natural processes and functions, developed through an evaluation of the specific require- ments for maintaining individual and collective functions over space and time (e.g., LWD recruitment, life history requirements of multiple species of fishes and wildlife). For marine riparian systems, this will require the use of models, collection of empirical data. and an assessment equivalent to those conducted in freshwa- ter systems. Use a Multidisciplinary Approach in Developing Riparian Management Zones The complexity of marine riparian systems and diversity of func- tions performed by these systems warrant an integrated and multi- disciplinary assessment. An appropriate level of analysis will require collaborative efforts from those that specialize in vastly different specialties because riparian systems include terrestrial and aquatic characteristics. Disciplines that should be incorporated include ge- ology. forestrylbotany, wildlife and fisheries biology. marine biology. oceanography. soils sciences, chemistry, and hydrology. Maintain or Restore Riparian Vegetation for Pollution Abatement and Soil Stability A principle objective otthe Clean Water Act (CWA) 15 to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nations waters:' Riparian areas serve to meet the goals and objec- tives of the CWA Despite efforts to upgrade and expand waste- water treatment facilities, increasing urbanization and destruction of riparian zones will continue to contribute to degraded water quality and are likely to result in increased harvest restrictions and adverse effects to aqnatic and terrestrial biota. Knowing that veg- etative buffers can provide significant reductions in pollutants, it can be inferred that requiring such buffers would be beneficial by reducing contaminants in runoff and reducing costly reactionary measures to clean up waterways. However, determining appropri- ate buffer widths to provide pollution abatement functions will require some basic knowledge of environmental conditions (e.g., physiochemical and biological). Maintaining riparian vegetation can be a relatively simple, long-term, and cost-effective method of pollution abatement. Reestablishing riparian vegetation has a cost associated with it, but the long-term benefits are likely to greatly outweigh such costs. Maintain or Restore Riparian Vegetation for Fish and Wildlife Because surveys, sampling, and dietary analyses of wildlife, juvenile salmonids, and other fishes in the nearshore environment are lim- ited. additional studies are needed to understand the contribution of riparian vegetation to nearshore food webs, and the impacts of vegetation loss along marine shorelines. Understanding energetic constraintsonhab~Mtab~wfishandwildlifein~syst~ requires a framework capable of determining how nutrient inputs, prey availability, capture success, and other factors interact to pro- duce spatial and temporal variation in growth conditions. Such un- derstanding is sorely lacking for Puget Sound nearshore ecosystems. Therefore, spatially explicit bioenergetics models-which incor- porate the spatial distribution of fish and wildlife, their prey; prey production, and the physical conditions that affect foraging and growth-are needed for investigating and understanding the under- lying basis for seasonal and spatial differences in habitat suitability (Ntslowet al. 2000), habitat selection, and habitat quality. Overall, it is clear that as vegetation is eliminated. the food supply, and thus the carrying capacity of the coastal ecosystem, is reduced. Protect Marine Riparian Areas from Loss and Degradation Riparian areas provide a wide range of functions, which are benefi- cial to humans, fish, and wildlife. These areas provide manyecosys- tem services to man in the form of pollution abat~ent, soil stabil- ity, improved air quality, recreational and aesthetic benefits, and a wide range of goods and social and cultural valUes. The health and integrity of the nearshore marine ecosystem depends upon riparian areas because of their location, uniqueness, and functions. Riparian areas are regional hot spots of biodiversity and often ex- An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems 21 hibit high rates of biological productivity in marked contrast to the larger landscape (NRC 2002). Every effort should be made to pre- serve remaining marine riparian areas from further degradation, fragmentation. and loss. Increase Public Education and Outreach Resource management and protection depends greatly on public perception and participation. As we learn more about marine and riparian systems, it is imperative that the information is translated and transferred to the public. One of the biggest challenges to ad- vancing resource management is changing human behaviors in a manner that will provide protection and reduce degradation and loss of valuable natural resources. Humans will not have an appreciation of and. therefore, will not demand protection for what they do not understand. Consequently, it is critical that decision makers