use, study and management of Puget Sound a symposium : proceedings, March 23-25, 1977

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone
Information
Center
THE USE, STUDY
AND MANAGEMENT
OF PUGET SOUND
in

rzl@- - - ---

moor-%

GC
57.2
.W345
no.77-1

Washington Sea Grant Program
Division of Marine Resources HG-30
university of Washington . Seattle 98195
WSG-WO .77-1 $5.00

//57/

THE USE, STUDY
AND MANAGEMENT
OF PUGET SOUND
A SYMPOSIUM

MOP

PROCEEDINGS
March 23-25, 1977
A Washington Sea Grant Publication
University of Washington - Seattle

THE USE, STUDY, AND MANAGEMENT
OF PUGET SOUND

Symposium Sponsors Division of Marine Resources
University of Washington

American Society of Limnology and Oceanography

Washington State Department of Ecology

Northwest Pulp and Paper Association

Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X

Program Committee Alyn C. Duxbury
University of Washington

Peter Machno
Seattle METRO

Session Chairmen Stephen Bingham
Brown and Caldwell

Alyn C. Duxbury
University of Washington

Peter Machno
Seattle METRO

Acknowledgments Special thanks go to each of the panel members of
this symposium for the time and effort expended in
participating in this symposium. Our thanks also
to the attendees, whose input during the discussion
and question periods added substantially to the
success of the symposium.

Monetary support for this symposium and proceedings
was provided by grant number 04-7-158-44021 from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration to
the Washington Sea Grant Program and the Washington
State Department of Ecology. Other sponsors joining
in the support of this program are listed above.

-y
FOREWORD

The past few years have seen significant changes in public phil-
osophy toward man's use of the earth's resources. No longer
does man consider himself independent of his resources. And he
is increasingly aware of the need to protect and conserve natur-
al resources as well as to use them wisely. His attempts to
assure the preservation of his resources as well as set patterns
for their rational use have led to legislation that regulates
those uses. These regulations were written both as guides for
those wishing to conform and as restrictive covenants for those
less sympathetic toward protecting nature.

But since man is sometimes nearsighted,in establishing the
routes to achieve his goals, it is good practice to review
those routes occasionally to see if indeed the correct track is
being followed.

This symposium--The Use, Study and Management of Puget Sound--.
is an example of this type of hindsight. Here specific questions
have been posed regarding the uses of Puget Sound, the regulations
that govern these uses, and the effects of those policies on the
environment and its users. Varied viewpoints have,been presented
to generate a realistic perspective.

It is our hope that the efforts of those contributing to this
symposium, as recorded here, will be considered by readers
responsible for the fate of Puget Sound and be used to good
advantage.

Alyn C. Duxbury

U - S - DEPARTMENTtOF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SE'RVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

PrOPeYtY Of CSC Library

CONTENTS

FOREWORD ............................................................... iii

SPECIAL ADDRESSES

Opening Remarks ....................................................... :..2
Capt. Griffith C. Evans, USN (Ret.)
oceanographic institute of Washington

Puget Sound: A Public Natural Resource .................................... 4
Bert L. Cole, Commissioner of Public Lands
State of Washington

Shorelines and the Citizen .............................................. 10
Nancy Thomas, President
Washington Environmental Council

DO COASTAL REGULATIONS DO THE JOB INTENDED?

Agency Viewpoints

The Impact of Public Law 92-500 on Puget Sound .......................... 20
Donald P. Dubois
Environmental Protection Agency

The Regulatory Syndrome ................................................. 25
Marvin L. ViaZZe
Washington Department of Ecology

Bays and Estuaries: The Ultimate Shoreline Management .................. 30
Challenge for Local Government
Dennis L. Derickson
Snohomish County Planning Department

industry Viewpoints

The Responsibility of a Public Agency in Accepting ...................... 38
Environmental Risks in the Use of Puget Sound
Richard S. Page
Executive Director, METRO

Public Law 92-500 or Killing Flies with Sledgehammers ................... 46
Lawrence E. Birke, Jr.,
Northwest Pulp and Paper Association

A Public Agency's View on Maritime Transportation ....................... 50
on Puget Sound
Capt. MerZe AdZum
Cormissioner, Port of Seattle

Academic ViezL7points

Time and Change in Puget Sound .......................................... 56
Richard R. Fleming
Untversity of Washington

Social Science Perspectives on the Management ........................... 61
of Puget Sound
WiZZiam B. Beyers
University of Washington

Muddling Through the Management of Puget Sound .......................... 68
Brian W. Mar
University of Washington

HOW SHOULD USE LIMITS BE ESTABLISHED?

Reaearch Viewpoints

An Input-Output Econometric Model of the Puget .......................... 73
Sound Region: A Suggestion
Ric!hard S. Conway, Jr.
University of Washington

Sedimentation Rates in Puget Sound and Their ............................ 81
Application to Heavy Metals Pollution
Ahmad Nevissi and William R. Schell
Untversity of Washington

Site Selection and Design of Community Outfalls ......................... 88
in Puget Sound
Gary R. Minton, Jeffrey M. Rice, Grant Bailey
and Steven Fusco
URS Company

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) in Puget Sound: ..................... 100
Physical/Chemical Aspects and Biological Consequences
Spyros P. PavZou, R.N. Dexter and W. Hom
University of Washington

On Nearshore Trappings of Pollutants by Tidal Eddies ................... 134
Downstream from Points in Puget Sound, Washington
Crutis C. Ebbesmeyer and Jonathan M. Hetseth
Evans-HamiZton, Inc.
Clifford A. Barnes, John H. Lincoln and William P. Bendiner
University of Washington

Updating Monitoring on the Duwamish River .............................. 147
Ruth W. Snider
URS Company

Intertidal Disposal of Dredged Material ................................ 158
in Washington Estuaries
Richard Atbright
Washington Department of Game

Current Shellfish Production in Puget Sound ............................. 173
and Potential for the Future Related to Present
and Future Institutional Barriers
RonaZd E. WestZey
Washington Department of Fisheries

An Assessment of the Effects of Subtidal Sewage Outfalls ............... 177
on Intertidal Macrofauna of Several Central Puget Sound Beaches
John W. Armstrong, RonaZd M. Thom,
Craig P. Staude, and Kenneth K. Chew
University of Washington

Impact of Sewage on Benthic Marine Flora ............................... 200
of the Seattle Area: Preliminary Results
RonaZd M. Thom, John W. Armstrong,
Craig P. Staude, and Kenneth K. Chew
University of Washington

Some Biological, Legal, Social, and Economic Aspects of the ............ 221
Culture of the Red Alga iridaea cordata on Nets in Puget Sound
Thomas F. Mumford, Jr.
Washington Department of NaturaZ Resources
Risk Management in Puget Sound .......................................... 230
Joseph T. Pizzo
Oceanographic Institute of Washington

ARE RESEARCH EFFORTS ANSWERING MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS?

Puget Sound Research--Making Results Available ......................... 245
Howard S. Harris
NationaZ oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Management Concerns in Puget Sound Research ............................ 249
WiZZiam A. Johnson
Washington Department of NaturaZ Resources

Informational Requirements of the Washington ........................... 259
Coastal Zone Management Program
D. Rodney Mack
Washington Department of EccZogy

SYMPOSIUM PARTICIPANTS ................................................. 263

SPECIAL
ADDRESSES

70-
I'Mr., IMP"
7

PROCEEDINGS
March 23-25, 1977
A Washington Sea Grant Publication
University of Washington - Seattle

OPENING REMARKS

Capt. Griffith C. Evans, Jr., USN (Ret.)
Trustee, Oceanographic Institute of Washington

This is in no way to be construed as a complaint, but in reviewing the agenda
for this symposium, the title could easily be reduced to "The Management of
Puget Sound." Perhaps this assertion will be made clear shortly.

Were we to go back in time to prehistory and come up through history until,
say three decades ago, the symposium title would not only be more logical,
but the sequence of words in the title would be an accurate description of
man's relation to this mentally and spiritually preoccupying body of water.
Use obviously came first. Early man used Puget Sound as a source of food, a
Fe-dium for transportation, and, quite probably, a receptacle for waste disiDosal.
It couldn't have taken long thereafter for some sort of study to have begun:
The measurement of the rise and fall of the tide, and its intervals, both
daily and monthly; the best times and places for harvesting shellfish and fish;
the discovery and word passing of locations of "safe havens" when weather
threatened those who were water-borne, etc.

This, then, was essentially the state of the art from the time of habitation
of our first native Americans until relatively recently. Puget Sound remained,
and still does remain a body of water used for the harvest of seafood, waste
disposal and transportation. We could add "recreation" to these uses as spin-
offs from transportation, and from man's earliest time there must have been
that use of "aesthetics," as few men could fail to find exhilaration or serenity
or awe in beholding the special beauty of this water environment.

Study progressed at approximately the same pace as use. Systematic bathymetry
began with the arrival of the first European explorers and is increasing con-
,stantly to cope with the requi@ements of both users and managers. Scientific
research into fisheries, oceanography, the atmosphere, biology, etc., was
begun, but prior to World War II such studies were undertaken primarily by
individual academicians and their disciples, who were investigating their own
topics of interest and concern. These of course, were useful, imaginative

and often of great significance, but they were essentially random studies--
rarely coordinated with other research--and rarely were the results of these
works known except to readers of technical and scientific publications.

The quantum leap in studying Puget Sound really happened after World War II.
In the 1940-41 period, scientists in America suggested and developed co-
ordinated undertakings to help the country prepare for a war that appeared to
be, and in the end was inevitable. After the war our national government con-
sidered scientific achievement so desirable--as did many of the scientists
themselves--that federal monies were made available for'both pure and applied
research, and among many other results, systematic and coordinated study of
Puget Sound began emerging.

These studies plus the acceleration of uses, and some of these uses had ad-
verse effects on others, inevitably led to management. This latter function
is still fragmented, which means uses and studies often are also fragmented
as each is more and more subservient to management. In fact, management in-
creasingly dominates both use and study. With various federal agencies having
spheres of jurisdiction, sometimes overlapping, and with state and local gov-
ernmental agencies in the same boat it is no small wonder that confusion often
exists. Of greater wonder is that things work at all, and sometimes are highly
effective even if the results of applied efforts are occasionally astonishing.

I can think of no better way to open a symposium such as this than having our
attention directed to the management of Puget Sound by our keynote speaker.
His position in state government is elective; namely he is the State Commis-
sioner of Public Lands, and in that capacity is also Director of the'State's
Department of Natural Resources. I don't know how many times he has been re-
elected by the people of our state, but I understand that when he first started
the only environmental impact statement heard of until then was the one Moses
had to file to have the seas parted so he could lead his tribes into Israel.
Be that as it may, those of us who have worked with him have learned to respect
and appreciate his interest in, and concern for Puget Sound. It is an honor
and a pleasure to introduce the Commissioner of Public Lands and Director,
State of Washington Department of Natural Resources, the Honorable Bert Cole.

PUGET SOUND: A PUBLIC NATURAL RESOURCE

Bert L. Cole
Commissioner of Public Lands
State of Washington

INTRODUCTION

The state of Washington is blessed with one of the most unique marine environments
in the world. Puget Sound is noted for its significance as a natural deep water
port, as well as for its fisheries and aquaculture potential, its natural beauty,
and its scientific and recreational values.

The Puget Sound Basin contains approximately 90% of the state's population. So the
future protection and proper management of the marine waters, bedlands, and shore-
lines of Puget Sound are vitali They depend on coordinated planning by public agen-
cies. They depend on the sharing of knowledge and cooperation betw6en government,
academia, industry and the public. To that end, the people who put together today's
symposium are to be commended.

After 20 years as a state-elected official, I believe strongly that we cannot afford
to be provincial in our approach to the use and protection of our natural resources.
In this case, I believe that individual and local desires relating to Puget Sound
must be considered by decision makers in the context of the present and future
needs of larger communities . . . including the state, the nation, and the world.

Directions for the management of Puget Sound began with our state's Enabling Act
and the Constitution and have evolved over the years through legislation and admin-
istrative policies. In general, our mandate from the legislature is to manage
Puget Sound for the maximum long-term public benefit. In order to accommodate
various public needs, while protecting the resource itself, a multiple use manage-
ment approach is essential.

MULTIPLE USE

For the Department of Natural Resources, which I administer, the concept of multiple
use is the guiding principle for the management of more than two million acres of
aquatic lands in Washington. The DNR is the largest marine land manager in the
state. It is responsible for managing 1,300 miles of first and second class

tidelands, 6,700 acres of harbor areas and nearly 2,000 square miles of bedlands.
In a nutshell, multiple use or shared use means that several uses or activities
can take place on the same piece of real estate. In most cases, the concept calls
for identification of the primary use of the land, but provides for compatible
secondary uses.

The benefits of such an approachare obvious. Puget Sound has a tremendous value to
citizens of Washington, the nation, and the world as a seafood producer, as an area
for shipping and international trade, as a recreation and tourist attraction, as a
sport and commercial fishing area, as well as wildlife habitat and fish spawning
and nursery ground. With careful planning, many of these uses can occur simultane-
ously or sequentially in a single area.

Certain activities can only occur on a planned rotation basis. For instance, struc-
tures such as piers, log rafts, and oyster rafts obstruct the use of the land and
water column for other activities such as boating, fishing, etc. These obstruc-
tions are not permanent, so leasing provisions are established that allow periodic
rotation of uses as demands change.

The DNR Management Plan for state land in Puget Sound includes policies and guide-
lines for the following:
navigation and commerce
public use
food, mineral and chemical production
protection of the natural marine environment
uses by abutting upland owners
revenue production

Commerce and Navigation

Today, 185,000 jobs in Washington depend on international trade. There are 21
states in the nation with a greater population than the state of Washington, but
only 5 with a higher volume of trade. Washington State has nearly twice the per
capita value of waterborne foreign trade to that of Oregon and California, and
three times that of the nation as a whole. Of the entire United States' foreign
trade with the Pacific Rim countries, we account for nearly 9% of exports and 13%
of imports.

The economic future of the state, then, is closely bound to expansion of trade.
We must consider commerce and navigation as one of the most important uses of
Puget Sound for the future.

First class tidelands and harbor areas can best accommodate commercial activities.
They are primarily useful for marine development, water dependent industry and
commerce, boat repair and manufacture, and log storage.

Harbor areas are established by the Harbor Line Commission under provisions of
Article XV of the State Constitution. According to the Constitution, these areas
are established in front of incorporated cities and towns and "shall be forever

reserved for landings, wharves, streets and other conveniences of navigation and
commerce." Harbor areas are very important to the economic position of the state,
as the interface of international shipping activities between the U.S. and the
Pacific Rim. The establishment of a harbor area precludes the use of the submerged
land within the inner and outer harbor lines for other than piers, wharfs and aids
to navigation except on an interim basis.

Industrial uses are best concentrated and not allowed to disperse throughout the
shoreline area. Full utilization of harbor areas and state-owned first class tide-
land is important if a greater portion of the shoreline is to be used for recreation
or is to be maintained in a natural shoreline condition.

Public Use (Recreation)

Public recreation is another important and highly valued use of Puget Sound. Ap-
proximately 60% of the tidelands of Puget Sound are in private ownership. Forty
percent are publicly owned and managed by the Department of Natural Resources.
Public tidelands have been generally indistinguishable from private tidelands. To
correct the situati6n, the ONR is marking selected state-owned tidelands for public
use. This program is designed to provide access for the boating public to public
property, while seeking to eliminate trespass.

Marking the beaches will al 'low for intensive management of shellfish resources and
litter control, while alleviating the congestion and overuse of the few public
beaches now available.

Most public beaches being developed are accessible only from the water. In order
to make more beaches available to non-boaters, joint government efforts will be
required to acquire uplands near population centers.

Food, Mineral and Chemical Production

It is a policy of the State Department of Natural Resources to provide for the pro-
duction of food, minerals and chemicals on marine lands, with preference given to
renewable resource activities. Tidelands and beds of navigable waters, especially
valuable 'for aquaculture, are and will be so designated, and protected from con-
flicting uses. We will continue to provide information to encourage commercial
aquacultural activity to expand into proper locations.

Traditional commercial fishing areas must be protected from competing uses that
create obstructions. Whenever structures are used for aquaculture on the beds of
navigable waters, they must be located in a way that lessens interference with
navigation, fishing and the view.

Inventories on marine lands will be conducted as to the location of significant
deposits of minerals and aggregates, and a determination made about the significance
to the state of such deposits.

Seaweed farming, funded partly by the Washington Sea Grant program this year, will
be tended in the Puget Sound by the ONR. The seaweed, Iridaea cordata, yields 50%
of its weight when dried as the colloidal substance, carrageenan. The seaweed will
be grown from spores deposited naturally on nets anchored in existing seaweed beds.

The nets can be pulled up, harvested two or three times a year, and put back again
to continue growing. If the experiment is a success, it will help show that
commercial cultivation of seaweed has an important future in Puget Sound.

Protection of the Natural Marine Environment

Puget Sound is one of the deepest and cleanest saltwater basins in the United States.
Recognizing the importance of protecting areas of natural marine environment for
ecological, educational and scientific purposes, aquatic land reserves on Puget
Sound have been established. The DNR will control their use through protective
management policies and surveillance. In certain cases these areas may be leased
or assigned to another agency for management as reserves or protective aquatic lands.

Uses by Abutting Upland Owners

The state recognizes the need to provide certain tidelands and bedlands for use by
abutting upland owners and to consider certain riparian interests in the management
of marine lands. When tidelands are leased to someone other than the abutting up-
land owner, such leases provide for the abutting owner to reach the beds of
navigable waters.

Second class tidelands not allocated for public use may be made available for lease
to the abutting upland owner without providing for public use. In those cases where
tidelands are managed for public use, the rights of private upland owners abutting
public use tidelands are recognized by marking of the intervening property lines
and posting of the tidal tract.

Anchorage areas on the beds of navigable waters are designated for use by upland
owners for mooring boats.

Revenue Production

'Under the multiple use concept, whenever the availability of the public lands is
reduced due to private use, the public must be compensated. The value of state-
managed tidelands and beds of navigable waters to the general public is recognized
by charging competing lessees the full market price for the land. Total withdrawal
for private use requires a full rental payment.

