The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2961-210a Gtnl\ w.t1? Michelle McConnell 2}1~1 From: Sent: To: SubJect: Attachments: Jill Silver Usilver@10000yearsinstitute.org] Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:52 PM Michelle McConnell PC members needing references to support SMP recommended buffers Parcels in Shoreline Planning Areas12-4-07.pdf; brennan 2005 - riparian function in marine ecosystems.pdf; Marine FWHCA Recommendations 5-08-07.pdf 09 Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged SMP Categories: Dear Michelle - I am concerned that some members of the PC are not familiar with the BAS and body of literature supporting the recommended buffer widths, and indeed, may not be fully informed as to the need for buffers in general. Would you please forward this information to them? Thank you. Attached is: 1) the information provided by Adolpson regarding parcels in shorelines - up to 35 miles of non-conforming lots (which can still build within them) 2) the marine riparian function report by Jim Brennan of the PS Action Team and WA Sea Grant (also available, along with a lot of other great information at: http://puqetsoundnearshore.orq/technicalreports.htm The reason we specified 150' is because the freshwater science on buffers agrees that 150' is adequate for larger water bodies - and these shorelines share the same functions and processes. There's a large body of literature on buffers - which is referenced in the attached and linked Brennan report. Here's the link specific to the riparian report: http://pugetsou nd nearshore. org/tech n ical papers/ri pa rian. pdf By law, the SMP must meet or exceed the CAO. This requirement is not impacted by the Anacortes ruling that states that critical areas regulations cannot be applied in Shorelines jurisdiction. 3) the recommendations and best available science on marine shorelines and processes that the 'minority' compiled for the CAO Advisory Committee to the PC. Please refer to pages 5 and 6 for a summary of recommendations and conclusions on buffers by reputable scientists and agencies. Sincerely, Jill Jill Silver Executive Director 10,000 Years Institute 211 Taylor Street, Suite 35A Port Townsend, W A 98368 360.385.0715 isilver@10000yearsinstitute.org www.l0000yearsinstitute.org 1 Parcels in Shoreline Planning Areas (SPAs) Presented 12-4-07 to Joint STAC and SPAC Meeting Total # of Jefferson County Parcels = 39213 Number of Parcels Completely Completely Within Intersect TYPE Within +20ft Intersect +20ft Freshwater SPAs 1408 1488 3053 3120 Lake SPAs 48 52 159 162 Marine SPAs 1803 2061 5660 5877 All SPAs (duplicates removed 3259 3601 8830 9107 Number of Parcels Completely Completely Within Intersect Freshwater SPAs Within +20ft Intersect +20ft Big Quilcene River1 70 71 135 137 Big Quilcene River2 29 35 76 78 Bogachiel River 124 134 182 183 Cedar Creek 0 0 30 31 Chimacum Creek1 80 93 291 309 Chimacum Creek2 0 0 8 12 Chimacum Creek3 2 4 32 33 Chimacum Creek4 8 9 51 52 Christmas Creek 1 1 24 25 Clearwater River1 115 119 215 216 Clearwater River2 4 4 12 13 Clearwater River3 12 12 27 27 Clearwater River4 23 23 54 55 Clearwater RiverS 6 6 28 28 Clearwater River6 2 2 11 11 Clearwater River7 2 2 16 16 Clearwater River8 0 0 8 8 Dosewallips River1 228 235 371 378 Duckabush River1 145 159 276 289 Fulton Creek1 0 0 16 17 Fulton Creek2 0 0 4 4 Goodman Creek1 0 0 3 4 Goodman Creek2 0 0 8 8 Goodman Creek3 0 0 9 9 Hoh River South Fork1 27 29 52 54 Hoh River1 63 66 115 115 Hoh River2 120 122 198 198 Hoh River3 140 143 210 212 Hoh River4 6 6 18 20 Hoh RiverS 148 153 199 200 Hurst Creek1 0 0 17 17 Page 1 of 4 Parcels in Shoreline Planning Areas (SPAs) Presented 12-4-07 to Joint STAC and SPAC Meeting Kalaloch Creek1 0 0 17 18 Kalaloch Creek2 0 0 5 5 Little Quilcene River1 10 13 106 110 Little Quilcene River2 0 0 10 11 Maple Creek 0 0 14 15 Matheny Creek1 0 0 6 6 Miller Creek 0 0 20 20 Miller Creek East Fork1 0 0 5 5 Miller Creek East Fork2 0 0 7 7 Minter Creek 0 0 9 9 Mosquito Creek1 0 0 6 6 Mosquito Creek2 0 0 13 13 Nolan Creek 0 0 15 15 Owl Creek1 1 1 8 9 Owl Creek2 0 0 10 10 Rocky Brook 0 0 7 8 Salmon Creek1 1 1 18 20 Salmon Creek2 0 0 5 6 Salmon River 1 2 7 7 Shale Creek 0 0 14 14 Snahapish River 0 0 15 16 Snow Creek1 9 10 29 31 Snow Creek2 31 34 90 92 Solleks River1 0 0 9 9 Solleks River2 0 0 5 5 Stequaleho Creek 0 0 5 5 Stequaleho Creek2 0 0 8 9 Winfield Creek 0 0 14 14 Number of Parcels Completely Completely Within Intersect Lake SPAs Within +20ft Intersect +20ft Anderson Lake 3 3 9 9 Crocker Lake 10 12 23 24 Gibbs Lake 0 0 9 9 Lake Leland 27 28 84 86 Lords Lake 2 2 5 5 Mill Pond 5 6 15 15 Peterson Lake 1 1 7 7 Sandy Shore Lake 0 0 2 2 Tarboo Lake 0 0 4 4 Wahl Lake 0 0 1 1 Number of Parcels Marine SPAs A AA AAA Completely Within 56 29 7 Completely Within +20ft 57 37 7 Intersect 105 190 21 Intersect +20ft 108 198 23 Page2of4 Parcels in Shoreline Planning Areas (SPAs) Presented 12-4-07 to Joint STAC and SPAC Meeting B 13 14 23 24 BB 11 13 102 104 BBB 8 18 65 77 C 19 20 33 35 CC 67 83 163 170 CCC 215 235 413 431 D 40 43 107 114 DD 63 90 198 205 