and the general public be educated about the outcomes of their actions, espe- cially those who have the greatest influence on outcomes (i.e., people who live, work, and play along our shorelines). Develop and Implement Conservation Programs The development and implementation of conservation programs will be essential for protecting and improving riparian processes and functions in marine ecosystems. Conservation programs may include efforts to preserve, restore, rehabilitate, or enhance existing or lost functions and may also include strategies or actions such as land acquisition, regulatory measures (i.e., setback and buffer re- quirements), revegetation, and removal of impediments (structures and other modifications of riparian areas). In developing conserva- tion measures, every effort should be made to consider multiple functions and linkages within and between ecosystems. In other words, use ecological principles to guide actions and incorporate multiple functions and processes in developing goals and objec- tives for conservation actions. Develop Incentives for Conservation Programs Conservation programs will only be successful if they take action at the appropriate scales (temporal and spatial) and if they provide incentives for participants. Considering that the majority ofPuget Sound shoreline property is in private ownership, state, local, trib- al, and federal governments need to create incentives for landown- ers to change behaviors, or take actions that will protect, restore, or enhance riparian functions. For exatnple, conservation easements are a way to protect riparian areas while allowing the landowner to continue to use their property outside (landward) of the protected riparian area. Land acquisition, tax incentives (i.e., reducing prop- erty taxes for not building in the riparian area). providing native vegetation to shoreline property owners for replanting, requiring buffers and setbacks (regulatory incentives), and other measures have also been used and are available for consideration in develop- ing conservation programs. The positive and negative aspects of the various incentives must be considered. but should not exclude them from being used in any shoreline management program. 22 References Aitkin, J. K. 1998. The importance of estuarine habitats t~ anadromous salmonids of the pacific northwest: A literature review. US. Fish and WJldlife Service. Lacey, Washington. 25p. Antrim, 1. D., R M. Thom, and W. W. Gardiner. 1993. Lincoln Park shoreline erosion control project: monitoring for surface substrate, infaunal bivalves and eelgrass, 1993. Final report prepared for us. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle Distriet. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Richland, WA. Beschta, R 1., R E. Bilby, G. W. Brown, J... B. Holtby, and T. D. Hofstra 1987. "Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interaction." Pages 191-232 in E.O. Salo and T.W.Cundy (eds.), Streamside Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources Contribution 57. Seattle, WA. Blomberg, G. C. Simenstad, and P. Hickey. 1988. Changes in Duwamish River estuary habitat over the past 125 years. Pages 437-454 in Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research, Volume 2. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, WA. Brennan, J.S., K.F. Higgins, J.R Cordell, and V.A Stamatiou. 2004. Juvenile salmon composition, timing distnbution, and diet in marine nearshore waters of central Puget Sound in 2001-2002. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA 164p. Bortelson, G.c., M.J. Chrzastowski, and AK. Helgerson. 1980. Historical changes of shoreline and wetland at eleven major deltas in the Puget Sound region, Washington. Prepared in cooperation with the US. Department ofJustice and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Renton, Washington. US. Geological Survey, Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-617, Washington, D.C. Broadhurst, G. 1998. Puget Sound Nearshore Habitat Regulatory Perspective: A Review ofIssues and Obstacles. Puget Sound! Georgia Basin :Environmental Report Series: Number 7. Butt, A J. and B. 1. Brown. 2000. The cost of nutrient reduction: a case study of Chesapeake Bay. Coastal Management 28:175- 185. Calambokidis, J. 1995. Contaminants in Puget Sound Marine Mammals: Temporal, spatial, and species-related patterns. IN: Puget Sound Research '95. Canning, D. J., and H. Shipman. 1994. Coastal Erosion Management Studies in Puget Sound. Washington: Executive Summary. Coastal Erosion Management Studies Volume l. Water and Shorelands Resources Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia Cederholm, C. J., D. H. Johnson, R E. Bilby, 1. G. Dominguez, A. M. Garrett, W. H. Graeber, E. 1. Greda, M. D. Kunze, B. G. Marcot, J. F. Palmisano, R W. Plotnikott, W. G. Pearchy, C. A Simenstad. and P. C. Trotter. 