When the effects of marine uses have an adverse impact on public land, a value is
placed on the loss or impact and charged to the user.

Revenues made available from leasing of marine lands are used for marine land
management programs that are of direct benefit to the public.

First class tidelands and harbor areas in Puget Sound, unless withdrawn by the
Commissioner of Public Lands as recreational use property, are managed to produce
revenue and service to the public.

Lease rates may be reduced for up to 5 years--an incentive when lessees are involved
in research or development work which is in the public interest.

CURRENT STATE LEGISLATION

Senate Bill 2450, which reviews laws dealing with aquatic lands, was reintroduced
in the current session of the legislature. The purpose of the bill is to clearly
state the legislative policy regarding publicly owned aquatic lands, to amend
existing laws to provide consistency with that policy, and to adopt certain new
provisions needed to carry out the declared policy.

The policy provides for:
1. Retention of title by the public (no sale except to government).
2. Leasing for private use and government use which does not meet the
public use definition.
3. Free public use of land not leased,
4. Protection from unauthorized uses.
5. Acquisition of replacement land for any that is sold.
6. Management of these public lands for the benefit of all the people
of the state as a public trust.
7. Management to producethe maximum long-term public benefit.
8. Statewide public interest given priority over local interests.
9. Land classification based on ecological, social, economic, and
other values.
10. Payment of full fair market value for removal of any materials from
the land.

Another bill (SB 2448) deals with harbor areas. It completes the review of the
state aquatic land laws called for by various resolutions of the legislature. It
authorizes the DNR to enter into agreements with local government for waterway
administration, to authorize temporary occupation of waterways, to initiate
vacation of waterways.

According to the bill, harbor area improvements are to be rent free so long as the
leasehold is unbroken. Harbor area valuation is to be based on fair market value.
State-owned waterway borders are to be administered by the state rather than the
port district.

CONCLUSION

In managing Puget Sound for maximum long-term public benefit, there are naturally
many things to consider: The requirements of commerce and navigation; the rights
of private property owners; the needs of ports, cities, and commercial fisheries;
the desires of boaters, swimmers, sport fishermen, and educators. Accordingly,
in the state's plan for the future, vast areas of Puget Sound are allocated for
unobstructed multiple use.

The use and protection of Puget Sound require an evaluation of the public interest.
They require vigorous efforts in research and public information. For the common
good, individuals must set aside their particular desires, and government agencies
must work together.

What is required most of all, is dedication by each of us to the principles of
careful stewardship. For, as another Puget Sounder, Chief Seattle, said more than
100 years ago . . . "This we know. All things are connected like the blood that
unites one family. This we know. The earth does not belong to man; man belongs
to the earth."

SHORELINES AND THE CITIZEN

Nancy Thomas
Washington Environmental Council

Good afternoon. It's a pleasure for a mere environmentalist to be in the same
room with so much accumulated knowledge about marine ecosystems.

As a born opportunist, I can hardly wait to get an attendance list for this sym-
posium--because collectively you people probably know just about everything I've
needed to lay hands on over the past 4 years. You'll be hearing from me!

I'm supposed to be here today to represent the views of the Washington Environ-
mental Council and to some extent I'll do that. But most of what I'm going to
say comes from my personal experience with the subject matter of this symposium.

What is an environmentalist anyway? I say we're all environmentalists. We all
get mad when the air we're breathing gives us a sinus headache. We all turn on
the kitchen tap with a touching faith that potable water will flow therefrom.
We all wrinkle our noses and tell Junior for the third time to get away from the
television and for heaven sake take out the garbage! That's environmentalism--
being concerned about the world around us.

We environmental activists simply carry that concern one step farther. We are
just people who are sufficiently concerned about both the present and future of
the world we live in to give of our time and our money and to sally forth into
the political arena, there to suffer bloody noses, bruised egos and occasional
triumphs.

The history of the Washington Environmental-Council has been closely related to
the history of water management programs. As an organization, we were born in
the aftermath of the famous "Wild Rivers Bill" of 1967. So we've been around
quite a while and we've learned a bit, and got to know a few people.

I've written these comments in advance without the benefit of hearing yesterday's
speakers. But I'd like to give my own answer to the question: "Are federal,
state and local laws, regulations and guidelines doing the job of conserving the
marine environment?"

I say "No, they're not" and, until they give me the hook I'd like to tell you why
I feel that way.

Political decisions are made by three groups. In descending order of importance,
they are
elected officials

professional planners

citizens' committees

Now I--as a citizen environmentalist--have worked on the political end of resource
management for roughly 12 years, intensively for 7 years. I know personally most
of the politicians and planners who spoke yesterday. I know personally most of
tomorrow's speakers. Today seems to be "technology day." According to the ad-
vance program, 19 individuals authored 11 papers to be presented today- papers
containing the kinds of information essential to managing a marine resource of
great public value. How many of these information sources do I know personally?
After 12 years of activism? Not one.

Between you and me, between you and local planners, between you and the elected
officials who decide the fate of Puget Sound yawns a chasm that makes Grand
Canyon look like the Montlake Cut. You have the knowledge. But they make the
decisions.

They don't know what you're talking about. To some extent, they don't even know
you exist. And what is worse the majority don't want to know you exist.

The desire of Joe Bigbucks to build an overwater office building or a private
port next to the Nisqually Delta they do understand. They meet Joe regularly at
Rotary luncheons. Joe's a pillar of the local Chamber of Commerce, and he's also
a big campaign contributor. Joe is a personal friend.

So what happens when you march in to tell the legislative body Joe's project
should not be built because it will lead to trapping of pollutants by tidal eddies
with resulting negative impacts on phytoplankton production and/or benthic in-
fauna? Well, I'll tell you what happens. If it's a good day, they may just say
"Thank you, Dr. Jones" and proceed to grant the permit. It it's a bad day and if
you work for a public agency, they may try to get you fired for such presumption.
I've actually seen that effort made.

And in some ways the situation is getting worse. It's the fad this year to at-
tack "the bureaucracy" and the "regulatory agencies" as though they were some
hydra-headed abstract monsters, rather than groups of often dedicated individuals
trying to carry out a legislative mandate for a livable environment.

There is, unfortunately, an element of truth to'accusations of over-regulation.
But the blame for rules laid upon rules must be widely spread. Quite often it
is a regulatory agency which drafted the regs. At other times--as with Washing-
To-n's Forest Practices Act--the rules are actually written by the industry being
regulated. Still they complain. And then we come to the regulations most directly

affecting Puget Sound, the local Shoreline Master Programs. And they have been
drafted by urban planners and by citizens' committees.,

As a member of two such committees, I can tell you that the motto among the well-
meaning environmentalists and citizens at large is "when you don't really have
-the data to back up your concern you bracket the problem with four airtight
regulations and demand an EIS!" Well, if you have the votes, that solves the
problem temporarily, but it doesn't make any friends and it makes a large and
vulnerable target to shoot at when the master program goes before the local
legislative body.

So how do we bridge this chasm? How do we get the technical information you pos-
sess into the hands of those our society selects to make policy judgments, in
this instance the average citizen? That's not a rhetorical question, friends.
I'm not going to supply the answer in the next sentence because I don't have
the answer.

The two citizens' master program committees on which I served, one city, one
county, very nearly represented two extremes. On one, the local planners wanted
to be the only source of information. Requests for field trips were rejected.
Requests, indeed demands, for expert advice were refused until the master program
was virtually complete. Then the committee was given a bus tour of the port and
a short ride on the fireboat. Field trips for the record. A representative of
the State Department of Fisheries came in and supported the minority's viewpoint
with data. But nothing was changed. A representative of the Corps of Engineers
declined to appear and failed to send promised literature. That is the full ex-
tent of expertise represented in the shoreline master program of a metropolitan
area with a major river system emptying into its port. That's one way the uses
of Puget Sound are really planned.

Things were somewhat different on the county master program committee. There,
neither staff nor development interests seemed to feel threatened by technical
input, though citizens had to do some nagging, both of planners and of agencies.
Two federal and four state agencies sent representatives to answer questions or
advise subcommittees. Major industries also supplied research personnel.

When we combined the professional advice on some subjects with the old faithful
"when in doubt bracket your target" technique, we ended up with what one resource
agency noted was possibly the longest master program produced in the state, but
also one of the best.

Well, as you can imagine, we felt pretty good about that. So much so that even
after 2 years of work some of us masochists asked to be appointed to the master
program continuing review committee--and we were--and guess who's on there with
us? A number of people who had permit applications rejected and who therefore
have decided to solve those little problems by rewriting the master programs.

So let me tell you this. One, being an environmentalist or a citizen at large on
one of those committees is not fun. It's hard work; it's often carried out in a
hostile atmosphere, and it can only be done by people who really care about the
world they live in. Especially about Puget Sound. Two, as long as they're willing
to be up there on the political firing line, they deserve maximum support from the
scientific community.

What little support we got, we begged for--as on our county committee. Now how
did that come about? I'm no scientist, but I can read a little.

I can read in Section 2 of the Shoreline Management Act that the legislature as-
serted: "a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational and concerted effort,
jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the in-
herent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's
shorelines."

In Sections 10 and 13, 1 read further invocations to interagency consultation
and cooperation.

Section 3 of the State Environmental Policy Act directs consultation with and
comments of "any public agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise
with respect to any environmental impact involved."

Public Law 92-583, the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, is perhaps most ex-
plicit of all when in Section 303, "Declaration of Policy," it says: "The
Congress finds and declares it is the national policy . . . (d) to encourage the
participation of the public, of federal, state and local governments and of re-
gional agencies in the development of coastal zone management programs. With
respect to implementation of such management programs, it is the national policy
to encourage cooperation among the various state and regional agencies including
establishment of interstate and regional agreements, cooperative procedures, and
joint action, particularly regarding environmental problems."

Ah, such golden eloquence. Such high hopes it gave us all. But it never happened.
At least it never happened down at that forgotten level where we the citizens were
making basic policy.

Why did it fail at that level? Well, that is partly a rhetorical question because
I do have a partial answer. At least it's !he answer DOE and other agencies gave
me. It's a two-pjart answer and half of it even makes sense.

The first part is that agencies didn't need to participate in master program draft-
ing because they could review the completed program before final state acceptance.
That statement could be subtitled, "The Naivete of the Bureaucracy." It overlook-
ed the fact that before master programs ever went to the state, they were approved,
after formal public hearings, by local legislative bodies. Hell hath no fury like
an elected official put down by a bureaucrat.

The second part--the part that does make some sense--is that with 39 counties and
about 75 cities each preparing master programs, no agency could spare the staff
to participate in all this fragmented planning. Some did answer the anguished
wails of beleagured conservationists and sincerely interested planners. Others
metaphorically plugged their ears and issued an across-the-board refusal.

I think no one disputes that--from the point of view of good resource management,
the Shoreline Act worked better for the year or more in which it was administered
by all jurisdictions with consistency under the state guidelines.

Obviously, neither Puget Sound nor the rivers that nourish it respect arbitrary
political boundaries. From the resource management viewpoint it is ironic that
in fact rivers were quite often selected to be political boundaries. For-example,
Pierce, Lewis, and Thurston Counties all are bounded by some segments of the
Nisqually River. Jurisdiction also is shared with the federal government: a
national park, national forest, national wildlife refuge and Fort Lewis. And the
Nisqually Indian reservation borders the river, too. Several smaller towns, such
as Eatonville and Roy, have jurisdiction on important tributaries. So with that
kind of fragmented political responsibility, just how do you manage the resource?
Cooperatively? A representative of Roy and one from DuPont did work on the Pierce
County committee. Fort Lewis was represented for the first few months. The Nis-
quallies attended the first meeting. Lewis and Thurston Counties were never even
heard from. In fact, contact among conservationists on the various committees
often was the only source of information on what was being planned for the other
bank of the river. Even the planners themselves didn't seem to know or feel the
need to know, although there were and still are regular meetings of planners
arranged by the Department of Ecology.

And that is the situation on just one tributary to the great inland sea I shall
call Puget Sound. Let me make it T-lear right now that I don't propose to nitpick
about Admiralty Inlet, Hood Canal, Washington Sound, the Strait of Georgia, the
Strait of Juan de Fuca. In fact I think I will just call it the inland sea, and
in those words, include inland marine waters bordered by 12 Washington counties
and by more cities and towns than I care to enumerate. In some of those 12 coun-
ties all or some towns allowed the county to include them in its master program.
But many cities and towns chose to go it alone and they included, as you might
have guessed, most of the cities on marine waters.

Well, as I've suggested in describing my own communities' master program travails,
the great majority of these programs are almost straight-out land use plans.
They call attention to--and sometimes resolve--problems of shoreline sprawl, of
unrestricted overwater development, of the filling of estuaries and the dredging
of sandspits, of permissive dedication of urban shoreline to non-water-related
uses. They do tell the public--those who want to listen--that the waters of the
state belong to the people of the state; that their permission through their
elected government, is needed before those waters may be dedicated to private use.
And even though the private waterfront owner is much more alert to this and much
more defensive of his perceived interests than is the general public, we will
never go back to the days before the Shoreline Management Act, to the days before
Wilbour v. Gallagher (the Lake Chelan case). Too many people know now the rich-
ness of their aquatic heritagd ever to go back that far.

This is the two-fold success of the Shoreline Management Act--that people can
know what is theirs--and that governments did draw shoreline plans which recognize
a difference between upland and shoreline. No longer--as Professor Ralph Johnson
once put it--does conventional zoning simply proceed to the water's edge and
plunge like lemmings into the sea.

But there is still a void in shoreline planning--recognized if not acknowledged
by everyone involved. In the context of this symposium, let's call that void
the inland sea itself. Almost every master program, couched in confident language
regarding upland activities, comes to an uneasy halt at the mean higher high water

line. After testing the water and finding it chilly, the programs tiptoe around
and eventually discover a face-saving device: the question that must be answered
to the examiner's satisfaction before a permit may be issued.

This is not necessarily a bad idea. If the permit issuing body is truly concerned
about resource protection, the data required of the applicant may add significant-
ly to knowledge of site specific baseline conditions, and may in the very process
of compilation lead to modifications in the project. Sometimes a would-be devel-
oper sees outright that his project is no-go; sometimes he finds an opportunity
for mitigation of environmental harm.

But the fact remains that his approach is widely used because the drafters of plans
did not know what lay beyond mean higher high water in their own jurisdiction and
hence did not know what kind of value to place upon aquatic land and upon marine
resources.

So we have two interesting conditions: first a form of willingness by planning
bodies to admit they lack expertise, and second, lovely, lovely money to implement
the state's Coastal Zone Management Plan.

Taken together and given a good solid shove by you scientists and by us environ-
mentalists, they just might add up to a second chance--a chance to manage the in-
land sea and its tributaries as what they are: a single integral organism, and
a resource so valuable we have not and perhaps cannot put a true value on it.
(To our shame, we haven't really tried, but that's another dissertation in itself.)

The conservation movement in this state has always viewed the management of marine
resources as a state, regional, and federal issue because we recognize the arti-
ficiality of arbitrary political boundaries. When developers complain about in-
consistency among local master programs, I love to tell them: "Well, you should
have supported our Initiative #43, then." For those of you who've come to Wash-
ington since 1972, the Washington Environmental Council in 1970 sponsored an
initiative to the legislature, Initiative #43, which, after input from regional
citizens' councils, would have placed shoreline management at the state level.
The legislature, however, chose to write a combined state-local government alter-
native and both went on the ballot in 1972. Due to a curious quirk in Washington's
election, the voter in this instance gets a double dip. He can vote for or
against shoreline legislation and then, even if he voted against the entire con-
cept, he can choose his preference between the initiative and the alternative.

So, among opponents to any shoreline legislation, the word was out: "Vote 'No'
and vote for Alternative #43B just in case." Thus, between the nay-sayers and
fh-e- genuine proponents of local jurisdiction the present Shoreline Management Act
emerged as sort of a breech birth, but here it is and it's all we had to work with
until our state program was accepted as meeting the requirements of the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act.

A funny thing happened on the way to acceptance. The federal act with Senator
Magnuson as prime sponsor, was signed into law just a few days before our initia-
tive-alternative referendum, just too late to affect the outcome. And it was
written with a strong element of state jurisdiction--and, coincidentally of course,
both of our proposed laws seemed to be consistent, though the alternative just

barely made it. Then, over the next few years while the federal government was
writing strong implementing regulations for CZMA, our legislature was systemat-
ically nibbling away at the Shoreline Management Act, endangering its consistency
with the federal law.

In the last months before final acceptance, a national controversy raged over
Washington's plan, and it was fingernail biting time for some of us. Because
acceptance meant federal money for implementation, money to local governments
which they wouldn't turn down, money to the state for aquatic management and
baseline studies. Without those dollars, shoreline planning hung in the balance.

The federal government had a lot at stake, too. Only 2 states, Washington and
Maine, were ready for program certification and Maine's governor had abruptly re-
pudiated his state's plan. If CZMA were to remain a viable federal statute, some
state had to be accepted.

Don't ever doubt that a camel can be shoved through the eye of a needle!

I hope you'll forgive that little digression into history. But it helps explain
HbZ we are--on the one hand confronting a'disparate, often conflicting bundle of
local master programs and on the other hand looking at possible salvation-- sal-
vation in the form of federal funding of the studies needed to plan the management
of the inland sea.

As you know, the Department of Ecology presently has an aquatic management study
under way. I don't know precisely what to expect from this study, but as a citizen,
a conservationist and a,shoreline committee member, I know what I need.

Overall, I need a management philosophy that does treat the inland sea as a single
unit. Under our present system, this would require every jurisdiction to accept
uniform guidelines. And the only way this can be made acceptable is to back those
guidelines with hard data. Any number of planners would like to get the monkey of
aquatic management off their back if they can convince local legislative bodies
that uniform guidelines work to IoEial advantage and do not decrease local primacy.
One way to do this might be to convince local governments that uniform guidelines,
backed by solid data, will first lessen the likelihood of lawsuits, and second
will not place them at a competitive economic disadvantage with respect to other
jurisdictions.

Thus we need athree-way data base--the same old three I've been preaching about
for years: legal, economic, physical.

