December 17, 1999

Board of Clallam County Commissioners
223 East 4th Street
Port Angeles, Washington 98362

Subject: Critical Area Code--Repeal the Clallam County Interim Critical Area Code and Floodplain Management Code and Replace Them with a Final Critical Area Code.

Dear Commissioners:

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the December 15, 1999 draft Proposed Final Critical Area Code (CAC), and submits the following comments.

The current dire plight of many wild salmon and trout stocks in Washington is attributable in large measure to the degradation of their habitat. The serious degradation of fish (and wildlife) habitat is, in turn, a denunciation of past land-use practices and regulations. Although the December 15, 1999 draft CAC (Draft CAC) differs from the existing Interim Critical Area Code (Interim CAC) in numerous ways, many of the changes are minor. Overall, the Draft CAC may provide somewhat better habitat protection than the Interim CAC, but neither adequately protects fish and wildlife habitat. Therefore, WDFW must conclude that adoption of the Draft CAC would cause Clallam County to continue permitting development and other land-use activities that seriously harm fish and wildlife habitat throughout Clallam County. WDFW strongly urges that the Board of Clallam County Commissioners not adopt the Draft CAC until it has been changed to properly protect fish and wildlife in Clallam County. Specific areas needing attention include the following.

Riparian habitat is utilized by approximately 90 percent of Washington wildlife and supports a high fish and wildlife diversity by providing essential food, cover, water, and space needs during all times of the year. Riparian habitat provides optimal breeding habitat for many species and provides important movement corridors and refuges for wildlife, particularly in developing landscapes. Riparian vegetation provides essential habitat functions to the aquatic environment used by fish and other organisms. These functions include: 1) moderating in-stream temperatures through shading; 2) contributing to the food web through leaf and litter fall; 3) providing downed logs and other large woody debris which form pools used by fish, help dissipate harmful stream energy, and provide protective cover for fish in both the freshwater and marine environments; 4) purifying surface water and ground water flows that enter streams and marine waters; 5) filtering sediment; and 6) stabilizing banks, side channels, floodplains, marine shorelines, and other geomorphological features associated with streams, rivers, and marine waters. Riparian habitat is a limited resource and is highly vulnerable to degradation or conversion to other land uses. Between 50 and 90 percent of Washington's original riparian wetlands have been lost or significantly modified.

The proposed Aquatic Habitat Conservation Area buffers (50-feet to 150-feet for major actions and 35 to 100 feet for minor actions) are insufficiently wide to adequately protect fish and wildlife habitat. According to information provided at the June 25, 1999 work session, the proposed buffers are based upon information contained in the Man Tech Report@ (An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation by Management Technology, 1996). However, the Draft CAC buffers cannot be firmly supported by the Man Tech Report. County staff evaluated certain criteria from the Man Tech Report (root strength, litter fall, shading, large woody debris recruitment, moisture, radiation, soil temperature, wind speed, and relative humidity), but did not analyze other Man Tech Report criteria including sediment control, nutrients and other dissolved materials, windthrow, and wildlife habitat. Although the Man Tech Report does not make specific numerical recommendations on buffer widths, it does contain the following statements which support wider buffers than those contained in the Draft CAC.:
Suggested buffer width by taxa included: 30-100 m for beaver, 67-93 m for small mammals, 100 m for large mammals, and 75-200 m for birds (p 221). Rhodes et al. (1994) suggest that buffers need to extend to a distance of two site-potential tree heights (or > 91 m) to protect riparian buffers from windthrow; (p 222). On gentle slopes, buffers of 30 m may be sufficient to filter sediments, whereas on steeper slopes, buffers of 90 m or more may be needed (p 219). "The FEMAT (1993) review of the literature suggest that riparian zones greater than 200 feet (i.e., about one site-potential tree height) from the edge of the floodplain are probably adequate to remove most sediment from overland flow (p 52). For example, the boundaries for Riparian Reserves surrounding fish-bearing streams are defined by five potential criteria: 91 m (300 ft) slope distance on each side of the channel, two site-potential trees, the outer edges of the 100 year floodplain, the distance from the active channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, whichever is greatest (p 216).