2000. Pacific Salmon and Wildlife - Ecological contexts, relationships, and implications for management. Special Edition Technical Report, Prepared for D.H. Johnson and T.A O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.), Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia Chambers, J. R. 1991. Habitat degradation and fishery declines in the US. In: Bolton, H.S. and O.T. Magoon (eds), Coastal Zone '91: Proceedings of the seventh symposium on coastal and ocean management. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. 4 vol. 3800 p. Clark, J., J. S. Banta, and J. A Zinn. 1980. Coastal Environmental Management: guidelines for conservation of resources and protection against storm hazards. Washington, D.C.: Council on Environmental Quality. 161 p. Congleton, J.1. 1978. Feeding patterns of juvenile chum in the Skagit River salt marsh. In C. A. Simenstad and S. J. Lipovsky (eds.), Fish Food Habits Studies. 1 It Pacific Northwest Technical Workshop, Workshop Proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, WSG-WO-77-2. University of Washington, Seattle. Connell, J.H. 1972. Community interactions on marine rocky intertidal shores. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:169-192. Cordell, J. R, 1. M Tear, K. Jensen, and V. Luiting. 1997. Duwamish River Coastal America restoration and reference sites: Results from 1996 monitoring studies. University of Washington School of Fisheries, Fisheries Research Institute. FRl-~-9609.Seattle. Cordell, J. R, and H. Higgins, C. Tanner, and J. K.Aitkin. 1998. Biological status of fish and invertebrate assemblages in a breached-dike wetland site, Spencer Island. University of Washington School of Fish eries, Fisheries Research Institute. FRl-~-9805.Seattle. . Cordell, J. R, 1. M. Tear, K. Jensen, and H. A Higgins. 1999a Duwamish River Coastal America restoration and reference sites: Results from 1997 monitoring studies University of Washington School of Fish eries, Fisheries Research Institute. FRl-~-9903. Seattle. Cordell, J. R, C. Tanner, and J. K. Aitkin. 1999b. Fish assemblages and juvenile salmon diets at a breached-dike wetland site, Spencer Island, Washington 1997-98 University of Washington School of Fish eries, Fisheries Research Institute. FRl-UW-9905. Seattle. Cramer, M., K. Bates, D. Miller, K. Boyd, L. Fotherby, P. Skidmore, and T. Hoitsma 2003. Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines. Co-published by the Washington departments of Fish and WJldlife, Ecology, and Transportation. Olympia, WA 435p. An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems 23 Culliton, T. J. 1998. Population: Distribution, density and growth. In: NOAA, State of the Coast Report. Silver Spring, Maryland. http://slale-of-coasLnoaagovfoutletinslhtmiJpop_Ollpop. html. Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior. 22p. Desbonnet, A, P. Pogue, V. Lee, and N. Wolf[ 1994. Vegetated buffers in the coastal ZODe: A summary review and bibliography. Coastal Resources Center Technical Report No. 2064. University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography, Narragansett, Rhode Island. 72 p. Desbonnet, A, V. Lee, P. Pogue, D. Reis, J. Boyd, J. Willis, and M. Imperial. 1995. Development of coastal vegetated buffer programs. Coastal Management 23:91-109. Dethier. M. N. 1990. A marine and estuarine habitat classification system for Washington State. Washington Natural Heritage Program, Dept. Natural Resources. 56 p. Olympia, Washington. Dunne, T., and 1. B. Leopold. 1978. Water in environmental planning. WHo Freeman press, San Francisco. 818 p. Ellifrit, N. J., M. S. Yoshinaka, and D. WCoon. 1973. Some observations of clatn distribution at four sites on Hood Canal, Washington. Proc. Nat. Shellfish. Asoc. 63:7. Fresh. K. 1., D. Rabin, e. Simenstad, E. O. Salo, K. Garrison, and 1. Matheson. 1979. Fish ecology studies in the Nisqually Reach area of Southern Puget Sound. Washington. University of Washington School of Fish eries, Fisheries Research Institute. FRI-UW-7904. Seattle. Fresh, K.1., RD. Cardwell, and RR Koons. 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. 58 p. Foster, M. S., A P., DeVogelaere, C. Harrold, J. S. Pearse, A B. Thurn. 1996. Causes of spatial and temporal patterns in rocky intertidal communities of Central and Northern California. Volume 2 of2. U.S. Department of the Interior OCS Study MMS 85-0049. Gonor, J. J., J. R Sedell, and P. A Benner. 1988. What we know about large trees in estuaries, in the sea, and on coastal beaches. IN: e. Maser, RE Tarrant, J.M. Trappe, and J.E Franklin (eds.), From the Forest to the Sea: A Story of Fallen Trees. Pacific Northwest Res. Sta., USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-229. Good, J. W, J. W Weber, J. W Charland. J. V. Olson, and K. A Chapin. 1997. (review draft). State coastal zone management effectiveness in protecting estuaries and coastal wetlands: A national overview. Corvallis, OR: Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State University. 283 p. Gregory, R S., and C.D. Levings. 