We need to know who has legal jurisdiction over what waters and for what Durooses.
And, believe it or not--after 6 years we still have to convince lawmakers that not
every permit denial constitutes a legal "taking."

We need economic data on the value of the inland sea. Oh, how we need that! Did
you ever ask the State Department of Commerce and Economic Development for data--
any data--on tourism attracted by water-related recreation? I did once, and a
very pleasant fellow told me they didn't have such information because they never
had done a study. Watch the charter boats put out from Westport. Count the out-
of-state license plates in the Anacortes ferry line. Then tell yourself the state

knows those foreigners are wandering around up here spending their money, but it
doesn't know what attracts them.

Port districts which berth a sizeable percentage of the commercial fishing fleet
can probably tell you to the penny what they make on bulk alumina or a shipload
of Toyotas, but they don't want to talk about fish landings. Partly because it
isn't a big ticket item, partly I think because they fear acknowledgement of an
economic benefit would lead inexorably to the admission that protection of down-
stream migration must be a criterion in design of port facilities.

What is the value of eel grass in Padilla Bay? Of an unbulkheaded beach where
surf smelt spawn on Hood Canal? Of a sand spit left alone, a salt marsh unfilled,
wetlands undrained? A lot of you are probably groaning right now because you see
me sneaking up on the "how do you quantify the unquantifiable" question. This is
also known as the how-much-woul d-you -pay- to-see-a -bal d-eagl e question. $10? $20?
$30? More? Or its variation--how many miles would you travel to see a bald eagle?
10 miles? 20 miles? Etc. Etc.

One day last January I made a business trip to Lopez Island. As the Klickitat
passed little Willow Island which always seems close enough to touch, there were
2 mature bald eagles perched in wind-gnarled fir on the island. Well, I didn't
pay for the gas on that trip but I can tell you-those 2 bald eagles cost me
$10.20 round-trip ferry fare for car, driver and two passengers. And I can tell
you we traveled 255 miles that day. I can tell you that only because I looked it
up while writing this speech. What I can never tell you is the picture forever
in my mind of the way those eagles looked in that tree on Willow, filed in my
mind and ready to look at and think about any time I choose, any place I choose--
for,the rest of my life. What I can't tell you either is how that picture is,
stored in the minds of the others who saw the birds because each of us sees the
world in his,own frame of reference.

I think there are--and there always should be--unquantifiables in dollar terms.
And that those unquantifiables are in truth often the richest aspect of life. So,
as an offshoot of my economic data base I fling out the challenge to scientist
and layman alike not to put a dollar value on the wonder of life, but to recog-
nize that without this element of wonder our lives are truly poverty-stricken.

The third factor--and probably the one in which citizens' committees felt the
greatest deficiency--was the physical data base. We knew some of the knowledge
was out there in print, but had neither time nor know-how to track it down. And,
as we soon discovered even the scientific community conceded that Puget Sound
shorelines were sadly under-studied. In some areas of the inland sea, that is
presently being remedied by state-funded baseline studies. How grotesque it seems.
that these study areas are biologically and economically among the most valued
shorelines of the state, and that the studies are starting there to give us a
base by which to measure future oil spill damage. Because in our fragmented
management system we also picked these same locations for major oil transfer sites.
And furthermore, our legislature is at this moment seriously considering making
Cherry Point not only the common use terminal for all Puget Sound refineries, but
also the transshipment point for the Midwest and the site of a petrochemical com-
plex. How will our descendents evaluate this hodge-podge management of the
inland sea?

But, back to the physical data base, I'm sure there are many approaches to eval-
uating intertidal and subtidal areas as well as the water column itself. One
gross method which would be helpful for openers is a manual describing the obvious
physical characteristics of shorelines and then explaining the life forms typical-
ly found in that habitat and their uses, values and place in@the marine ecosystem.
Both quantified and unquantified values. Also helpful would be the relative quan-
tity of such shoreline found in the inland sea. Ranging from the common steep
gravel beach to the uncommon undeveloped sandspit or stream delta. Such a manual
might further discuss development on various types of shoreline, the expectable
impacts, the possible means of mitigating damage. In some instances even broad
benefit/cost ratios might be included. Comparing the benefit/cost ratio of a
marina in a delta situation, for instance, with one on an ecologically less crit-
ical area, but on which the pile driving costs would be higher.

Another approach--and one which certainly should already be operative--is a site
specific data bank compiled from the many environmental impact statements done
for shoreline projects. These do vary tremendously in quality, but just as
doctors review the work of fellow surgeons, perhaps the scientific community could
establish a committee to review and verify to its own satisfaction the accuracy of
EIS data.

Another major aid will be the Department of Ecology's proposed shoreline atlas.

But we must not think narrowly of only one or two such mechanisms. The danger is
not, I assure you, in an overabundance of information or in possible overlap.' The
danger is that irrevocable decisions have been made and are being made every day
without the fundamental knowledge you possess or probably possess. Baseline
studies, data compilation and communication are essential if management of the
inland sea is to succeed--and the greatest of these is communication.

Well, I've talked a long time and I guess I've covered about everything from the
history of shoreline management and the political frustration of drafting master
programs to the desperate need for more--and more accurate--information. Anyone
asked to reduce this talk to organized outline form would probably take one look,
sit down and have a good cry.

But that's o.k. We environmentalists cry a lot, too.@ Because we dream big dreams
and hope big hopes and we work ourselves blue to make it all happen. We can stand
the heat of the political kitchen. We've been in there a.long time now speaking
for the resources of the inland sea. But we need your help, your knowledge, now
more than ever before. In the words of a somewhat better known and more eloquent
speechmaker: "Give us the tools and we will do the job."

Thank you.

Do coastal regulations
do the job intended?
AGENCY, INDUSTRY, AND ACADEMIC
VIEWPOINTS

mul,

PROCEEDINGS
March 23-25,1977
A Washington Sea Grant Publication
University of Washington - 'Seattle

THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC LAW 92-500 ON PUGET SOUND

Donald P. Dubois
Environmental Protection Agency

Puget Sound is a priceless natural resource that provides recreation and commercial
opportunities dependent on clean water. This priceless resource like others--can
stand only so much punishment. PL 92-500 (The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972) has as its prime objective the restoration and maintenance of
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In other
words, the Act was in part designed to prevent the punishment of waters--with
generally good quality--such as Puget Sound.

It is an understatement to say the Act expanded the federal role in water pollu-
tion control. It raised the level of federal funding for construction of munici-
pal sewage facilities. It elevated water quality planning and management to a
new level of significance. It--rightly so--emphasized public participation. And
it created a regulatory,mechanism requiring uniform technology-based effluent
limitations and a national permit system for municipal and industrial wastewater
dischargers. The Act is very complicated and it is highly ambitious. But, it is
working-- working to save Puget Sound and other bodies of water.

Nationally, EPA and the states have issued regulatory permits for over 20,000
industrial plants. Nearly 85% of these plants have complied with the waste abate-
ment schedules built into those per@its. Permit conditions are being monitored
and enforced. For example--as reported in the news media we have recently taken
enforcement action to insure all pulp and paper mills discharging into Puget Sound
comply with the treatment requirements expressed in PL 92-500.

EPA, states and local governments have expanded levels of construction for sewage
facilities. EPA's grant obligation last year was about $4.5 billion. This is
20 times the level of funding provided for in 1970. Industrial expenditures for
water pollution control have also risen markedly. Construction of municipal and
industrial wastewater facilities has created a new significant industry within
our economy; many new jobs have been created.

Congress debated PL 92-500 for a long time before it was finally passed. A major
reason for the lengthy debate was the issue of water quality based requirements

versus uniform technological requirements. The Congress clearly came down on the
side of uniform technologically based requirements for the entire nation. Specif-
ically, they wrote into the Act the secondary treatment for cities and best practic-
able control technology for industries is to be installed by July 1977. By July
1983 treatment required is best practicable waste treatment for cities and best
available technology for industry.
The legislative history of the Act shows that Congress felt that the Clean Water
Act of 1965 failed to bring about desirable water quality and the basis of that
Act was water quality standards. Setting ambient water quality standards and
establishing individual waste treatment requirements to use up the full assimila-
tive capacity of the environment was the traditional approach in water pollution
control programs. Yet, much'of the nation's waters became polluted. Congress
decided the nation's waters are an economic asset that must not be polluted up to
their capacity. Seattle residents had the unfortunate experience of having their
Lake Washington bathing beaches closed by pollution. As we all know, they have
fortunately been reopened because a massive effort was made to restore water quality.

There is more than enough evidence to show that the old water quality based policy
will not work everywhere in a growing, changing country. So often, under that
policy, the assimilative capacity of the receiving waters is first used up, then
overwhelmed. And that means pollution. When that point is reached, the road back
to clean water is long and costly. As a representative of a regulatory agency
charged by Congress toprotect the quality of our environment, I don't think we
can afford to take the risk that we are smarter than we were in the past and,
therefore, history won't repeat itself. But, in any case, the Law has abandon@d
the assimilative capacity concept.

Formulating waste treatment requirements here locally must consider the entire
Sound, its dynamic nature and future development, and the effect of that develop-
ment on water quality. Generally speaking, secondary or best practicable waste
treatment is our best hope to provide a margin for further social and economic
development and at the same time preserve the quality of Puget Sound. The state
of Washington recognized this when they adopted an anti-degradation approach that
calls for maintaining, wherever possible, existing water quality in high quality
areas.

While high quality waters offer a margin of safety before significant water use
losses occur, parts of Puget Sound are on the edge of that margin of safety.
Water quality studies by EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology show de-
gradation in certain relatively shallow bays such as Bellingham Bay and Port
Gardiner Bay. And, it should be kept in mind there are numerous waste discharges
to Puget Sound.

Many large cities such as Seattle, Tacoma, and Bellingham only provide primary
treatment. There are a large number of industrial wastewater treatment plants
also discharging into the Sound and adjacent waters. These primarily belong to
the wood, metal, and petroleum industries.

The national goals for water quality are placed in jeopardy if toxics, oil and
grease, nutrients, bacterial and virus organisms, and certain other substances
aren't controlled to a reasonable level in waste discharges.

Therefore, treatment systems must be designed to remove'or significantly reduce
those substances which are or could be damaging to the marine environment. Toxic
materials need to be greatly limited. Due to the potential direct and indirect
influence of solids, treatment systems should provide a high degree of removal of
these substances. Metals and pesticides absorb to solids in wastewater, thus
settleable and suspended solids may incorporate a significant fraction of a
waste's overall toxicity.

The need for the levels of waste treatment required by the Act becomes more pres-
sing as our population grows and industry expands. In part, this is because it
will be some time before technically and economically feasible means are available
to provide adequate control of all forms of pollution, particularly those from
non-point sources. Under Section 208 of the Act, however, we hope to correct some
non-point sources of pollution. But, simple logic calls for the widest possible
application of known and practicable water pollution control technology. There
will be more than enough to do in water pollution control after that has been
achieved.

From the earliest version of the legislation that resulted in PL 92-500, Congress
recognized that achieving desired water quality may require more than base level
treatment from point source discharges. For example, "non-point sources" of
pollution are thought to contribute 92 percent of the suspended solids,that enter
the nation's waterways each year, and 98 percent of the fecal coliform. When
these statistics are considered, along with the fact that a moderate-sized city
washes from its streets and parking lots between a hundred and two hundred thous-
and pounds of lead and between six and thirty thousand pounds of mercury each
year, we can begin to appreciate the importance of the work that lies ahead.

Our achievements up to now in water pollution control have come relatively easily.
Now as we further restrict the pollution contributed by industry and invest more
millions of our tax dollars in municipal and regional sewage treatment facilities,
we find we must also address the growing proportion of pollution entering our
waters from urban runoff and from carelessly managed farms and forests.

To help deal with these problems in the Puget Sound area, EPA has awarded planning
and management grants under Section 208 to Seattle METRO, the Snohomish County
Metropolitan Municipal Corporation, and the Washington Department of Ecology.
The water quality management programs being developed by these agencies will deal
with pollution from urban runoff, agricultural and forestry activities, and
dredged spoil disposal.

We are quite excited about this program provided for under Section 208 of Pl 92-500,
because it gives a challenging opportunity to states and local government to devise
innovative water quality management programs. The federal government generally
will simply be in a supportive role; providing financial and technical assistance.
The process has built into it a heavy emphasis on involving the public in a major
way. Plans are to be developed by November, 1978. And, if they are practical-and
implementable, local government can get federal and state bureaucracies out of
their hair--at least with regard to certain water quality management issues.

With the catalyst provided by Section 208, EPA is committed to a full-scale effort
to dovetail water quality planning with other environmental control activities and

regional planning by elected officials and the public in general. Other legislation,
such as the Coastal Zone Management Act and the State of Washington's Shoreline
Management Act, coordinated with PL 92-500 should also stimulate wise planning to
protect Puget Sound waters.

Another element of PL 92-500 which will impact Puget Sound is the industrial waste
pretreatment provisions. Very recently EPA proposed four pretreatment options for
review by the public. When final regulations are adopted and implemented we expect
a significant reduction in the quantity of toxic substances reaching the waters
through municipal sewage facilities. This activity will further be complemented by
the new Toxic Substances Control Act. The effects of toxic substances are not
adequately understood. Pathways, movement and action of toxic pollutants from point
as well as non-point sources are not properly defined. There is, however, enough
environmental information to support greatly limiting the discharge of all recognized
toxic substances at the earliest possible date.

For the future, we expect Congress during the present session will deal with PL 92-
500 in a positive way; i.e. the construction grant program will be continued at a
high level of funding and Section 208 (water quality planning and management) will
receive further support. Congress will also probably deal with the 1977 deadline
for installing secondary treatment for all municipal wastewater. As much as 50%
of the nation's cities can't meet the deadline--in part due to inadequate federal
funding in the past. The Administration is supporting a case-by-case review with
the potential for delaying the deadline until 1982-83.

In summary, this year Congress will be looking at the success or failure of PI 92-
500. 1 think they will find this 1972 Act has achieved its major objective--to
get this country moving to control water pollution. The nation is making progress
towards the goals of clean water which Congress established in the public interest.

Locally the goals of the Act are already met in many places and there may be examples
of discharges to the Sound where an objective observer would be hard pressed to
demonstrate overt harm. It is for that water quality reason that EPA and the
Washington Department of Ecology have given a low priority for construction grants
to certain cities discharging to the Sound. Instead we have jointly funded waste
interception and combined sewer overflow projects. However, the water quality data
and our knowledge of all the effects of the cumulative discharges to Puget Sound are
not complete. I don't think the citizens of the Puget Sound area can have con-
fidence in the future quality of the Sound if higher levels of waste treatment
aren't installed. In addition to existing problems in localized areas, the pos-
sibility of subtle, long-term pollution effects raises doubts about the wisdom
of sticking with the existing levels of waste treatment.

Secondary treatment or its equivalent is feasible--financiall-Y and technically.
That requirement in PL 92-500 is intended to keep history from repeating itself
for those waters that are still of high quality. At the same time, the requirements
allow plenty of room for further urban and industrial development. We recognize,
at this time, the environmental protection needs in Puget Sound are largely
preventive needs.

Finally, EPA and DOE have implemented programs to control water pollution, not only
from municipal and industrial point sources; but also from non-point sources and
intermittent discharges such as logging, road building, dredging, and oil spills.
The authority and driving force for many of these activities is PL 92-500. The
law is complex and has many requirements, and, if it is carried out in a timely
manner I think we can feel confident that the water quality in Puget Sound can be
maintained or improved. This.will guarantee the many recreational, commercial and
aesthetic benefits that make living here so enjoyable.

THE REGULATORY SYNDROME

Marvin L. Vialle
Washington Department of Ecology

The topic which I am supposed to address today deals with Puget Sound regulations.
"Do they do the job?" and "Are they unduly restrictive in terms of attempting to
protect the resources of Puget Sound?"

First, I would like to say just a few words about the significance of Puget Sound.
I don't imagine there is anyone in this room who does not recognize the significance
and value of this resource; however, a reminder may be in order. Puget Sound is
.one of the largest inland bodies of salt water in the world, and it is abundant in
many specific resources which are necessary and productive for-the environment and
for man. Fisheries resources in Puget Sound, on a commercial and recreation basis,
are valued at approximately $59 million per year. The recreational resource, im-
possible to measure, but just in terms of the money spent to enjoy this resource,
is approximately $134 million per year. The aesthetics, which are again impossible
to measure, but to give some rough, conservative idea, the values of rural property
bordering Puget Sound range from $150 per running foot to $205 per running foot.
This represents a $1.5 billion value of non-urban Puget Sound frontage. These are
just three of a myriad of values that are contained in what we know as Puget Sound.

The topic that I would like to address is: The Regulatory Syndrome. It-is to deal
with those regulations which have been adopted in order to protect these valuable
resources. Prior to looking at whether or not these regulations are doing their
job and whether they are unduly restrictive, I think we have to go back and look at
why regulations were developed and how they were developed over time.

Regulations of one sort or another, either in law, formally adopted, or just soci-
etal understandings between two or more people have been in existence, basically,
since there were people on this earth. It is said that when God created Eve, Adam's
rights were cut in half because now he could not infringe upon her rights. Taking
that one step further, everytime the population of the world has doubled, mankind's
rights have been cut in half.

Regulations are, by their nature, designed to protect the right of one individual
from transgression by another individual. Regulations are also to protect those

"things" with no voice or advocate in decision. First, though, it has to be agreed
that the object of the regulation is worth protecting; in.other words, that it
has value.

Regulations have been developed over a period of time regarding traffic patterns
on Puget Sound and throughout the other bodies of water--rules of the road if you
will. These grew out of a recognition that the people and property plying the
waters are of worth. There are certain recognized signals for passing. Sail boats
not under power have the right of way over Power boats, so forth and so on, as I'm
sure most of you know. While most of these are not codified in terms of law or
regulation, they are still "regulation" because they are recognized by society as
rules which should be adhered to in order to protect that value which they are
trying to preserve; i.e., life and reduction of injuries.

Perhaps in some people's eyes, the other end of the spectrum, is shoreline manage-
'nent--which is designed to protect the values that the people associate with having
natural, unspoiled shorelines in portions of Puget Sound and assuring that reason-
able uses are made of those shorelines where development does occur. Shoreline
flanagement attempts to strike a balance between the individual's freedom to develop
and the public's right to be assured that the development will not infringe upon
society's desires and needs.