DDD 0 1 6 7 E 27 28 75 78 EE 54 61 165 169 EEE 59 66 201 211 F 11 14 56 56 FF 1 3 22 23 FFF 19 31 142 144 G 4 5 11 12 GG 6 12 64 71 GGG 3 3 7 7 H 8 10 40 41 HH 25 31 131 135 HHH 72 88 212 232 I 65 86 108 116 II 5 5 45 46 III 76 87 184 204 IslandX 5 5 5 5 IslandXI 2 0 5 5 J 132 137 198 211 JJ 1 1 7 7 JJJ 38 50 93 100 K 6 7 23 24 KK 2 2 23 24 KKK 0 0 6 6 L 13 18 124 125 LL 9 10 198 200 LLL 16 19 79 82 M 1 1 15 15 MM 0 0 3 3 N 1 1 26 27 NN 0 0 5 5 0 176 183 267 272 00 1 4 35 35 P 4 6 77 77 pp 17 18 65 69 Q 32 32 146 147 QQ 7 9 63 67 R 12 12 40 40 RR 40 43 143 147 5 17 18 224 228 55 4 4 16 16 T 6 7 102 105 IT 0 0 4 4 U 6 6 75 75 Page 3 of 4 Parcels in Shoreline Planning Areas (SPAs) Presented 12-4-07 to Joint STAC and SPAC Meeting UU 0 0 3 3 V 133 145 394 409 W 4 4 7 7 W 59 62 129 137 WW 1 1 2 2 X 17 19 79 82 XX 1 2 12 14 Y 25 26 50 52 yy 12 14 49 49 Z 4 5 24 25 ZZ 38 42 97 103 Page 4of4 Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems James 5. Brennan and Hilary Culverwell ~~ ~~7 1- 8 ~ '53 Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions In Marine Ecosystems By Jim Brennan* and Hilary Culverwell** *Washington Sea Grant Program 3716 Brooklyn Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98105-6716 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 improved it through their comments, reviews, graphic art, and research assistance. We are especially grateful to Robert Fuerstenberg, Klaus Richter, Si Simenstad, Ron Thom, 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 .. xecutlve u m ma ry .................................................................................... II Introd uction........................... ................ ...................................... ................ 1 Mari ne Riparian Fu nctions ........................................................................... 3 Ecolog ica I Fu nction 5 ...... .............. ................. ............................ ................. .... ..................... ......... ........3 Socia I. Values........................................................ ................................... .................................... ..... 12 A Conceptual Model .................................................................................. 14 Management Considerations ........................ ............................. ............. 16 Concl usions................................................................................................ 19 Recom mendations ................................................................................... .20 Fleferences ................................................................................................. ~:I An Assessment of Riparian Function in Marine Ecosystems Executive Summary Marine Riparian: An Assessment Of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems Authors: J.5. 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 (Le., 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 waterways 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 minimizing 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 pretia- 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 (i.e., 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 (i.e., 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 (i.e., cut- throat trout, chinook and chum salmon) known to be most de- pendent upon shallow, nearshore waters, insects derived from the terrestrial environment appear to play an important role in their diets. Because oflimited 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 Structure/LWD: Riparian vegetation and large woody de- bris (L WD) provide a multitude of functions in aquatic ecosystems and riparian forests. One primary role of vegetation and LWD is 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. 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 LWD 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. 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 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 (i.e., 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 are 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 oflife 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 marine riparian sys- tems 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 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. Unfortunately, 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 education have certainly not kept up with the level of devel- 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. 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 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 develop- ment does not consider the functions and values of maintaining riparian vegetation buffers (see Beatleyet al. 1994; NRC 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 Wildlife 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 (I.e., 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 develop- ment of conservation programs. iv Introduction 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 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 areas. 