1996. The effects of turbidity and vegetation on the risk of juvenile salmonids. Oncorynchus :.pp., to plCc:latiOll by iulult Cuttluoc:d: l1out, O. dalkii. Environmental Biology of Fishes 47:279-288. Gregory, S. v., E J. Swanson, W A McKee, and K. W Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riaprian zones: Focus on links between land and water. Bioscience 41: 540-551. Gresh, T., J. Lichatowich, and P. Schoonmaker. 2000. An estimation of historic and current levels of salmon production in the Northeast Pacific ecosystem: Evidence of a nutrient deficit in the freshwater systems of the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries 25:15-21. Groffman, P. M., A J. Gold. T. P. Husband. R C. Simmons, W R Eddleman. 1990. An investigation into multiple uses of vegetated buffer strips. Final Report, NBP-90-44, Narragansett Bay Project. Department of Natural Resources Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. 148p. Hall, E C. 1987. Characterization of riparian systems. Pages 7-12 in Proceedings of the symposium streamside management: riparian wildlife and forestry interactions, K. J. Raedeke (ed). Institute of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Healey, M. e. 1980. Utilization of the Nanaimo River estuary by juvenile chinook salmon, Onchorhynchus tshawytscha. Fishery Bulletin 77:653-668. Healey, M.e. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: The life support system. Pages 315-341 in V.S. Kennedy (ed), Estuarine Comparisons. Proceedings of the Sixth Bienniallntemational Estuarine Research Conference. Academic Press, Inc. Johnson, A.W, and J.M. Stypula. 1993. Guidelines for bank stabilization in projects in the riverine environments of King County. King County Department of Public Works, Surface Water Management Division, Seattle, Washington. Karr, J. R, and I. J. Schlosser. 1977. Impact of nearstream vegetation and stream morphology on water quality and stream biota. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Doc. No. EPA-600/3-77-097. Karr, J. R and I. J. Schlosser. 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 an the control of floods and erosion. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York. King County. 1987. Wildlife Habitat Profile. King County Open Space Program, Department of Natural ResourCes, Seattle, WA 24 Knutson, K. L., and V. 1. Naef. 1997. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: lUpanan. WashIngton Department ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia. 181 p. Kozloff, E. N. 1974. Seashore Life ofPuget Sound, the Strait of Georgia, and the San Juan Archipelago. University of Washington Press. Seattle. Kunz, K., M. RyIko, and E. Somers. 1988. An assessment of wetland mitigation practices pursuant to section 404 permitting activities in Washington state. Pages 515-531 In: Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research. Volume II. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, Washington. Lee, v., and S. Olsen. 1985. Eutrophication and management initiatives for the control of nutrient inputs to Rhode Island coastal lagoons. Estuaries 8:191-202. Levings, C. D., D. E. Boyle, and T. R Whitehouse. 1995. Distribution an feeding of juvenile Pacific salmon in freshwater tidal creeks of the lower Fraser River, British Columbia. Fish. Manag. Ecol 2:299-308. Levings, C.D., K. Conlin, and B. Raymond. 1991. Intertidal habitats used by juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) rearing in the north arm of the Frasier river estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin 22:20-26. Levings, C. D. and R M Thom. 1994. Habitat changes in Georgia Basin: implications for resource management and restoration. In Wdson, R, R Beamish, F. Aitkins, and J. Bell (eds.). 1994. Review of the marine environment and biota of Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound, and Juan de Fuca Strait: Proceedings of the B.C./Washington Symposium of the Marine Environment. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 398p. Levings, C. D. and G. Jatnieson. 2001. Marine and estuarine riparian habitats and their role in coastal ecosystems, Pacific region. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2001/109. 41 p. www.dfo-mpo.gc.calcsas/. Levings, C.D., K. Conlin, and B. Raymond. 1991. Intertidal habitats used by juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) rearing in the north arm of the Frasier river estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 22, No. 1. pp. 20- 26. Lorance, R R, G. Vellidis, R D. Wauchope, P. Gay and D. D. Bosch. 1997a. Herbicide transport in a managed riparian forest buffer system. Transactions of the ASAE 40:1047-1057 Lorance, R, 1.S. Altier, J.D. Newbold, RR Schnabel, P.M. Goffman, J.M Denver, D.L. Correll, J.W Gilliam, J.1. Robinson, RB. Brinsfield, K. W Staver, W Lueas, and A.H. Todd. 1997b. Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environmental Management 21(5): 687-712. Lynn, B. 1998. Nearshore habitat loss in Puget Sound: Recommendations for improved management. Washington Nearshore Habitat Loss Work Group R.eport prepared for the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force. 51 p. Macdonald, K., D. Simpson, B. Paulson, J. Cox, and J. Gendron. 