Other regulations that affect Puget Sound relate to shellfish harvesting, relate
to fishing, relate to vessel traffic care, relate to ferries, relate to Indian
fishing rights, relate to aquaculture, and so forth and so on. How were these
regulations developed? Basically, they were developed in a piecemeal fashion over
a period of time. No one sat down and said, "This is Puget Sound. We need a set
of regulations to protect it." What happened instead was that a value was recogniz-
ed, and the legislature--the bureaucrats--the public--whoever, developed a scheme
to protect that value. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with approaching a
problem this way. In fact, it is probably impossible to do it any other way. It
is obvious that values and potential threats are not going to be recoqnized all in
one fell swoop. It is not going to be the hand of God coming down to say, "These are
all the values there. Let's develop a comprehensive regulation that will protect
them." Just one example of values that cannot be recognized, either in planning or
regulations, at a given point in time, is historic value. Development of Fort
darden in Puget Sound was designed to protect potential destruction by invasion.
The area is now serving a recreational and historic purpose. It would have been
virtually impossible to recognize these future values of this site at the time it
.qas developed for military purposes.

There has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the Trident Submarine Base
at Bangor. Who is to say that in future years this will not serve as a historical
site showing the primitive military approach and weaponry once designed to protect
our nation? The fact that development of regulations is piecemeal creates
certain problems.

One problem is that new regulations are frequently adopted without review of reg-
ulations already on the books. This creates a potential for duplication, overlap,
and conflict between one regulation and another. Also, there is the problem that
a value that was recognized 20 years ago as being worthy of protection may, given
society's changing needs and additional scientific information 1) not either need

protection or be worthy of protection, or 2) may not be being protected in the
proper manner because a regulation may not have been designed utilizing the best
available information. It's a parallel situation with what is the best practical
technology, Many of our environmental programs are based upon using best tech-
ology; however, what is best technology today is not necessarily going to be what
is best technology next year. This is, of course, the reason for utilizing that
approach; however, this has not been utilized for that long a time. Regulations
such as those regarding land use, promulgated 20 years ago, which were designed
to promote heavy growth in an area, might be actually counterproductive if now the
desires are to develop a sustained moderate, or slow, or no growth policy.

Another aspect which must be taken into account is the fact that regulations are
developed by those governments that are best able to address the problem at the
time the regulations are developed. Essentially, you have a multi-jurisdictional
system involving Puget Sound. You have the federal government with heavy involve-
ment in Puget Sound. Look, for instance, at the Coast Guard role in Puget Sound.
You have the state of @ashington, which is a major factor in this. Within the
state of Washington, you have a variety of agencies. You have, for instance, the
Department of Ecology, the agency which I represent. You have the Department of
Commerce and Economic Development whose mission is essentially to assist in the
development of areas, including Puget Sound, for economic and employment reasons.
You have the Department of Natural Resource; you have just heard Comaissioner Cole,
who has again a different mission. You have, perhaps coming up more in the future,
the State Energy Office, and you have the Department of Fisheries, again a major
contributor to what controls are placed in the Puget Sound area. I'm sure there
are a number of others that could be listed. Each of these looks at the waters and
shorelines of Puget Sound as it relates to its function and its legislative man-
dates. Beyond that, you have local governments who have a longstanding and very
significant role within Puget Sound. Within the local government, of course, you
have a number of cities and counties, port districts, and other entities, all of
which have some jurisdiction in the area.

So, by the time you take all the federal agencies, all the state agencies, and all
of the local governments and then develop regulations to protect certain, but
probably different values over a long period of time, you essentially have a con-
glomerate of regulations. I guess the only thing that is really surprising is the
fact that they work as well as they seem to or, indeed, that they work at all. I
don't think this is necessarily the result of the regulations being developed that
well; I think it's a result of the application of regulations basically being made
by reasonable people.

Again, here, I would like to emphasize that I don't think that anyone is to blame
for this situation developing. It has developed in every part of the country and
every part of the world, I'm sure, and has developed because of the regulatory
syndrome: Time, separation of jurisdictions, and the protection of differing values.

The next aspect of the regulatory syndrome relates to what, in theory, is the answer
to the problems that I have raised, and it's called planning. Planning, in theory,
is designed to look at the interrelationships of the various factors and to develop,
out of those interrelationships, a comprehensive scheme to recommend protection and

actions that will best serve the various interests. Unfortunately, planning, as a
tool in this system, also falls into the regulatory syndrome trap; that is, plans
in Puget Sound and, again, elsewhere throughout society, tend to be limited in
scope, tend to be piecemeal, and they tend to be done over a period of time without
adequate consideration given to other values and other aspects.

For instance, there is undoubtedly, somewhere, a comprehensive plan for boat launch-
ing ramps on Puget Sound. The probability is that there may be two or three of them
by two or three different agencies. There are also, undoubtedly, plans for fishing
patterns in Puget Sound. There may be some that are done by agencies. There may be
some that are done by legislators, and there may even be some that are done*by
judges. You can go down the list, in terms of all aspects of planning, and I think
you will find the same thing applies.

Take land use planning--there are land use plans for areas that border on Puget
Sound. There probably is some semblance of a land use plan for each city and county
which is bordered by Puget Sound. They are necessarily well integrated and well
coordinated, they may not even recognize the same set of values. Some of this is
inevitable. But over a period of time, with differing community values, with
different jurisdictions developing them, we have fallen into this syndrome of
piecemealing.

But I am not (and I can say this, having a background in planning) calling for a
comprehensive plan of Puget Sound to be the solution to the problems, because I
don't think it will solve the problems.

Now that I have outlined the process I'd like to more specifically address the
questions of whether regulations are effective and whether or not they create
undue burdens.

In my opinion,_they are generally effective in protecting the values that have been
identified and agreed upon. However, there are incr@easing conflicts between values
that must be resolved. The most prominent of these is the conflict or potential
conflict between assuring environmental quality and the need for energy sources,
i.e., oil transport. The key questions here are:
1. What degree of assurance of environmental quality is acceptable--
notice I did not say what degree of environmental quality. There
is constantly a risk to quality--the question is to what degree
can and/or should this be maintained.
2. What is the need and what are the practical alternatives available
to satisfy those needs.

These appear to me to be the key is'sues being addressed by both the opponents and
the proponents of increased oil transport on Puget Sound.

Regarding the question whether or not the current regulations are unduly restric-
tive? The answer, I guess, is an unequivocal, yes and no.
For the most part regulations are maintaining current societal values, and are be-
ing administered in a fair, even-handed way. If an individual or a company desires
something that will result in a modification of the Puget Sound resource there are

mechanisms which can be used for a determination of whether the individual rights
outweigh any public rights and vice versa. The bureaucratic and judicial system
serve as necessary vehicles to make those determinations and opportunity is
provided for full consideration by all concerned parties.

On the minus side, as alluded to earlier, the regulatory syndrome has created a
system whereby there are a diversity of agencies, governmental levels differing
time frames for authorizations.

Without creating chaos in the structure there are steps that can be taken to make
the regulatory system more workable.

One approach would be for review of regulations in a zero base concept. Thi 's would
involve reviewing the values that today's society places on Puget Sound and looking
at them as a totality rather than segments. This could then be used as a starting
point for getting the federal, state, and local govenments to develop a regulatory
scheme that will preserve and balance those values in a way best suited to serve
the public's need. This approach may be an impossible dream, but perhaps worthy of
concentrated attempt.

A second partial solution is to encourage and sponsor more regional efforts to
develop management programs. For instance DOE is sponsoring and participating in
a Grays Harbor study to develop an agreed upon solution to dredge spoil disposal.
The effort includes 5 federal agencies, 4 state agencies, and 8 local agencies.
Hopefully, and I am very optimistic, the study will produce a coordinated, agreed
upon solution to this problem, and prevent secondary problems in regulation
implementation.

The third suggestion is to work toward combining permit systems, particularly
those that serve similar purposes. As an example, and it's only one of several,
Section 10 permits, administered by the Corps of Engineers, are often required
on the same projects that require Shoreline Management Permits. While I could
think of several reasons why these are not administered as one, rather than two
permits, I don't know how valid the reasons are, and strongly feel that an attempt
should be made to integrate the permits.

In summary, overall the system work@ well, but there are areas in need of improve-
ment. The solution is, I think, in terms of looking at what we have, looking at
why we have it, and making whatever necessary changes there are to m6ke it work-
able, to streamline it so that minimal delays and minimal red tape stand.in the
way of what is good development or good protection as opposed to--because of the
piecemeal problem--slowing down those good ones, as well as slowinq down the ones
that should be slowed down or stopped. It is not in anyone's interest to.delay a
good or a bad project. It is in everyone's interest to allow a good project to
go forward; and to stop, in the shortest possible time, a bad project.

BAYS AND ESTUARIES
The Ultimate Shoreline Management Challenge
for Local Government

Dennis L. Derickson
Snohomish County Planning Department

INTRODUCTION

It has always been a bit ironic to me that the effective date of the Washington
State Shoreline Management Act and the beginning of my career as a professional
urban planner occurred on precisely the same date, June 1, 1971. 1 suppose it
should have come as no surprise to me then that my first work assignment was to
begin the challenging task of translating this landmark legislation into an
effective program for managing the extensive shoreline areas of Snohomish County.
Little did I realize then just how demanding this job was going to'be. After
nearly 6 years, 146 shoreline substantial development permits, 1 shoreline in-
ventory, 1 shoreline management master program and many Excedrin headaches later,
I have formed a few opinions about this state's shoreline management program that
I would like to share with you.

THE PROBLEM

My principal concern relates to the tremendous challenge facing the cities and
counties responsible for managing the use and development of the Puget Sound
Basin's extensive system of bays and estuaries. Although some of you may dis-
agree, it is my belief that the problems confronting local governments, as they
attempt to oversee the best long-term use and conservation of these particular
shoreline areas, are becoming much more severe than those involved in managing
any other type of shoreline resource. Although it is always dangerous to gen-
eralize, I feel that we have already succeeded in fulfilling the main objectives
of the Shoreline Management Act in its application to most of our state's fresh
water and non-estuarine saltwater shoreline areas. With adequate state assist-
ance, local governments shou-ld be able to continue successfully implementing
their shoreline master programs in these areas. However, it is my.contention
that even with the additional regulatory and financial support provided by the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act, cities and counties in the Puget Sound Basin
will not be able to insure that their bays and estuaries Will be used and protected

30.

in accordance with the provisions of their Shoreline Management Master Programs
unless additional steps are taken to strengthen their management capability. I
might also add that I feel the cities and counties managing the bays and estuaries
located on our Pacific Ocean coastline are faci-ng the same challenge.

The primary emphasis of my paper will be to describe the principal aspects of this
growing shoreline management problem facing local government. Where possible I
will refer to the recent shoreline management experiences of Snohomish County to
aid in this problem definition effort. I will also attempt to suggest some meas-
ures that would be helpful to local governments in improving their capability to
effectively provide sound long-term management of their bay and estuary resources.

It is quite evident that a substantial number of important factors are contributing
to the continuing and often increasing difficulties being experienced by cities
and counties implementing shoreline and coastal zone management planning programs
for the Puget Sound Basin's bays and estuaries. The factors I will discuss first
relate directly to the intrinsic characteristics of these coastal zone resource
systems and concern the major planning problems they create for local governments
attempting to make wise long-term decisions affecting their future use. The other
factors subsequently presented can be grouped around the specific problems involved
in administering the present Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit
System in our bay and estuarine areas.

PLANNING ISSUES--INTRINSIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RESOURCE

The great multi-faceted value and inherent attractiveness of our bay and estuary
resources is a dominating planning factor which in turn has placed great pressure
on local government shoreline management planning and permit administration ef-
forts throughout the Puget Sound Basin. Not only is the competition between po-
tential users of these resources usually much more intense than in other shoreline
areas, but the number of users competing for the use of any particular portion of
these areas is often much greater. For example, even the pristine and semi-isolated
Port Susan Bay/Stillaguamish Estuary located in the relatively undeveloped northern
portion of my county is experiencing this kind of pressure. At least five distinct
private interest groups (including aquaculture firms, farming interests, sportsmen,
local residents, and conservationists), four state resource agencies, an Indian
tribe, and the City of Stanwood are vigorously vying for use, control or protection
of some of the same intertidal areas of this estuary. A proposal by an aquacultural
firm to harvest the bay's abundant supply of softshell clams with mechanical har-
vesting equipment precipitated the current struggle, but its outcome will have long-
term implications for the future use of this estuary which will extend far beyond
clam harvesting. The present clam harvesting problem has also been complicated by
the fact that jurisdiction over its possible resolution is shared by Snohomish
and Island Counties, the Departments of Fisheries, Game, Natural Resources, Ecology,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, several farmers wish to create
additional upland farm land by diking some of the bay's wetlands, and the City of
Stanwood would like the Corps of Engineers to undertake a massive dredging project
involving rehabilitation of the old main river channel in order to improve naviga-
tion and water quality. This issue has finally become so embroiled in controversy
that several state representatives have proposed new state legislation which would
establish a two-year moratorium on mechanical clam harvesting until extensive studies
have been conducted to determine its long-term impact on the estuary.

The Port Susan Bay dredging, diking, clam harvesting controversy also dramatizes
how the fragile nature and very high long-term value of the Puget Sound Basin's
estuarine resources complicates local government's shoreline management task.@ Un-
like many other resource allocation programs where.decisions are often made within
a relatively short time frame (10 to 20 years), the special nature of our estuarine
resources requires that we look much further ahead when committing them to future
use. The scarcity of these resources combined with their fraoile character and
rapidly increasing long-term value for food production, recreition, transportation,
and many other uses, has created an extremely demanding resource allocation chal-
lenge for affected cities and counties. The complexity and fragility of our bay
and estuary biological and geo-hydraulic systems cause most resource-modifying
shoreline development commitments in these areas to be basically irreversible.
Thus, future use options of potentially great long-term value are eliminated each
time local government approves consumption or development of bay or estuarine re-
sources. At the same time, however, the pressure on local government to approve
these irreversible modifications is often enormous. Furthermore, it is obvious
that no matter how desirable the preservation of future estuarine use options may
be, their preservation cannot always-be used as an argument to stymie currently
heeded shoreline development.

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT ADMINISTRATION

The Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit System administered by
local government is the principal mechanism used to implement the planning ob-
jectives for Puget Sound Basin bays and estuaries contained in each city and
county Shoreline Management Master Program. Without effective local administra-
tion of this permit system, the legislative mandate contained in the Shoreline
Management Act and the policies and regulations of local master programs desiglied
to carry out this mandate are of little value. Unfortunately, the efforts by
local governments to implement the objectives of their master programs, as they
pertain to our bays and estuaries have not been totally successful. Although, the
completion and adoption of their shoreline management master programs during the
past 2 years have aided most cities and counties considerably in carrying out the
shoreline permit issuance responsibilities assigned to them under state law, nu-
erous problems remain unresolved. Most of these problems are more severe in cases
where the substantial development permit request involves a bay or estuary. Some
of the most notable problems include:

1. a lack of adequate information about the complex and diverse array of
interrelated estuarine biological and geo-hydraulic systems;

2. a confusing pattern of overlapping, fragmented and competing local
government jurisdictional boundaries;

3. a variety of serious conflicts among the various state statutes
controlling the use and development of coastal zone resources,
particularly as they apply to bays and estuaries;

4. a complicated, uncoordinated and overlapping system of state and
federal development permits;

5. an inadequate ability by local government to enforce substantial
development permit requirements and performance conditions.

My analysis of the impact of these problems on Snohomish County's Shoreline
Management Program indicates that they have had a pronounced effect on the amount
of time and effort required to process substantial development permits for pro-
jects located on our bays and estuaries. From June 1, 1971 when the Shoreline
Management Act became effective through March 1, 1977, Snohomish County has pro-
cessed 246 substantial development permits. Of this total 51 were for projects
located on bay or estuarine shorelines. Although they constitute only slightly
more than 1/3 of the total permit volume, my evaluation indicates that these
permit requests have required a disproportionately high percentage of the time
and effort of all participants in the county's permit review process. On the
average, each bay or estuary related permit request required between 50 and 60%
more planning staff, Planning Commission and Board of Commissioner time to pro-
cess than other types of shoreline permits. The most complex and controversial
bay or estuary related permit requests often require 5 to 10 times more effort to
process than the other types of permit requests.

The percentage of substantial development permit requests appealed to the State
Shoreline Hearings Board, which were linked to Snohomish County's bays and es-
uaries, is also an indicator of the difficulties being encountered by local
governments. Eight permits processed by Snohomish County have been appealed to
the State Shoreline Hearings Board and of this total, 6 were located on bay or
estuarine shorelines. The amount of planning staff time involved in processing
these appeals has also been very high.

Information Deficiencies

Although our coastal zone resource data base is continually expanding, substantial
gaps remain. Many of these gaps relate to our bays and estuaries. In Snohomish
County for example, we still do not have adequate information about the composi-
tion or magnitude of our estuarine salt marshes and wetlands, nor do we know ex-
actly how much of this productive resource remains in the overall Puget Sound
Basin. We are then vulnerable to the developer who brings in a "hired gun" con-
sultant who proceeds to tell our elected decision-makers that as a marine biologist
he can assure them that removing another 90 acres of salt marsh from the Snohomish
Estuary's ecosystem in order to construct a marine industrial complex, "really
won't make any difference." Hopefully, data gathering projects now underway,
such as the development of a Coastal Zone Atlas by the Department of Ecology, will
reduce the magnitude of this problem. However, in many instances the only efficient
method of acquiring needed project evaluation data is to compile it after a specific
substantial development permit request is received by the local agency. This in
turn may place a major strain on that agency's staff and financial resources, un-
less the applicant can be required to furnish the needed information in order to
comply with the State Environmental Policy Act or other development ordinances.

Local Government Jurisdiction Problems

Although the boundaries of substantial development permit issuing cities and coun-
ties do not overlap, they often do not make much sense. In addition, politically
and financially powerful development oriented special purpose agencies such as
diking, port, public utility, and sewer districts often overlap and intertwine to
form a complicated jurisdictional maze. To make matters worse, cities often
compete with each other and the county to gain-jurisdiction over certain attractive
bay and estuary areas.