In its Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian (Riparian Recommendations), WDFW recommends that buffers meet the following minimum widths or extend to the outer edge of the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater:

Type 1 & 2 waters - 250 feet
Type 3 waters (greater than 5 feet in width) - 200 feet
Type 3 waters (less than 5 feet in width) - 150 feet
Type 4 and 5 waters (low mass wasting potential) - 150 feet
Type 4 and 5 waters (high mass wasting potential) - 225 feet

Larger areas may be required where priority species are known to occur - refer to Appendix 5 of the above-referenced recommendations. Add 50 feet to the outer edge of the buffer on the windward side of riparian areas with high blow-down potential.

WDFW believes that our Riparian Recommendations represent best available science on the subject of buffer widths/fish and wildlife habitat interactions in Washington. Nearly 1,500 pieces of literature were reviewed and evaluated, and nearly 600 literature citations are referenced. It was published in December, 1997, a year after the Man Tech Report, and the Man Tech Report was part of the large body of scientific literature evaluated and referenced.

The Draft CAC contains minimum buffer widths that range from approximately one-half to one-third the width of the standard buffers and apply to single family construction and agriculture activities. The cumulative effect of these activities can be enormous. WDFW recommends that standard aquatic habitat conservation area buffers widths apply to single-family construction and agricultural activities.

The Draft CAC does not require buffers on Type 5 waters. However, the Man Tech Report states, "Riparian buffers on all permanent and ephemeral streams are recommended for protecting salmonid habitats (p 246). WDFW-recommended buffers should be placed on Type 5 waters.

The Draft CAC requires that buffers extend to the outside of the floodway. Superficially this may seem to provide increased protection for Aquatic Habitat Conservation Areas, but this requirement may not likely cause any buffers to be enlarged beyond the numeric minimums. For example, in the vicinity of the Highway 101 bridge, the Dungeness River floodway as defined by the CAC, is approximately 400 feet wide (based on Washington Department of Transportation hydraulic modeling). Channel width immediately upstream and downstream of Highway 101 is also approximately 400 feet. Therefore in this case the edge of the channel and the edge of the floodway are roughly the same, and the numeric minimum buffer width would take precedence. To provide a meaningful functional basis for setting buffer widths, buffers should always extend at least to the outer edge of the 100-year floodplain.

The Draft CAC states that, any development of a legally-created parcel within a land division approved on or after July 1, 1992 shall comply with all critical area buffers established as part of the land division approval. This provision will allow unknown levels of fish and wildlife habitat degradation to occur and should be removed from the Draft CAC. All new development should meet the buffer requirements of CAC in effect at the time that development occurs.

Wetlands are highly productive fish and wildlife habitat that deserve special protection. WDFW recommends that buffers meet the following minimum widths:

Class I - 200 (low intensity uses) to 300 feet (high intensity uses)
Class II - 100 to 200 feet
Class III - 50 to 100 feet
Class IV - 25 to 50 feet

When wetlands or their buffers contain priority species, WDFW priority species management recommendations should be used to design a buffer for that site.

The proposed standard wetlands buffers are generally similar to WDFW recommendations, except in two areas.

1. Class I wetland buffers should be 300 feet for all uses except low intensity use (agriculture, forestry activities, open space, recreation).

2. The minimum wetland buffers, which are one-half the width of the standard buffer and apply to single family construction, will allow considerable degradation of wetland habitat. WDFW recommends that standard wetland buffers widths apply to single family construction.

By including meander zones as landslide hazard areas (Section 27.12.320), the Draft CAC wisely provides a measure of protection for these critically important areas. However, the proposed 100 and 50-foot buffers are insufficient for larger streams, and WDFW recommends the following minimum required meander zone buffer widths (measured from the outer edge of the meander zone):

Type 1 Waters - 150 feet
Type 2 & 3 Waters (greater than 5 feet wide) - 100 feet
Type 3 Waters (less than 5 feet wide) - 50 feet
Type 4 & 5 Waters - 30 feet

Among the many worthwhile policy goals of the Draft CAC is the intention to prevent cumulative adverse environmental impacts to water availability, water quality, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas. The accomplishment of this important goal will required that the Draft CAC undergo several substantial changes. WDFW strongly recommends that the Board of Clallam County Commissioners make these changes and adopt a CAC that properly protects the diverse and important fish and wildlife resources found in Clallam County.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.

Sincerely,

Randy Johnson
Habitat Program

Back to PPF Home