1994. Shoreline armoring effects on physical coastal processes in Puget Sound, Washington. IN: Coastal Erosion Management Studies Volume 5. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. Maser, C. and J.R Sedell. 1994. From the forest to the sea, the ecology of wood in streaIDs. rivers, estuaries, and oceans. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. May, C. W, E. B. Welch, R R Horner, J. R Karr and B. W Mar. 1997. Quality indices for urbanization effects in Puget Sound lowland streams. Final report prepared for Washington Department of Ecology, Grant No. G9400121. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Water Resources Technical Report No. 154. 229p. Menashe, E. 1993. Vegetation Management: A guide for Puget Sound bluff property owners. Shorelands and Coastal Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology. Publication 93-31. Miller, J. A. and C. A. Simenstad. 1997. A comparative assessment of a natural and created estuarine slough as rearing habitat for juvenile chinook and coho salmon. Estuaries 20(4): 792-806. Myers, RD., M. Lorilla, and J. Myers. 1995. Surface water and groundwater on coastal bluffs: A guide for Puget Sound property oWners. Shorelands and Water Resources Program, Washington Department of Ecology. Publication 95-107. Naiman, R J., H. Decamps, and M Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining regional biodiversity. Ecol Appl 3: 209-212. Nislow, K. H., C. 1. Folt, and D. L. Parrish. 2000. Spatially explicit bioenergetic analysis of habitat quality for age-O Atlantic salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Vol 129 (5). NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1996. Coastal salmon conservation: Working guidance for comprehensive salmon restoration initiatives on the pacific coast. National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2000. Designated Critical Habitat: Critical habitat for 19 evolutionarily significant units of salmon and stee1head in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. 50 CFR, Part 226, Vol 65. No. 32. National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce. An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems 25 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1994a. Fisheries of the United States, 1993. Current fisheries statistics No. 9300. Silver Springs, MD: NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service. 121 p. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1995. (CD ROM). Ports and navigation. In: Turning the tide: Americas coasts at a crossroads. Silver Springs, MD: NOAA, National Ocean Service. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1998. Managing Coastal Resources by William C. Millhouser, John McDonough, John Paul Tolson and David Slade. NOAAS State of the Coast Report. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA. Northcote, T.G., N.T. Johnston, and K Tsumura. 1979. Feeding relationships and food web structure oflower Fraser River fishes. Westwater Research Center Tech. Report 16. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Riparian Areas: Functions and strategies for management. Report of the National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 428 p. Pearse, T. A., J. H. Meyer, R. S. Boomer. 1982. Distribution and food habits of juvenile salmon in the Nisqually estUary, Washington, 1979-1980. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Report. 77 p. 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. 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. Puget Sound Action Team, Olympia, WA. Phillips J.D. 1989. Effect of buffer zones on estuarine and riparian land use in eastern North Carolina. Southeastern Geographer 29:136-149. PSWQA (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority). 1995. 1994 Puget Sound Update: Fifth annual report of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Progratn. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. Olympia, WA. 122 p. Rein. F. A. 1999. An economic analysis of vegetative buffer strip implementation. Case study: Elkhorn Slough, Monterey Bay, California. Coastal Management, Vol 27, No.4. Richter, K O. 1995. Amphibian extinctions in urbanizing King . County. Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Program, King County Environmental Division, Department of Natural Resources. Seattle, WA. Ricketts, E.G., and J. Calvin. 1968. Between Pacific Tides. 4th ed., revised by J. Hedgpeth. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, CalifOlma. 614 p. Sedell, J. R and W. S.Duval. 1985. Water transportation and storage oflogs. IN: Meehan,W. R, ed. Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-186. Portland OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 1-68. Shimek, R L 1993. North Beach high intertidal biota in the area of proposed beach modifications: Sediment infauna and beach wrack or drift biota. Technical report prepared for METRO by Parametrix, Inc., Kirkland, WA. Short, F. T.. and D. M. Burdick. 