An example of this competition for jurisdiction in my county involved a major land
owner in the Snohomish River Estuary who easily convinced the City of Marysville
to annex his 120 acre salt marsh island in order to enhance his chances for devel-
oping the property. This annexation request was approved by the Snohomish County
Boundary Review-Board despite the strong objections of the Snohomish County Plan-
ning Department that the annexation would constitute a clear violation of the
Board's legislative charge to create efficient urban service areas, maintain log-
ical physical boundaries, and reduce the competition among cities for unincorporated
territory.

Improved shoreline planning and management coordination have been achieved through
the development of master programs, but permit administration problems continue to
occur on a regular basis. In my opinion the only real hope for additional juris-
diction coordination in bay and estuary shoreline areas would involve having the
legislature impose a stronger mandate on boundary review boards and affected state
agencies to require it.
State Statute Conflicts

During the 88 years since statehood, the Washington State Legislature has enacted
a multitutde of laws affecting the use of our bays and estuaries. For example,
several chapters ofthe Revised Code of Washington are devoted entirely to the sub-
ject of enabling legislation for port districts. Similar treatment is also given
to a number of other related subjects. When so much legislation is devoted to the
use of one particular resource, major conflicts inevitably occur. Some of these
conflicts even involve the state constitution. These conflicts threaten the ability
of local governments to carry out the policy mandates of the Shoreline Management
Act embodied in their individual master programs. This threat is particularly
serious with regard to bays and estuaries. One glaring example is found in
RCW 53.25 which grants the port districts of this state the power to classify un-
developed tidelands within their jurisdiction as marginal land regardless of their
actual characteristics or overall public value. The mere fact that a parcel of
land is subject to being submerged by water is enough to qualify it for "marginal
land" status along with any of several other loosely worded conditions. The
simple passage of a resolution by the commission of a port district declaring this
tideland to be marginal land is considered by RCW 53.25.210 to be prima facie
evidence that such land is marginal as defined in RCW 53.25.030. No other criteria
or evaluation process need be used. Such a designation by the port district then
makes these so called marginal lands eligible for condemnation, reclamation and
ultimate development as port facilities. Once such condemnation action is taken,
a port district is in a strong position to pressure the local municipality for
development approval and even major revision of the local shoreline management
master program where necessary.

Another serious problem has been created for local governments a ttempting to imple-
ment their shoreline management programs by an outdated provision of the state con-
stitution. In my Snohomish County example, the City of Edmonds found itself in a
serious dilemma when it attempted to encourage multi-purpose public access oriented
use of its shorelines. The project involved construction of a recreational fishing
pier off the end of the Port of Edmonds marina breakwater by the State Department
of Fisheries. Just when it appeared that all major obstacles to this much needed
project were finally eliminated, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) announc-
ed that it would not enter into an inter-agency land use agreement which would .
have permitted the Department of Fisheries to obtain a long-term lease for the use
of the tidelands under the proposed pier. DNR stated that such a lease agreement
would'be illegal because the state constitution requires that all designated harbor
areas be utilized strictly for port and navigational purposes. However,after con-
siderable,pressure was put on DNR by numerous state legislators, the department
agreed to enter into the lease agreement with the Department of Fisheries by classi-
fying the fishing pier as a "temporary use" although the lease would actually run
for more than fifty years.

Although in this instance the story had a happy ending, I still believe that a
thorough review of all state laws should be undertaken and that a concerted effort
should be made to eliminate the major statutory conflicts which threaten to under-
mine our efforts to achieve good shoreline management, particularly in our bays
and estuaries.

UNCOORDINATED STATE AND FEDERAL PERMIT PROCEDURES

The wide assortment of permits and approvals required by various state and federal
agencies for projects located within this state's bays and estuaries has led to
numerous problems for local governments as they administer their shoreline manage-
ment programs. I am sure many of you have had your own first hand experience in
trying to muddle through this permit maze, so I won't attempt to describe all
facets of this problem. However, I would like to discuss one particular problem
which too often makes an unnecessary contribution to local government's permit
adminstration difficulties. This problem relates to the failure of some state and
federal agencies to consistently notify applicants for their particular perm,.its,
that they should also check with the city or county having jurisdiction to deter-
mine whether or not a substantial development permit is required. I speak with
considerable experience on this subject because too often, the staff of our depart-
ment has encountered prospective shoreline developers who have made us the target
of their anger, disappointment and frustration after being told that they would
have to obtain another permit, when in fact the blame for their unnecessary permit
delay rested with another public agency.

Better still, I believe we should work toward establishing a permit coordination
system whereby all local, state and federal agencies would be required to specify
that their shoreline related permits would only become valid after the applicant
successfully obtained a substantial development permit or provides written confirm-
ation that one is not required. Compliance with this requirement would not be that
difficult for most public agencies and it would provide substantial benefits to
both permit applicants and local government. Hopefully, some significant permit
coordination reforms will be undertaken, which would begin to alleviate some of the

major problems related to shoreline management permit administration. For example,
greater use and further modification of the state's existing Environmental Coordina-
tion Procedures Act would lead to some notable improvements in the coordination of
state permits for major project actions.

Full implementation of the "federal consistency" requirement outlined in the Coastal
Zone Management Act's regulations would also insure that federal agency actions
and permit approvals would not conflict with the processing of substantial develop-
ment'permits by local government. However, I am disturbed by recent reports that
certain federal agencies are making a concerted effort to weaken these regulations.
Finally, recent use of federal Section 306 Coastal Zone Management funding by the
Department of Ecology to assist in providing permit coordination personnel in other
state agencies and departments is already providing some improvement in the present
state shoreline permit coordination efforts and should be continued.

ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SYSTEM

A persistent problem for most local governments during the past 5@2 years has cen-
tered on the difficulty of achieving effective enforcement of their Shoreline Man-
agement Substantial Development Permit Systems. As was the case with the other
permit administration problems discussed previously, permit enforcement difficul-
ties often seem to be the most severe in bays and estuary areas. The reasons for
this are directly linked to the factors contributing to the other administration
problems discussed previously.

My experience in Snohomish County has led me to believe that the most serious
shoreline management enforcement problem is not related to apprehending fly-by-
night developers who are conducting shoreline development activities without any
local permits. Instead, the main problem for local government seems to be to con-
sistently and effectively insure that developers (both public and private) carry
out their shoreline projects and activities in full accordance with the provisions
set forth in their properly obtained substantial development permits. Unfortun-
ately, it seems that most local governments along with the Department of Ecology
and State Shoreline Hearings Board are better at prescribing permit conditions
than enforcing them. The chronic shortages of enforcement personnel and adequate
legal assistance experienced by most local governments have been a prime contribu-
tor to this problem. Typical local government budgetary priorities dictate that
permit processing activities must take priority over permit enforcement. Vigorous
permit enforcement action at the local level can also be politically risky for
local officials, which may-explain the conspicuous lack of local enthusiasm for
such efforts.

In Snohomish County no major effort has ever been undertaken to review all of the
more than 120 substantial development permits which the county has issued during
the past 51-, years. Such a review would be intended to determine whether all con-
ditions specified on the permit for performance of development and operation have
been met satisfactorily. I suspect that few other-local governments have conducted
such an enforcement review either. Instead, as in our county, they have probably
struggled along, responding where possible to compl,ainis regarding individual
shoreline projects.

Hopefully, the provision of Section 306 Coastal Zone Management funds to local
governments to aid in permit administration efforts will encourage more active
permit enforcement programs. In fact, the City of Seattle is beginning efforts
to undertake such a program already. My basic concern at this point is that un-
less active enforcement programs are undertaken by more local governments, par-
ticularly by those with bays and estuaries, future shoreline developers will be
encouraged to disregard some of the important performance conditions attached to
the shoreline permits authorizing their projects. I am fearful that a very un-
desirable situation could develop wherein many prospective applicants may readily
agree to fulfill all performance conditions stipulated by local government in
order to obtain substantial development permits for their projects, while actually
having no intent to fully comply with these conditions once the project is under-
taken. Although performance bonding and similar techniques can be used to supple-
ment normal permit compliance procedures and reduce such potential abuses, they
should not be considered as substitutes for active field enforcement programs.

It is also very important that in those situations where local government is un-
willing or unable to take effective enforcement action against a violator, the
Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's office must be prepared to promptly
intervene and take appropriate action to insure compliance with the Shoreline
Management Act. This has not happened in the past.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, I urge you not to become complacent about this state's recent shore-
line planning and management efforts. A good state and local government partner-
ship has been established which has been responsible for development and implemen-
tation of the nation's,best shoreline and coastal zone management program.

However, we face some unprecedented challenges which will focus on our Puget
Sound Basin bays and estuaries, the most valuable and vulnerable coastal zone
resources we have. Only a renewed effort by all local governments to effectively
administer their individual Shoreline Management Master Programs, combined with
the active and expanded support of the general public and all other public agencies
at all levels of government can assure that the best possible long-term decisions
regarding the conservation and development of these most unique and irreplaceable
resources will occur.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A PUBLIC AGENCY IN ACCEPTING ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
IN THE USE OF PUGET SOUND

Richard S. Page*
Executive Director, METRO

This paper addresses the issue of environmental risk and what it means to a munic-
ipal discharger planning to meet the water quality goals of P.L. 92-500--the fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. As with any resource manage-
ment decision, certain risks must be assumed in balancing the environmental, social
and economic values of a community. A major issue in our present planning for the
goals of that law is how much risk an agency should assume in making decisions that
can affect its own region. More specifically, since METRO understands the various
risks involved, should not METRO be allowed to make decisions affecting Puget Sound?

Making such decisions is nothing new for the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
(METRO). METRO is a regional agency providing water pollution abatement and sewage
treatment service to the communities in the Seattle metropolitan area. METRO is
also responsible for public transportation. Serving a population area of about
one million,.METRO depends on Puget Sound for the economical and safe disposal of
treated wastewater.

HISTORY

METRO was formed in 1958 to correct the major water pollution problems in the
Seattle metropolitan area. Increased population and increased wastewater were the
prime causes for a public health concern about Puget Sound and the eutrophication
of Lake Washington.

Thirteen communities surrounding Lake Washington were discharging effluent into the
lake after secondary treatment. In Seattle most of the sewage from a combined
sewage system (rainwater and sewage) was discharged directly into salt water without
any treatment at all.

Scientists at the University of Washington alerted the community to a pollution
problem that would become more severe if something were not done. The environmental
risks were extremely high. Citizens listened to scientific predictions and recom-
mendations and then voted in 1958 to form METRO and tax themselves to finance a
solution.

Present Address:
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Washington, D.C. 38

Now 20 years and $150 million later all sewage effluent has been diverted from the
lake and is treated prior to discharge to salt water. Treatment facilities include
the 125-million-gallon-per-day West Point primary treatment plant, which is the
largest municipal discharger to Puget Sound, and the 36-million-gallon-per-day
Renton treatment plant, which discharges secondary treated effluent into the Duwam-
ish River estuary, which flows into Puget Sound. Secondary treatment removes ap-
proximatley 85 percent of the oxygen-demanding materials from the effluent, while
primary achieves approximately 30 percent removal. In addition to these new facil-
ities, METRO operates three smaller plants that discharge primary treated effluent
to Puget Sound: the Alki, Carkeek Park and Richmond Beach treatment plants.

These five facilities have been the basis of the Puget Sound area's significantly
improved water quality over the past 20 Years. METRO formed a laboratory in 1963
to monitor water quality and maintain data.

The goals and requirements of Public Law 92-500, however, have caused us to re-
examine METRO's treatment processes. The law calls for elimination of pollutant
discharges to navigable waters by 1985. The law also sets up two interim goals
for 1983: protect fish, shellfish and wildlife, and make the waters "fishable-
swimmable," or usable for recreation. "Best practicable" waste treatment (BPT)
has yet to be clearly defined. The Environmental Protection Agency has defined
BPT as secondary treatment plus additional treatment levels which will satisfy
local water quality needs.

Thus another important decision, similar to that made in 1958, must be made this
year. How can the goals of the law best be met? Are the best ways of fulfilling
the goals of the law even legal?

While cleaning up Lake Washington METRO recognized that sound scientific advice is
necessary to assist public agencies in arriving at the most environmentally sound,
economically and socially desirable methods for achieving clean waters. METRO
began planning for theBPT goal soon after P.L. 92-500 was enacted. Planning in-
cluded attempts, with other water pollution abatement agencies across the country,
to persuade Congress that the law should be amended to allow flexibility for
agencies to meet both national and local goals.

The BPT effort was based on evidence from researchers. A 1973 scientific analysis
of the central basin of Puget Sound, for example, strongly suggested that conven-
tional secondary treatment--removing additional oxygen-demanding materials from
wastewater discharges--might not be necessary to improve or maintain dissolved
oxygen levels of Puget Sound. Further, Dr. Alyn Duxbury (1975), Professor of
Oceanography at the University of Washington, concluded that nature, rather than
man, apparently controls the overall water quality in Puget Sound.
Other research has suggested the potential serious water quality and public health
concerns associated with combined sewer overflows into Lake Washington, the Ship
Canal, and along the Seattle waterfront. Overflows of untreated wastewater result
in uncontrolled discharge of toxicants, such as heavy metals. We certainly do not
want raw sewage on freshwater swimming beaches during the summer, nor do we want
the associated visual damage to the waters.

For these reasons METRO has worked to amend the law to allow ocean dischargers to
bypass the secondary treatment requirement, whenever scientific evidence recommends
this course, and to proceed directly to actual water quality problems and achieve
the goals of the law through best practicable treatment technology. However, no
legislative changes have taken place to allow agencies this flexibility. Second-
ary treatment, METRO believes, is not the only way to insure high water quality.
A decision to bypass the 1977 secondary treatment requirement could allow money to
be spent on more obvious water quality needs such as reduction of combined sewer
overflows. This course would still achieve the goals of P.L 92-500 without the
arbitrary commitment to secondary treatment which has no predictable benefits to
Puget Sound.

Before passage of P.L. 92-500, METRO was already working in partnership with the
Washington State Department of Ecology and its predecessor agencies in developing
and implementing a comprehensive water quality management plan for the Seattle
metropolitan area. We believe we have succeeded in tailoring a plan to meet the
physical, social and economic requirements of this area for clean water. Lake
Washington and Elliott Bay are cleaner than before and generally meet the "fishable-
swimmable" goal of P.L. 92-500. Both water bodies are intensively used and enjoyed
by the citizens of this community.

Since many of the requirements of P.L. 92-500 were foreseen by the state of Wash-
ington and METRO before the law was passed, a $4-1-, million planning program, sup-
ported in part by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Ecology,
was already underway. The River Basin Coordinating Committee (RIBCO) provided a
comprehensive approach to regional planning for land use, water resources, water
quality, urban drainage, and solid waste management. The water quality element
of the planning was consistent with section 303(e) of P.L. 92-500 which called for
a continuing planning process for intrastate waters. Even facilities planning re-
quirements of section 201 of P.L. 92-500 were foreseen, since previous laws had
laid the groundwork.

METRO's areawide water quality planning (Section 208 of P.L. 92-500) is a continua-
tion and a refinement of the planning achieved by our RIBCO studies. These efforts
allow for the identification and establishment of priorities for the serious water
quality problems in the Seattle metropolitan area.

The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements of
the law necessitated a more formal method of monitoring discharges from our treat-
ment plants to Puget Sound. We were already working with the state, however, to
insure that effluent discharges conformed to its policies. Another requirement of
the law is that private industry pay user charges for municipal systems and share
in costs for capital facilities. But METRO already had an agency policy encourag-
ing industry to manage cost-effectively the type of wastewater entering the treat-
ment system. For the most part, then, METRO has anticipated the requirements of
P.L. 92-500, which will be useful in guiding METRO's water quality management,
decisions.

But, as mentioned earlier, the secondary treatment requirement under Section 301
has been difficult for METRO to justify for Puget Sound, which has characteristics
of high salinity, low temperature and reliable flushing. This section of the law
sets aside previous water quality planning pursuant to 303(e) and the present

areawide planning. Consequently, for METRO this one section of the law has raised
an issue that overshadows its many positive aspects. As it stands, the law prevents
local agencies from tailoring treatment methods that meet local water needs and
community goals. We believe at the time the law was passed, the social and economic
implications of the secondary treatment requirement were not clearly understood by
Congress, nor were the secondary environmental effects of planning specifically for
water quality protection considered.

Therefore, METRO has been evaluating the effects of this decision that provides for
clean water only through secondary treatment. We are studying other options di-
rected by meeting national and local water quality goals, because we have an obli-
gation under environmental and cost-effective guidelines. The options include
solutions to the water quality problems created by combined sewer overflows.

National and state environmental policy acts require evaluation of all reasonable
alternatives for achieving the goals of P.L. 92-500, including "no action," where
a proposed action could have a significant impact on the quality of the human
environment. We believe the memorandum of understanding among EPA, DOE, and METRO
will assure a decision which meets the goals of NEPA, SEPA and P.L. 92-500. Thus,
the environmental policy acts are insuring coordination among agencies, a thorough
evaluation of alternatives and a method for public involvement in the planning
process prior to decision-making by the agencies.

ARE THE WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT LAWS NECESSARY?

Laws approved by our various legislative bodies represent the will of the general
populace in setting specific requirements for managing natural resources, such as
Puget Sound. However, we believe federal laws and regulations should allow flexi-
bility. Local communities should be able to choose the best method of achieving
overall national goals from a variety of alternatives, while remaining in concert
with the goals of the community. In the long run it is the community that has to
live with environmental, social, and economic consequences. The community is
responsible for payment of potentially large yearly operation and maintenance
costs. Even though federal money is available for 75 percent of the capital costs,
the economic impact could be substantial. We believe that P.L. 92-500 as inter-
preted by EPA regulations and officials does not yet allow METRO to assume even
minimal environmental risk in using Puget Sound for the disposal of primary treated
effluent. For example, the law now prevents us from using the natural assimilative
capacity of Puget Sound. For the past 15 years we have undertaken many studies
and worked with scientists from other agencies and institutions to learn the
relationship between treated wastewater and this assimilative capacity of the Sound.