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 functional relationship (e.g., Gregory et al. 1991, 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 transitional between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and are distinguished by gradients in biophysical conditions, ecological processes and biota. They are areas through which surface and subsurface hydrology connect waterbodies with their adjacent uplands. They include those portions of terrestrial ecosystems that significantly influence exchanges of energy and matter with aquatic ecosystems (i.e.. zone of influence). 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 conveyor 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. Adjacent 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 (EPA 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 (Le., 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 keta) 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 salmon, 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 contributing 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 of literature documenting these func- tions and their associated socio-economic and biophysical benefits. Although marine riparian systems have not been subject to the 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 (Le., 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 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 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 of Puget Sound's shorelines has already been modified by development and the remainder is increasingly threatened. 2 Amy Hiatt and Jill Silver, CAO Advisory Group FWHCA Recommendations - Marine Shorelines 05-08-2007 I Recommendations for Marine Shorelines 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 salmon 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; filter 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 rap tors 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 Policy 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 of the state" are regulated in Jefferson County: Removal of Vegetation and Other Land-Disturbina Activities along 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 on 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 bank for banks that exceed 10 feet in vertical height. Please note that land-disturbing activity in the 30-Joot 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 a.n SMP adopted pursuant to Ecology's Shoreline Guidelines [RCW 36.70A.480(3)(a)]. Prior to the local government's upda.te of its 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 jurisdiction. If the local government updates its critical areas ordinance under the 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 Conservation 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, Le. they stabilize banks and control sediment inputs from surface erosion; filter 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 rap tors 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 sources 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 structure 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 Shoreline Modification Issues (Williams et al. 2001) discusses the importance ofretaining 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 anchors 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 surface 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 removal 13-600' Knutson and Naef 1997 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' FEMA T 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' FEMA T 1993 Marine Shoreline Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas: The Nearshore Chapter ofthe 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 andfeeder 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. Protect functioning 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 protectfunctioning drift cells andfeeder 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 protect ion 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 Shorelines: 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; filter 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, CAO 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: h Up: 1 1 www.wsg.washington.edu/research/ ecohealthl 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, WA. Available at: ftp:/ 1 dnr.metrokc.gov 1 dnr 1 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., and Myers, D. Proceedings of the DFO/PSAT 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. htto:/ /www.ecv.wa.gov/orograms/sea/smallaws 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 Resources Coordinator. July 2000. Pentec Environment. March 2001. Use of Best Available Science in City of Everett Buffer Regulations. City of Everett, WA. 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. Thorn. 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 Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Transportation, Olympia. Available only in Adobe Acrobat@ format at http://www.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