1996. Quantifying eelgrass habitat loss in relation to housing development and nitrogen loading in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts. Estuaries 22:730-739. Shreffler, D. K, C. A. Simenstad, and R M Thom. 1992. Juvenile salmon foraging in a restored estuarine wetland. Estuaries 15:204-213. Shreffler, D. K, R M. Thom, and K B. MacDonald. 1994 Shoreline armoring effects on biological resources and coastal ecology in Puget Sound. IN: Coastal Erosion Management Studies Volume 5. Shore1ands and Coastal Zone Management ProgratD, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. Shreffler, D. K and R M Thom. 1995. Estuarine Restoration: A Landscape Perspective. In: Puget Sound Research '95 Proceedings, Vol 2. Published by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia. Simenstad. C. A. and R C. WlSsmar. 1985. 13l>C evidence of the origins of organic carbon in estuarine and nearshore food webs. Marine Ecology 22:141-152. Simenstad, C. A. 1998. Appendix A: Estuarine Landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions. IN: Hood Canal/Eastern Strait of Juan De Fuca summer Chum Habitat Recovery Plan, March, 1999. Sobocinski, K1. 2003. The impact of shoreline armoring on supratidal beach fauna of Central Puget Sound. Master's Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 83. p. Spence, B.c., G.A. Lomnicky, RM. Hughes, and RP. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosyste.m approach to salmonid conservation. TR- 4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR Stenberg, K J., K 0. Richter, D. McNamara, and 1. Vicknair. 1997. A wildlife habitat network for community planning using GIS technology. Pages 267-278 in D. Miller and G. DeRoo, eds. Urban environmental planning: policies, instruments, and methods in an international perspective. Avebury Publ., London, U.K 26 ., A. ... Swanson, F. J., S. V. Gregory, J. R Sedell, and A. G. Campbell. 1982. Land-water interactions: The riparian zone. Pages 267-291 m R. L. Edmonds, editor. AnalySIS ot coniterous forest ecosystems in the Western United States. Volume 14. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Terich, T. A. 1987. Living with the shore ofPuget Sound and the Georgia Strait. Duke University Press, Durham. 165 p. Thom, R M., A. E. Copping, and R. G. Albright. 1988. Nearshore primary produetivity in Central Puget Sound: A case for nutrient limitation in the nearshore systems of Puget Sound. In: Proceedings first annual meeting on Puget Sound Research. volume 2. Thom, R and D. Shreffler. 1994. Shoreline armoring effects on coastal ecology and biological resources in Puget Sound, Washington. Prepared by Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory and CH2M Hill for the Washington Department of Ecology. . Olympia, WA. UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme). 1992. Agenda 21: Protection of the Oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas and coastal areas and the protection rational use and development of their living resources. United Nations Environmental Programme, Chapter 17. http://www.unep.orgldocuments/. 26 p. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Guidance. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds; National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Washington, D.C USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. An ocean blueprint for the 21" century. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Final Report. 610 p. www. oceancommission.gov/documents. USFWS (United Stated Fish and WIldlife Service). 2001. Adding it up. A national survey by the United States Fish and WIldlife Service. www.wa.gov/wdfw/pubaffrs/adding.Jcup.htm. WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 1998. Our Changing Nature. Natural resource trends in Washington State. Report prepared by the Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. 75 p. WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 1999. Shorezone Inventory (1999). Washington Department of Natura! Resources, UlympIa. Washington. WDOE (Washington Department of Ecology). 1994. Cciastal Erosion Management Strategy Project. Eleven volume series produced for the Water and Shorelands Resources Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 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. 59 p. Williams, G. D., R M. Thorn. J. E. Starkes, J. S. Brennan, J. P. Houghton, D. Woodruff, P. 1. Striplin. M. Miller. M. Pedersen, A. Skillman, R Kropp, A. Borde, C. Freeland. K McArthur, V. Fagerness, S. Blanton, and L.Blackmore. 2001. Reconnaissance Assessment of the State of the Nearshore Ecosystem: Eastern Shore of Central Puget Sound, Including Vashon and Maury Islands (WRI& 8 and 9). J. S. Brennan, Editor. Report prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources, Seattle, WA. Sources of Unpublished Materials Cordell, Jeff, et al. Unpublished data. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Richter, Klaus. Unpublished data. King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA. An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems 27