The question we continually ask is this: Has the effluent adversely affected the
fish, shellfish and wildlife resources that are dependent upon Puget Sound? In
1974, recognizing that the answer to that could have substantial social and economic
consequences, we committed $1 million and initiated additional intensive studies of
-Puget Sound adjacent to our treatment plants to examine closely the environmental
risks. When the studies began in 1975, water quality information for Puget Sound
was insufficient for completing our decision-making process. Our studies were under-
taken to complement previous efforts and other more comprehensive studies including
Marine Ecosystem Analyses (MESA) studies by NOAA and the Puget Sound Baseline Study

)y DOE. We are committed to obtaining a better understanding of the possible
2nvironmental consequences of alternative actions we might take to meet the goals
3f the federal law.

Preliminary results of our studies show that the risks involved in continuing
with the present method of discharge do not appear to be significant. In fact,
no adverse impact to Puget Sound as a whole has been detected. A quote from the
study report by Collias and Lincoln (1977) is appropriate: "From these data,
both new and old, it is concluded that the sewage entering the main basin of
Puget Sound from the sewers of METRO and other sewage systems has had no measur-
able effect upon either the nutrient concentrations or the dissolved oxygen
content except in the near field at the outfall. The near field effect is
very localized and has no impact upon the entire system."

In short, the basic intent of the secondary treatment requirement of the law is to
reduce oxygen-demanding material in the effluent. But Puget Sound is an oxygen-
rich water body in which our effluent discharges have caused no apparent dissolved
oxygen depletion problems.

METRO has done other kinds of research related to secondary treatment. In addition
to performing water quality studies, METRO has spent more than $1 million on a
Pilot Plant program studying alternative methods of wastewater treatment. These
studies show that secondary treatment can increase the removal of some toxicants
as well as remove oxygen-demanding materials. Because toxicants, such as heavy
metals, readily adhere to organic materials, more toxicants would be removed by the
secondary treatment process. But after careful analysis, scientists studying heavy
metals in Puget Sound are having a difficult time predicting any serious water
quality problems associated with heavy metals that would degrade the fish, shell-
fish, and wildlife inhabiting Puget Sound. Shell (1977) has illustrated the rela-
tive amount of certain heavy metals entering Puget Sound (Table 1). Major sources
are natural or from ship hulls, not effluent from wastewater treatment plants, and
do not appear to be harmful.

As with any scientific study involving biological systems, it is very difficult to
understand completely the interrelationships of all organisms within the Puget
Sound ecosystem. It is equally hard to be definitive about the significance of
environmental impacts. Consequently, it is impossible to argue that these studies
support a 100 percent assurance of no risk to Puget Sound with the present method
of wastewater treatment. Conversely, the studies cannot clearly show that second-
ary treatment, as required by the law, would have no benefit. We now understand
that there is probably a minimal and possibly even a nondetectable reduction in the
risk of environmental damage to Puget Sound involved in a commitment to secondary
treatment. This speculation is based upon the simple fact that secondary treatment
reduces the amount of foreign materials placed in the water.

Since Puget Sound is large and our understanding of the ecosystem is limited, we
must continue to be certain that our judgment of minimal environmental risks is
truly accurate. Puget Sound is not an infinite "sink" for our waste materials, and
its assimilative capacity must be determined, continually monitored and not exceeded.
New developments in technology could improve our methods of measuring components of
the ecosystem and thus provide a better understanding. One way to continue to assess
these risks would be to maintain a comprehensive program of monitoring'Puget Sound

Table I

Total Copper, Lead and Zinc Inputs to Puget Sound
Metric Tons/Year

Puget Sound
Source Copper Lead Zinc

Rivers 787 2032 1624
(Lake Washington-
Ship Canal included)

Metro's West Point 29 9 56
Plant

Other Municipal, 22 16 26
Treatment Plants

Atmospheric Input 45 273 82

Vessels Protective 360-590 9-12 140-240
Measures and Fuel

Urban Runoff 15 350 50
(Seattle)

Advective Transport 65 1640 874
(Admiralty Inlet) (306*)

*306 tons/year is based on a copper concentration of 0.8 ug/1
which is considered more realistic than the value of 0.17 ug/l
found in sampling during this study.

Source: William Schell, (1977)

water quality. Such a program could provide forecasts of environmental risks long
before the significant environmental problems materialized and time for all users
of Puget Sound to reevaluate previous policy commitments.

METRO's Puget Sound studies also examined possible environmental impacts in the
near shore areas immediately adjacent to the treatment plants. At West Point, for
example, the studies showed that during some times of the year diluted effluent
is carried by onshore eddies during certain tides to nearby beaches before it is
dispersed in Puget Sound. The preliminary results suggest possible effects on
intertidal organisms and/or public health. However, the results from more direct
studies of the organisms suggest that the local impact is not significant and
therefore, as with Puget Sound as a whole, the environmental risk is minimal. In
order to assure that the risks remain minimal, METRO is in the process of initiating
research programs to determine the frequency and severity of this phenomenon.

CONFLICT WITH LOCAL COMMUNITY GOALS

A commitment to secondary treatment at the West Point treatment plant would result
in the need to fill up to 12 acres of the tidelands adjacent to the plant, as well
as to expand the plant substantially. West Point is situated next to Discovery
Park, a large, relatively natural area within the City of Seattle; additional
treatment facilities immediately adjacent to the park would not be in keeping with
the goals of the city. Furthermore, the City of Seattle under the Washington State
Shorelines Management Act of 1971 has designated the tidelands in question as
.,conservancy natural." Without a change in the city's policy, filling would not
be allowed. In addition, the city has recognized the conflict and has indicated
an intent to permit expansion if no feasible alternative exists.

Here then is the dilemma at hand: Will the commitment of financial resources by
this community for both capital and annual operation costs be worth the apparent
minimal reduction in environmental risk to Puget Sound? We must judge carefully
the environmental risks of maintaining primary treatment, committing ourselves to
secondary treatment, or choosing an alternative that solves the real water quality
problems that have been identified with combined sewer overflows.

We urge all experts to assess the environmental, social, and economic impacts we
can anticipate from each specified use of the Puget Sound resource. Our assessment
must be presented to our decision-makers so they clearly understand the environ-
mental risks asSLmed in making decisions for public health and welfare, The
Metropolitan Council in concert with EPA and DOE will have to make decisions with-
in the next 6 months. The initial comprehensive studies are over, and the infor-
mation is in. Consulting engineers, members of the scientific community, and
agency staffs are busy interpreting this information and developing recommendations.
We invite all interested citizens to assist us in interpreting the studies and
providing an assessment of environmental risks.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

It is essential that legislative and regulatory agencies be constantly aware of
new scientific information on Puget Sound, since they are responsible for develop-
ing laws and regulations to guide public agencies and private industry in making
policy decisions for the wise use of this resource. Laws and regulations must be

updated to reflect the latest scientific information and to recognize the finan-
cial, land-use and environmental tradeoffs involved. If scientists believe a
reduction in that risk is unnecessary, and,if policymakers decide the effort is
socially, economically, and environmentally unfeasible, we must ask that the law
and/or the EPA regulations be changed. Public Law 92-500, as it is currently
interpreted, is an example of an inflexible law that only addresses waste treat-
ment technology, does not permit local agencies and communities to address the
full range of water quality needs and priorities, and does not provide for the
full consideration of other environmental goals.

METRO remains committed to its original goal: clean waters in the Seattle
m6tropolitan area. The soundest way to achieve that goal is by rigorous and
open examination of environmental risks and tradeoffs, the ranking of water
quality priorities and the eventual selection of alternatives which are the
most cost-effective.

REFERENCES

1. Collias, E.E. and J.H. Lincoln, 1977. Preliminary report, "A Study of the
Nutrients in the Main Basin of Puget Sound," Department of Oceanography,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

2. Duxbury, A.C., 1975. "Orthophosphate and Dissolved Oxygen in Puget Sound,"
Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 20, No. 2, March 1975, pp 270-274.

3. Schell, William, 1977. Preliminary report, "Heavy Metals in Central Puget
Sound," College of Forest Resources, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington.

PUBLIC LAW 92-500 OR KILLING FLIES WITH SLEDGEHAMMERS

Lawrence E. Birke, Jr.
Northwest Pulp and Paper Association

Pollution abatement in the United States has essentially been accomplished under
two different philosophical approaches:
The environmental quaZity approach
The technoZogical approach

The environmental quality approach is characterized by local regulatory agencies
conducting measurements in the air or water to determine what needs to be done to
improve or maintain the quality of the environment. Specific pollutants at spec-
ific sites are addressed and regulations or discharge permits are developed with
reference to well defined goals. It was under this approach that major cleanup
programs such as Lake Washington or the Willamette River in Oregon were accomplished.

The technological approach is not directed towards the solution of site-specific
problems. This approach is characterized by an evaluation of existing or avail-
able technology by regulatory engineers or scientists. From this evaluation,
facilities or performance criteria are developed which are then applied to all
applicable dischargers without regard to specific location. While the technolog-
ical approach is applied on a national level it clearly has enforcement advantages
at the local level. With this approach it no longer becomes necessary for the
regulatory agency to make comprehensive measurements in the receiving air or
water to determine enforcement action. Simple inspection of the pollution abate-
ment facilities and review of its discharge performance (measurements usually
required of the discharger) are all that is needed to initiate action.

Pollution abatement in the United States, until the early 1970's, was almost en-
tirely accomplished by means of the environmental quality approach. In the late
60's, however, a growing discontent with the success of pollution abatement ef-
forts coupled with extreme public activism resulted in a major environmental
movement. This movement, characterized by the massive marches on Washington, D.C.
and boycotts and protests against industrial "polluters," put considerable pres-
sure on Congress to take definite and often drastic action to improve the quality
of the environment. While recognizing that many of the environmental laws passed

in the late 60's and early 70's had not yet begun to take effect, the Congress
nevertheless responded with new legislation. Most significant among this leg-
islation were the 1971 Clean Air Act Amendments and the 1972 Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments.

Probably the most revolutionary of any environmental law passed to that date,
the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), for the first
time mandated that a uniform level of technology be required nationwide. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was directed to develop applicable levels
of technology for all major industrial and municipal dischargers in the country.
Dates were established by which time this technology was to be in place: July 1,
1977 for "Best Practicable Technology" and July 1, 1983 for "Best Available
Technology." Finally the Act specified that by 1985 the country would achieve
'0' discharge of pollutants into all waters. Needless to say, the cost, implica-
tions and benefits of complying with the provisions of the Act were only vaguely,
at best, understood in 1972.

As industrial and municipal dischargers approach the first major deadline of
PL 92-500 (the 1977 requirement for Best Practicable Treatment) it is appropriate
to review how well this new philosophical approach to water pollution abatement
adopted by Congress has been translated into practice. At first glance the
achievements are encouraging7-Significant improvements in cleaning up the environ-
ment have been made. A closer inspection of pollution abatement programs however
uncovers a number of problems which over the past 5 years have caused industries,
municipalities, and even the regulatory agencies to question the overall cost-
benefit results of PL 92-500.

The fundamental problem with the-implementation of the Water Pollution Act Amend-
ments of 1972 is inherent in the definition of the technological approach which
has been adopted. No differentiation has been allowed for local environmental
conditions. For the implementation of water pollution abatement facilities the
Act assumes that the waters of the U.S. are equal in their needs, conditions,
and problems. Obviously this is not so. The waters of Lake Erie are not the
same as the waters of Ketchikan, Alaska, nor are the waters of Puget Sound faced
with the same problems as the Mississippi River. When uniform treatment is re-
quired on a nationwide basis inequities in costs and benefits results,-inequities
not only in terms of dollars, but also in the consumption of valuable resources
and energy.

The municipalities and industries on Puget Sound are particularly affected by the
negative impacts of a nationwide uniform treatment approach. The technology of
"secondary treatment" has been specified as "Best Practicable Treatment" for all
cities and pulp and paper mills on the Sound. This process technology was
"transferred" from fresh water locations where it often produces sicnificant
pollution abatement to marine dischargers where it addresses "poll6tants" which
usually cause no measurable effect on the receiving waters. Independent environ-
mental studies by academic, consultant and even regulatory agency researchers
have agreed that at a majority of Puget Sound locations little or no benefit
will be derived by the implementation of costly "secondary treatment" facilities
As the same time, however, millions of dollars will be diverted from production
facilities, millions of kilowatts of electricity will be used, and thousands of
tons of chemicals will be consumed in the construction and operation of the

treatment plants. All these problems will result because the 1972 Act does not
contain sufficient flexibility to address the conditions and requirements of local
receiving waters.

The second major problem which has developed since the Act was passed in 1972 in-
volves the interpretation made by the EPA and the courts on how the Act should be
implemented. For example, recent federal court rulings in the Northwest have in-
dicated the water quality data are not admissible evidence in judicial.review of
individual permit requirements. The irony of trying to comply with a "water
pollution law" which does not allow the discussion of "water quality" has caused
much concern by all dischargers and has resulted in an enormous wave of litigation.

To facilitate implementation and enforcement of various provisions of the Act,
EPA has chosen to take a rigid, unflexible approach in their activities. For ex-
ample, while the Agency was over 3 years late in promulgating discharge guidelines
for the pulp and paper industry, they have been insistent that the industry meet
its technological compliance date of July 1. 1977. In Puget Sound and the marine
waters of the Northwest where the benefits of that technology is at best question-
able, many companies have chosen to appeal their permit requirements through "due
process" options of the Act. Nevertheless,'EPA has taken the position that com-
panies should "litigate on their own time" and in turn has pressed for court
imposed fines for noncompliance. In criminal law this would be equivalent to
having the accused serve a prison term even before he has received a court verdict
of his guilt or innocence.

Many problems have also occurred between regulatory agencies in implementation of
the Act. Provisions of PL 92-500 allow state regulatory agencies to apply for and
be granted permit issuing and enforcing authority. This option has been exercised
by the state of Washington. Several of the discharge permits issued by the Wash-
ington Department of Ecology (WDOE) have been vetoed by EPA. These actions have
resulted in additional litigation wherein the state and the industry are in court
as joint defendants testing the validity of these permits agains EPA. The state
has contended that they do have sufficient authority under the Act for their action
and that they have a better understanding of the needs of Washington receiving
waters than EPA. They point out that Washington had an active and progressive
environmental regulatory agency even before EPA's formation.

In Puget Sound millions of dollars have been spent and are continuing to be spent
on pollution abatement facilities by the pulp and paper industry. The industry
has reduced water pollutants discharged during the period 1965 to 1977 by over
85%. All this accomplishment has occurred while generally developing a spirit of
cooperation with the WDOE and maintaining a viable employment base for over 30,000
Washington residents. In their questioning of the benefits of uniform "secondary
treatment" technology for Puget Sound, the pulp and paper industry is joined by
many other industries and municipalities. The issue is clearly then not one of
resistance to water improvement requirements, but rather an insistence that the
total environmental benefits be required to outweigh the negative impacts of
facility development and operation.

When Congress passed PL 92-500 in 1972 many recognized that the approaches out-
lined in the Act were revolutionary and untried. Consequently, the Act also set
forth a requirement that a National Commission on Water Quality be created to

review the implementation of PL 92-500 and report back to Congress with needed
"mid-course corrections." After more than 3 years work in all 50 states, ex-
pending more than 17 million dollars, the Commission, headed by Nelson Rockefeller,
reported out a series of recommendations in late 1976. These recommendations go
right to the heart of many of the problems of implementation of the Act. For
example, the Commission recommended: 1) more flexibility needed to be put into.
the Act; 2) the 1983 deadline should be postponed until an assessment of the 1977
technology could be made; 3) 1977 technology requirements could and should be
postponed on a case by case basis for municipalities and industries; 4) the states
should be given more authority in implementation of the law. Numerous other
recommendations were made ranging from municipal waste treatment funding to non-
point water pollution problems. These recommendations and others will be reviewed
by Congress in 1977 for possible enactment.

The Puget Sound region, its environment and economy, will be greatly affected by
the modifications, or lack of action, to PL 92-500 during 1977. Limited energy,
chemi.cals and dollars must be optimized in their use to combat water pollution.
We no longer can afford the indiscriminant use of our resources regardless of the
benefits to be derived. Further, the impact on the total environment and not
just one sector must be assessed before we take action. If water pollution abate-
ment facilities are going to be constructed, positive benefits to the receiving
waters must outweigh the negative impacts of increased air pollution, solid waste,
noise and energy consumption. The pulp and paper industry of Puget Sound will
continue to make major contributions to improving the environment yet at the same
time we will increasingly question and evaluate the total "costs" versus the
benefits to be derived. Only in this way can we guarantee a better quality of
life not only for ourselves, but for our posterity.

49.

A PUBLIC AGENCY'S VIEW ON MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ON PUGET SOUND

Capt. Merle Adlum
Commissioner, Port of Seattle

This afternoon's topic: "Federal, State and local laws, regulations and guide-
lines: Are they required, and do they do the job that was intended to conserve
and,protect the marine environment without being unduly restrictive?" provides
me.with an opportunity to speak out with considerable confidence and knowledge.

Most of my life has been dedicated to the two most prominent values of the topic
question, the maritime use of Puget Sound and navigational safety programs for
vessels entering and departing Puget Sound waters. The subject of "maritime uses"
interests me because of my 14 years as a Port of Seattle Commissioner, and the
subject of "navigational safety" from my long experience as President of the In-
land Boatman's Union, a licensed Puget Sound pilot and a master mariner with many
years' experience captaining major vessels throughout our portion of the world.

I referred to "maritime use" and "navigational safety" as being the prominent
values of the topic question because there is no way that the topic can be fully
discussed, or analyzed, without a full understanding of the need that has been
placed on Puget Sound by a worldwide increase in shipping demands and the practical
safety programs that have been well-studied and implemented. These two values
(fould easily lead to long discussion, but because of the necessary time limita-
tions on today's presentations, I am going to keep my remarks brief in order to
leave time for questions and answers.

In this presentation I am going to limit my remarks to two specific areas:

The importance of Puget Sound to the explosive worldwide growth of maritime
trade, including the highly controversial oil tanker consideration, and

The natural and programmed safety features of maritime traffic on Puget Sound.

There are some who would argue that the increasing efficiencies in the maritime
shipping industry are the basic factors for the rapid increase in world mari-
time trade. This, however, is really a "chicken or egg" circle of logic since it
really doesn't make any difference, the point being that maritime commerce has

made a phenomenal tonnage increase. Within the last decade the world has rapidly
shifted toward a worldwide economy and the backbone of this economy is dependent
upon maritime commerce. Worldwide increases in affluency; national economic
specializations that are based upon a world economy (such as is the case with
Japan); the expanding search for natural resources by all nations, have all con-
tributed to the rapid growth in maritime transportation. We have witnessed a
yearly increase of some 9.5% in world exports over the last decade, an over-
whelming majority of which is in maritime trade, compared to a yearly growth of
only 5.8% for the gross world product. The last half of the last decade, further-
more, saw worldwide exports speed up to a 11.1% yearly growth. Even for the U.S.,
our foreign trade is increasing at a faster rate than our gross national product.
This demonstrates that we are becoming increasingly dependent upon a world economy
which is based upon low-cost, energy efficient water transportation.

The importance to Puget Sound of this growth in maritime trade is that it has not
been evenly distributed throughout the world. The Pacific Rim in particular has
felt the greatest overall effect. The impact upon U.S. West Coast ports from the
combined interaction of the rapidly expanding economies of Asia, Australia and
North America has been enormous. United States trade has increasingly shifted
toward Asia, relative to Europe, and now is approximately equal between Asia and
Europe. As late as the 1950's, the United States' total trade with Europe was
over 3 to I to that of Asia, indicating the very rapid trade shift that has
occurred for an economy as large as ours.

Puget Sound has also reflected this trade pattern shift. In 1950, with a large
portion of our foreign trade being with Europe, we were considered from a national
viewpoint, as the extreme Pacific Northwest "corner" of the United States. The
international trade that flowed through our ports in Puget Sound was primarily for
our local marketing area. This is "obvious" since we would not expect European
cargoes to move via Puget Sound to the eastern seaboard of the United States. Our
ability at that time to compete for cargo movements between large international
markets was limited at best since U.S. trade with the Pacific Rim was "minimal."

Presently, however, because of the rapid succession of economic miracles through-
out Asia, Puget Sound has changed status from a "corner" to the logical trans-
pacific, Asian/North American, transshipment point. This is an international
trade route that is now second only to the world's most voluminous, the North
American/European transatlantic route. With the U.S. trade shift toward Asia has
also been the rapid economic growth of the Alaskan community, as well as growth
in our own local market. The end result is that we in Puget Sound, for the first
time in our history, are in a position of obtaining the economic activity known
as the "middleman" on a trading route between otAer, separated economies. Tradi-
tionally, we have provided maritime transportation services primarily for attract-
ing new industrial, agricultural and forestry activities. Now we are in a position
to provide services for moving cargo which clearly has the choice of a number of
ports to transit on a route which has originated or is destined far beyond our own
market. Thus, we are able to utilize the shifts of world trade patterns to our
own advantage and foster a shipping industry that requires little additional drain
on our region's financial and natural resources, yet greatly adds to the diversity
and strength of our region's economy. Furthermore, because of our region's geo-
graphic advantages, we can compete with other ports-and the Panama Canal at a
minimum overall cost. The advantage of a higher volume of traffic at a lower

overall cost is particularly important for our regional users of maritime shipping
now that our trade situation is similar to that which New York citizens have en-
joyed over the last century, the difference being that our local shippers are
utilizing shipping services essentially being paid for by shippers moving cargo
between Asia and the U.S. Midwest and East Coast, instead of Europe and the U.S.
Midwest and West Coast.

I present this concept of the changing status of West Coast port shipping patterns
primarily.to illustrate our growing trade potential. We, in Puget Sound over the
past few years, have become a seaport on which a large portion of our nation is
becoming increasingly dependent. In effect we have become less of a coastal
community merely utilizing a port for contact with the world market. For example,
the choice of Puget Sound as the Trident submarine base was more than just a po-
litical decision, it was a logical choice from a national security locational
viewpoint. We were not viewed as the corner of the U.S., but the center of North
American activity in the Pacific Rim. Furthermore, as I have stated before and
will restate now, the choice of supertanker traffic on Puget Sound may be one
choice that will be made at a national level, unless we in the Puget Sound area
view Puget Sound as a "national" seaport resource and come up with a workable com-
promise (of which there is at least one good one). For general cargo shipping,
however, (which is the least costly maritime activity upon the environment, but
which gives the greatest overall economic returns) we are in strong competition
with other West Coast ports and Panama Canal for the Pacific Rim's traffic. Not
so much within the Pacific Northwest, but with California ports. But that's the
way competition works, the most desirable cargoes are also the most sought after.
Thus, while the national government may answer some of our supertanker questions,
almost every port on the West Coast is actively seeking the Asian general ca@go
traffic.

That's where we stand on the changing international trade pattern. What maritime
commerce do we actually have in Puget Sound? Figures, as you are well aware, can
be very misleading. For example, East Coast ports have been shipping in crude
petroleum and delivering petroleum-products for a long time, while on the West
Coast we are just now relying on crude and product tanker traffic for a significant
proportion of our needs. On the other hand, West Coast ports have always shipped,,
significant amounts of wheat and forestry products. Thus, the statistics 'for over-
all tonnage essentially compare movements of petroleum versus a movement of wheat,
lumber, logs, sand, gravel, etc.

Total Puget Sound tonnage has been running in the range of some 50 million tons
per year, 53 million in 1975, a poor year for international trade. To put this
into perspective, that's greater than the overall 50 million tons handled in the
San Francisco Bay region and the 52.6 million tons in Baltimore and is approaching
Southern California's 60 million tons. It is somewhat less than Philadelphia, New
York and New Orleans, all running close to 150 million tons annually.

Furthermore, since we are also concerned with the ocean approaches to Puget Sound,
we must consider our neighbors to the North in Canada. The Vancouver harbor alone
has been handling approximately 35 million tons per year and neighboring Fraser
River ports would easily.raise this traffic to 40 million tons. A combined Strait
of Juan de Fuca tonnage of both Puget Sound and lower mainland Canada could be
reasonably approximated at over 90 million tons a year. That figure is greater
than the regional totals for Houston's 84 million, the Virginia ports of Norfolk
and Newport News, 67 million, and a little more than half of the nation's largest
port, New York with its 178 million tons.

To put these comparisons into further perspective, the combined number of vessel
calls using the Strait of Juan de Fuca is estimated at approximately 5,000 per year.
This is equivalent to, or greater than, seven of the top eight U.S. ports, Philadelphia
Los Angeles/Long Beach, New Orleans, Houston, San Francisco, Baltimore and Hampton
Roads, Virgin i a and approximately ha If of New York harbor's 10,000 tota I.
So from@a maritime commerce viewpoint,'we are already a major port area, particu-
larly if you include both Puget Sound ports and the ports of southwestern British
Columbia. From almost any measurement, traffic in the Strait of Juan de Fuca is
in the "world leagues."

Before commenting on the use of Puget Sound for oil tanker movement, I think it is
essential that we put some perspective on the navigational safety factor as it affects
vessel movement through the Straits and into upper and lower Puget Sound areas.
Considering how the aforementioned statistics tend to imply "considerable naviga-
tional hazard potential" as a result of our positioning with the other major U.S.
ports, it is most important that we emphasize our overwhelming advantage over other
U.S. ports as concerns the natural navigational safety factors.

I know of no safer area on the North American continent than is afforded Puget
Sound ports as a result of deep water and channel width access. And this natural
asset to maritime commerce is not limited to the North American continent.Alone,
but compares favorably with heavy traffic areas the world over.
The Strait of Juan de Fuca varies in navigational width, but is generally 1 - 2-14
miles wide. By comparison, the Strait of Gibraltar narrows to some 9 miles. The
English Channel, one of the heaviest used waterways in the world, narrows to some
18 miles near Dover. Even the Strait of Malacca off Singapore, the major route
between the Orient and Europe, narrows to some 20-30 miles. These straits have
several times the estimated 5,000 vessel calls using the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

The so-call "treacherous" Rosario Strait into the refinery areas around Cherry
Point isl- to 3-miles wide. By comparison, the Houston Ship Canal which also has
nearly 5,000 vessel calls per year is a 50-mile long, 400 foot wide channel.
Philadelphia's Delaware Bay channel, being utilized by some-thing slightly over
5,000 vessel calls per year, is a 90-mile long, 800 to 1,000 foot wide channel.
And, even the New York harbor with nearly 10,000 vessel calls per year has only a
600 foot wide channel into the harbor from the Atlantic Ocean.

Furthermore, our waters are not only exceptionally wide, but exceptionally deep
all the way into our harbor areas. The minimum depth into Seattle, for example,
is 175 feet at a width of some two to three miles.

Only with complex and expensive dredging into the continental shelf or the con-
struction of expensive sea islands can depths of over 50 feet be accommodated on
the Gulf and Eastern Seaboard, south of the State of Maine. The highly publicized
Maine superport tanker sites may be double this depth, but they have relatively
winding and hazardous approaches. On the Pacific Coast, the country's second
deepest port is Long Beach which is being dredged to 62 feet, though the narrow
continental shelf would allow a relatively easy deepening to nearly 80 feet. San
Francisco is limited to approximately 50 feet because of the troublesome sandbar
off Golden Gate.

Therefore, the Puget Sound depth advantage, with the largest modern bulk cargo
ships drawing over 100 feet draft, is not a small advantage, but the only viable,
onshore, protected, continental U.S. deep-water port site. This natural advantage
is not to be taken lightly.

Because of our environmental concern over growing general cargo tonnages and addi-
tional oil tanker traffic on Puget Sound (and a heavy push by Senator Magnuson, I
might add), we have added to the natural safety factor by the implementation of a
vessel traffic navigation program now being administered by the U.S. Coast Guard.
I must admit we had a tough time convincing the federal government that we needed
a lane separated, radar controlled ship navigation system, when places like Houston,
Philadelphia and New York, whose channels are measured in feet not miles, did not
have such a system, but it does serve as a creditable examip-le of how we in the
maritime industry are doing our part to see that our use of Puget Sound doesn't
spoil it for others. I do not want to imply that we neither need, nor should im-
prove, navigation vessel control in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound.
There is still more to be done, such as extending the aforementioned system past
Port Angeles into the Pacific, an extension into Northern Puget Sound and joint
Canadian cooperation in the system.

From a national standpoint, I think the implementation of navigational safety
programs is a worthwhile investment, from a regional viewpoint, a very wise in-
vestment. We here in the state of Washington are appreciative of this natural
resource known as Puget Sound. Its multiplicity of uses for industry, transporta-
tion, recreation, fishing and, increasingly, mariculture needs all the protection
which can be logically afforded. The wise management of this resource is dependent
upon the interaction of all its users.

In closing, I would like to address my remarks to the earlier promised matter re-
garding the use of Puget Sound for oil tanker movement. It is my strong feeling
that the current controversy over the movement of crude oil from the new Alaska
pipeline and other offshore oil sources through the Puget Sound area has distorted
the real facts. These facts have to be seriously considered before any potentially
restrictive legislation is imposed. I refer to two specific considerations, first,
the fact of existing tanker traffic on Puget Sound and, second, the fact of viable
and safe tanker unloading site alternatives for a common oil port.

As regards the first consideration, arguments used by opponents of oil tanker
traffic on Puget Sound c'onfuse the public as a result of an inference that tanker
traffic would be something new to Puget Sound waters. The fact is that there has
been regular and consistent oil tanker traffic on Puget Sound for more than
half a century.

The primary destination of these tankers is the Anacortes and Cherry Point refin-
eries, and locations in Southern Puget Sound ports of Seattle and Tacoma. During
1976, 475 oil and product tankers delivered 213,078 barrels per day of crude oil
to northern Puget Sound refineries and approximately 75,000 barrles of product,
mainly to southern Puget Sound.

The cut-off next year of the primary source of crude, the Trans-Mountain Pipeline
from the Alberta oil fields, will mean'a near ten-fold increase in crude oil traf-
fic on northern Puget Sound- from less than 2 million tons in 1972 to over 17
million tons in 1978 required to meet Northwest consumer needs only.

If we are required to accept additional traffic for needs beyond our own, it should
be handled at a common unloading facility under the safest conditions possible.
Considering the fact that safe, deep-water port access is beginning to be recognized
by national policy makers as a "national resource," we cannot turn our backs on
landlocked users of crude oil by failing to keep national policy in mind. If each
area considered only their own interests, where would we be? We get oil from Texas,
Louisiana, California and Alaska. Where would we be if residents of these states
thought only of themselves? We need each other and we have to understand that
Puget Sound belongs to more persons than just Washingtonians.

I am not saying that we should accept the transshipment of crude oil responsibility
without seeing that our own conditions are met. That's why many of us in this in-
dustry,have and will continue to fight long and hard to get federal assistance in
the implementation of special navigational safety programs. It is the way we get
the upper hand in guaranteeing all residents of the Northwest that Puget Sound will
remain open and safe for the enjoyment of all.

Puget Sound does have viable tanker site alternatives to the existing Anacortes and
Cherry Point refineries. Port Angeles is an excellent example. It provides deep-
water access and sheltered protection from heavy storms, the key considerations in
the safe movement of oil tankers. Oil can be safely moved from that area either
south around Puget Sound and then northward to existing refinery sites, or perhaps
even safer via an underground pipeline from Port Angeles to present refineries.

The safety of underwater transmission of crude oil, by the way, is a proven fact.
In 1953, the Interprovincial pipeline was installed between the upper and lower
Michigan peninsulas under the Straits of Mackinac, separating Lakes Michigan and
Huron. This represented the deepest underwater pipeline crossing ever attempted
and is one of the world's major pipeline feats. At the crossing, the U.S. straits
arc, 4-1, miles wide and up to 240 feet deep. The two 20" lines made of steel one
inch thick are still in use.

I trust that today's comments have not wandered away from the purpose of this
symposium. It has been my intent to clarify the needs of maritime commerce on
Puget Sound and the safety in which that industry can be carried out.

It is my opinion that a strong understanding of each on the part of the public will
prevent anyone from ever having to worry whether or not imposed regulations and
laws are too restrictive.

TIME AND CHANGE IN PUGET SOUND

Richard H. Fleming
University of Washington

My comments will be from the perspective of a teacher rather than that of a re-
search investigator. As a professor of oceanography, my major concern has been
to organize and simplify a wide range of topics concerning the science of the sea.
In recent years as a member of the faculty of the Institute for Marine Studies,
I have had to broaden my interests to consider how the marine environment affects
the human population and more particularly how the environment interacts with
human activities and technologies. These effects are always two-way processes:
first, how the environment directly and indirectly influences human life and
activities; and, second, how these, in turn, tend to alter or affect the environ-
ment. In a coastal region, such as the Puget Sound area, where there is a rela-
tively large and increasing population living near its shores, it is obvious
that many land-based activities must be involved and should be treated as com-
ponents of the environmental system. It is from this perspective that I wish to
discuss a few topics concerning the use, study, and management of Puget Sound.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEM

According to my dictionary (Random House, 1967), environment is defined as "the
aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences especially as affecting
the existence or development of someone or something." This definition is all-
inclusive but does not adequately stress the complexity of the system nor the fact
that the various "things, conditions, or influences" are variable in both space
and time. It is this variability that makes the environmental sciences, which
focus their attention on living or inanimate features of our planet, different
from the laboratory sciences or basic sciences which strive to describe the char-
acteristics and behavior of matter and energy in terms that are independent of
both location and time.

Many of the aspects of the environment can be identified under the general topics
of what, where, when, and why. This mnemonic list can be applied to any aspect
of Th_een@vironment, but it serves especially well when dealing with the environ-
mental characteristics of a particular region. The what serves to identify the
lengthy list of features and characteristics that can be identified, observed,

measured, or deduced. This list has been increasing as our abilities to observe
and measure have improved. The where is to remind us that most of the items in
the list of whats are not uniformly distributed but vary in three-dimensional
space. The space that we are concerned with is usually defined in terms of loca-
tion on the globe (latitude and longitude) and either depth or elevation (usually
related directly or indirectly to mean-sea level or to some other datum). The
when is to indicate that all aspects of the environment change with time. The why
is to remind us that we must seek to identify and evaluate the processes that Pro-
duce and control the spatial variability in the features and characteristics and
that govern their variability in time.

The what, where, and when provide the information necessary for a description of
an environmental system and much of the material can be accumulated by systematic
and repeated sets of measurements, which are generally identified as surveys or
monitoring or, if the interest is upon how the characteristics vary with time, as
time-series measurements. It is only from such comprehensive studies that we can
identify the nature and magnitude of the spatial variability and determine the
character and scale of the changes with time.

The fourth mnemonic why represents the primary interest and role of the scientist.
Although the scientist may play a role in the development of new techniques of
observation'and measurement and in testing these methods in the field, his primary
responsibility is in identifying and evaluating the processes that control or af-
fect the space and time variability of the features and characteristics. This is
a far more difficult task than those associated with the description of an environ-
mental system. In part this difficulty is due to the fact that most features can
be altered and affected by many causes and any one cause may be related to many
different effects. The inherent complexity of environmental systems makes them
both challenging but often frustrating subjects of study.

The goal of the environmental scientist is to develop dynamic, integrated models
that will serveto explain the time and space variability. These models may take
various forms and content. They may be physical models (such as the model of
Puget Sound which reproduces many of the features of the tides, tidal currents,
and the effects of dilution), or they may be mathematical or numerical models
which can be handled by a computer. Such models are generally limited in content
or are not adequate because of lack of knowledge of the role and magnitude of the
processes that are involved. Although none of the existing models is entirely
satisfactory, it is only through the application of modeling techniques that we
can ever hope to achieve an adequate understanding of the Puget Sound system.
I have not made any attempt to define what I mean by the Puget Sound environmental
system. In the first place, it will be necessary to recognize that it cannot be
limited to the salt water. It must include adjacent land areas and the atmospheric
conditions that are represented by the climate and weather over the drainage basins
that form the watershed for the region. Last but not least, the system must in-
clude the human population and the many types of activities in which they partic-
ipate. These too are parts of the environmental system and must be treated as
components in the model and the consequences of their activities or processes that
tend to modify the environment.

THE TIME COORDINATE

There are three general objectives common to the environmental sciences: To under-
stand the present; to interpret or reconstruct the past; and to predict the future.
These objectives serve to direct our attention to the time dimension and to the
recognition that we are dealing with a continuum of time. The major utility, that
is practical application, of environmental science lies in the ability to project
or predict future conditions.

In the previous section it was pointed out that one of the tasks of environmental
scientists is to determine how the various features change with time and to iden-
tify the nature and magnitude of the processes that produce these changes. In some
cases the rates of change are so small that it is reasonable to assume that the
rate of change is zero. This is the assumption that is made concerning the gross
features of the topography of the land and the submerged topography of the sea
bottom, and it is on this assumption that we accept and use topographic and bathy-
metric maps. Another type of change is that represented by the tides and tidal
currents. Although both of these features are characterized by high variability
in both space and time, they can be related to the relative motions of the earth,
moon, and sun and hence can be predicted with reasonable accuracy on the basis of
previous measurements and the appropriate astronomical data.

Many other/features, particularly those that are related directly or indirectly to
the atmospheric conditions, are much more difficult to predict. This is in part
due to the fact that the weather and climatic conditions themselves cannot yet be
adequately predicted. Much can be learned about the interactions that occur be-
tween the atmospheric conditions and other components of the environment by system-
atic studies over time. General seasonal and annual averages can be obtained, but
more valuable insight can often be derived from the investigation of year-to-year
differences and in the study of extreme events.

The waters of Puget Sound have been studied for about 45 years. The data are often
fragmentary, but they provide at least a first approximation of the space and time
variability. This type of study has largely been replaced by investigations that
are more specialized in content or more localized in space or restricted in time.
Although some are motivated by scientific interest, it is also apparent that many
of these studies are undertaken in order to answer specific practical questions.
Although the recent level of effort is much greater than it has ever been in the
past, the programs lack the content and coherence that would substantially improve
our understanding of the area.

THE USE AND MANAGEMENT OF PUGET SOUND

The terms "use" and "management" of Puget Sound imply the presence of a human pop-
ulation and of their activities and suggest that it may be desirable to modify or
control their number or the impacts that they have upon the environment. It is
beyond the scope of this paper to attempt to list all of the ways in which exploit-
ation of resources, industries, and other uses and activities can influence and
affect the various components of the environment. In any analysis of these impacts,
it is necessary to 'distincuish those that are population dependent, that is pri-
marily related to the size of the human population and those that are technology
dependent. Since the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution some 200 years ago,

many new types of industries have been developed, and, at least in the industria-
lized countries, these have been growing at rates greater than the population. An
extreme example of this is the utilization of energy from various sources. In the
United States during the past century, the per capita energy production has increas-
ed by a factor of six. Because of the variety of relatively new industries, each
of these must be identified and its direct and indirect environmental impacts eval-
uated. In the Puget Sound region, the rates of population growth have been more
rapid than for the U.S. as a whole. The rates of industrial growth, both marine
and those located upon its adjacent land, have also been relatively large. This
can at least,in part be attributed to the fact that most of the growth has occurred
in a span of less than 100 years. The populations in the twelve counties that
border on Puget Sound and the waters between Puget Sound and the Canadian border
have increased as follows:

Year 1910 1940 1960 1970
Population (millions) 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.2

What these numbers indicated is that the population has nearly quadrupled in an in-
terval of 60 years. These values were used by the Pacific Northwest River Basin
Commission (1970) to project the population to be over 4 million early in the next
century. A more recent projection by the Puget Sound Counci] of Governments is
more conservative, but this too indicates continued exponential growth. I do not
wish to debate the merits of these demographic projections, but they serve to il-
lustrate my point that within the lifetime of our children the population will prob-
ably double over its present level. If we remember that the per capita level of
industrial and other activities may increase at an even faster rate, it is easy to
see that the magnitude of the impacts on the environment will, if not limited, far
exceed anything that has so far been observed.

The purpose of these comments has been two-fold: first, to point out that in deal-
ing with the impacts of human activities it is essential to consider what will occur
,over fairly long time spans and, second, to emphasize the importance of comprehensive
and systematic monitoring programs. If we deal only with the natural features and
processes, that is those which are not affected by human activities, our past ex-
perience may be adequate to project or predict future conditions. However, if we
wish to include the impacts of human activities and if these continue to grow at
exponential rates, our past experience is no guide as to what the future impacts
may be. It is no reassurance that so far no obvious adverse effects have been
observed and that it is therefore safe to relax and discontinue our studies.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Variability and change occur in all aspects of natural environments.

2. To adequately describe the characteristics and changes in environmental systems
it is essential that comprehensive investigations be continued over long
periods of time.

3. The processes controlling the distribution of characteristics in space and
time must be identified and evaluated.

4. Quantitative models must be developed to provide reliable means for projections
and predictions.

5. The human population.and their activities, both on shore and afloat, tend to
produce environmental changes. These impacts must be identified and
incorporated in the predictive models.

6. Because the human population and their activities are increasing exponentially,
the historical date are not a proper measure of potential impacts in the future.
Programs of surveillance and monitoring of the conditions must be increased
rather than curtailed.

SOCIAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF PUGET SOUND

William B. Beyers
University of Washington

The broad scope of this conference, encompassing as it does various levels of
government, the scholarly community, industry, and citizens, makes it very
difficult to define comprehensive answers to the questions posed by its spon-
sors. In my remarks, I am going to wear the hat of a social scientist. Thus,
I will be primarily concerned with questions from the perspective of man, in
contras;t to possibly more naturalistic orientations which might be taken by
scientists such as oceanographers or biologists.

The social sciences embrace a number of disciplines,.with fuzzy disciplinary
boundaries and divergent theoretical and methodological perspectives. It is
not easy to encompass the perspectives of disciplines such as economics,
sociology, political science, psychology, law, geography, h 'istory, and anthro-
pology in a single talk. However, faculty at this University from each of
.these fields, as well as cognate disciplines not mentioned, have research,
public service, and teaching involvement in the use, study, and management of
Puget Sound. Given the physical proximity of-the Sound to this University
such interest is not unexpected, encompassing such divergent topics as the
economic impact of oil spills, trends in the human use of shorelines, char-
acteristics of our native American culture,,the effectiveness of coastal zone
management programs, the development of information systems for the management
of shorelines, and an evaluation of how ports are integrated into coastal zone
management programs. Although there is and has been much research by social
scientists on Puget Sound, this work is not well integrated and it is not pos-
sible to find a convenient summary of multi@disciplinary findings.. For example,
one attempt at teaching a course at the University with such integrative
objectives a few years ago was scratched due.to lack of funds. The remarks to
follow will probably be less comprehensive than they might otherwise be if
such integrative studies had occurred.

Why do we have regulations or guidelines for the management of Puget Sound?
Social scientists would provide several answers to this question, and let me
suggest two broad areas of concern. First, Puget Sound is a common property
resource, a resource which has value to many individuals or organizations who

would like to extract this value for their own purposes, and who collectively
would take more of these values than the resource can sustain. Without
regulations governing the magnitude of individual and collective use, we could
destroy the very resource values we prize. Second, Puget Sound is a quasi-
public good. Puget Sound has values which we as a citizenry demand, but col-
lectively without taxation or regulation we would not retain at desired levels
of supply these public good characteristics, Both the common property resource
and public good qualities of Puget Sound lead to difficulties in social and
economic areas, such that regulations by governments at various levels for a
variety of purposes have been enacted. Our fisheries management programs--
controversial as they may be--are designed in part to keep us from overharvest-
ing fisheries stocks such that they may perpetuate themselves at desired levels.
Our water pollution control, zoning, public access and park programs, and marine
traffic management systems could be viewed as attempts to assure that the Sound
as a public good is managed appropriately.

These two concepts--public goods and common property resources--have been most
elegantly developed in economics and political science--but also form the basis
for considerable research in law, geography, and planning. I would like to
argue that the models which have been developed and the regulations and laws
which have been adopted as a result of this type of thinking have an anthro-
pocentric flavor to them and have dominated regulation-making to the exclusion
of other kinds of planning and alternative values. Thus, our laws-and regu-
lations have been developed by looking at the Puget Sound marine system largely
from the perspective of man, viewing and interpreting the resource in terms of
human values and experiences. This type of thinking has limits, because it
ignores components of the environment which do not enter into the definition of
public good or common property resources which become components of the objec-
tive functions for the system of regulations and guidelines used to manage
Puget Sound. These neglected dimensions have little human value, as reflected
in our socioeconomic demands for the Sound's resources. For example, we prize
salmon highly and fight over property rights to the species, develop costly
and complex propagation systems and catch regulations, but we have paid little
attention historically to local cod and flounder property rights, catch levels,
or propagation. While these latter species are harvested, they have certainly
not been a central focus Of our regulatory system because we as humans have
not accorded them the same value as salmon. The same can be said of many other
species of life and physical qualities of Puget Sound, including the seaweeds,
currents, most resident birds, plankton, inedible crabs, thermal properties of
the water, etc.

Thus far there has not been pressure by man to establish regulations to assure
the conservation of these largely non-valued qualities of Puget Sound. There
is no movement to achieve the equivalent of wilderness status for parts of its
environment. While we may feel that we already have a hopelessly complex set
of regulations, I argue that they pertain primarily to those chosen dimensions
of the Puget Sound which we have accorded value either as common property re-
sources or public goods in laws and regulations. Thus far we have not approach-
ed Puget Sound in our regulations as an integrated marine environmental system;
we have not attempted to systematically conserve all of its features. Some
species have all but disappeared because of this bias, such as sea], eagles,

and various hawks. Intertidal life has been eliminated in many areas through
filling, bulkheading, or pollution. Visual characteristics of the shoreline
have certainly been altered, as we construct our monuments to human civiliza-
tion. The degree to which these structural changes have influenced populations
of birds such as heron or gulls is unknown to the best of my knowledge. Sim-
ilarly, the impact of the clearing of natural vegetation from shorelines for
settlement or other human purposes on either terrestrial or marine life is
unknown.

These examples may seem extreme. They are not, for they illustrate that there
are latent regulatory areas, that our current regulatory approaches are partial,
and suggest that if we as a society change our values we will change our reg-
ulations to either encompass values now ignored or to discontinue regulating
factors no longer of concern to us. The growing interest in geoduck harvest-
ing may be an example of an area where regulatory need will arise. Books such
as Incredible Edibles may help popularize the edibility of some relatively
rare marine organisms, leading to their overconsumption and possible damage--
in much the same way that the Mountaineers hiking guides have popularized
certain places and contributed to their degradation through overuse.

Unfortunately, social scientists are unable to predict shifts in human values.
Thus, we cannot anticipate the scope of regulations which might be necessary
to encompass presently unvalued species or environmental characteristics.
Tragically, our common approach is to wait until we experience a crisis or
perceive such a degradation of value that we must enact regulations to protect
common property resources or to keep or develop public goods to socially
desired levels of existence. In this regard, our federal pollution control
and coastal zone management laws, regulations, and programs may be viewed as
responses to human needs; programs designed to restore to tolerable levels
the quality of the marine environment, or as regulatory systems to assure we
do not ruin a public good because of a lack of foresight.

As to whether the existing laws and regulations are doing the job intended,
the preceding paragraphs give license to say both yes and no, as well as
maybe, or I don't know. There can be no doubt but that our water quality
programs and laws have led to reduced levels of effluent discharge and are
associated with measured improvements in water quality in Puget Sound. The
land acquisition programs of BOR and 1AC have helped to'bring into public
ownership tracts of land on Puget Sound to meet the recreational needs of
our growing population. These programs are not without their snags, and
are only partially completed, thus making1t: hard to answer the question
"Will these programs (like the myriad of other programs related to management
of the Sound) ultimately achieve the legislative goals set down for the
programs?" Thus, while in some cases we can observe movement in the right
direction, it is hard to see where we are headed ultimately.

Social scientists are conditioned to situations characterized by flux in public
values. Regulations and laws are in a constant state of change, not just be-
cause we change ou'r values as previously discussed, but because-technology
changes, and because we find that earlier approaches were either unimplemen-
table, inequitable, or inadequate. The nation's political system is designed
to allow continuous adjustment in governmental pr'ograms, and this type of
flux makes it extremely hard to assess how effective a program is in mid-stream.

We can be assured that if problems arise with present programs, or the lack of
programs, we will develop new approaches to their solution.

The current debate over petroleum transfer systems in this state is an example of
a marine environmental management problem in a state of flux. Existing state and
federal programs and regulations are viewed from various quarters as either in-
adequate or too restrictive. The relationship between major and minor oil spills
and federal and state water pollution control programs is undefined. The inte-
gration of new petroleum transfer systems into this state's coastal zone management
and shorelines management programs is undefined. The regional wisdom and economics
of additional petroleum movements are still being debated while we are in the midst
of "baseline" studies on the environments likely to be afiected by any oil spills.
Those scientific studies designed to obtain an understanding of Puget Sound's
oceanography, such that we could better evaluate what impacts would be on the
natural environmental system of an oil spill will probably not be completed until
after it will be necessary to make major oil transfer and petroleum processing
policy decisions with possible far-reaching consequences for Puget Sound's marine
environment.

Our coastal zone and shoreline management programs are also in a state of flux,
with some calling for their strengthening, and others out to scuttle them. Are
they doing the job intended? It is too soon to tell, as some work conducted at
this University has shown. The program is just being implemented in many local
jurisdictions, and the cumulative consequences of its implementation may not be
observed for years. The consequences of these programs on the marine environment
itself have received less attention than the implications for shoreline development,
and most pressure to change these programs comes from those concerned with
terrestrial rather than marine affairs.

While there is probably some legitimacy to the argument that current permitting
procedures for coastal zone development are more complicated than necessary, it
seems to me that within a given jurisdiction this is an adminstrative matter which
can be solved and is unrelated to the larger purposes of the legislation--effec-
tively the development of comprehensive land-use plans for the state's shorelines.
As to whether the local plans which have been developed are unduly restrictive or
too lax, again we are not in a position to judge, for they are too new. The pro-
gram has forced some new development from shorelines, on the theory that shore-
lines are a relatively scarce resource in comparison to all land and only shore-
line-dependent use should prevail, a theory valid in terms of acreage or square
mileage. However, it is too soon to say whether the systematic influence of the
adopted Master Programs will substantially relocate development in the Puget Sound
region, or will systematically alter land values for various types of shoreline
uses. Similarly, it is too soon to identify quantitatively in an aggregate way
the marine environmental impact of these new programs. Qualitatively, their con-
servation bias seems to imply that many regions will remain in a more natural
condition than would be the case without these laws, thus helping to preserve
critical habitat areas with consonant positive impacts on the related marine
environmental system. The same could be said of terrestrial environmental pro-
tection laws, to the extent that they indirectly affect the Puget Sound marine
environment (such as the Forest Practices Act, SEPA, NEPA, etc.).

One of the major issues which the state must address as a result of all the local
shoreline Master Programs is their collective nature and impact. The process of
developing the master programs was highly decentralized, with no higher level
evaluation as to whether the areas committed in aggregate to (for example) urban-
industrial types of use (which generally involve substantial disturbance of ad-
jacent marine environments) are too great from a regional perspective. If this
is the cese, the degree of indirect protection the legislation was designed to
assure for the marine environment has not been achieved, and some rationalization
of the local plans is needed. The cumulative impact of many relatively low in-
tensity types of shoreline uses, such as residences, also needs to be assessed.
Unfortunately, this type of assessment is not required in the State Shoreline
Management Act. The state shorelines management program also seems to me to be
biased towards considering appropriate land uses in certain areas without adequate
concern for the individual parcel and the cumulative impact of these uses on the
near-shore marine environment. Now that we have essentially completed the master
program planning process for shoreline management in the Puget Sound region, what
system will and should we have for the evolution of these plans, and how should
we evaluate the performance of the Master Plbs? How should any regional or state
level analysis of the several local plans be conducted and possibly lead to
rationalization of the local plans? How should we relate these CZM plans to,
characteristics of the marine environment?

Each of the questions just posed has several answers, although they will only be
addressed when and if there is sufficient public pressure to do so.

The seemingly permanent nature of the shoreline Master Programs must be accom-
modative of change, and it may well be that the regional zoning of far more land
for urban-industrial purposes than is likely to be used even within a century will
provide the needed latitude for us to avoid the adoption of a required Master Pro-
gram planning cycle of, for example, 5 or 10 years. (It is recognized that Master
Programs can be revised by individual governments should the need arise under
current law.) However, carrying this excess invites spotty development, over-
investment or premature investment in infrastructure (such as bulkheads, landfills,
etc.) with possibly adverse financial impacts if anticipated development fails to
materialize in a program subject to long-term amortization.

It does not appear as though the state government can or should independently
undertake a regional assessment of the various shoreline master programs. Instead,
I would urge that the state should facilitate discussion of these plans at the
regional scale, attempting to relate aggregate quantities of shoreline designated
as available for various uses to projections of need for these aggregate amounts
of shoreline. An input-output system of the type to be discussed by Richard
Conway at this conference could possibly be used to obtain the estimates of
regional need or demand for shoreline to be used by various sectors and house-
holds, coupled as such a model is to medium and long-range forecasts of economic
and social activity. However, the data requirements and model specification
problems for relating a typical Leontief-type input-output model to an essentially
linear type of land-use with great variations in intensity of use available are
significant. The various local government jurisdictions could coordinate the
discussions of alternative local allocations of classes of shoreline use and
estimated regional demands for such shoreline uses. These governments could
articulate possible sequences for changes in use, in contrast to the present
static nature of the Master Plans.

The state should also take the leadership in improving our knowledge of the inter-
dependence between shoreline/coastal zone management programs and the Puget Sound
marine environmental system. In effect this could be done via cooperative efforts
between the Department of Ecology, Department of Natural Resources, Department of
Fisheries, Oceanographic Commission, and other federal, state, and local agencies.
A program of this type could and should be tied to research institutions such as
this University and NOAA, and hopefully the results of basic research efforts
such as the MESA program can be tied to man-oriented coastal zone programs.

It seems that we social scientists have a propensity to operate at a scale of
generalization which is several orders of magnitude above that utilized by nat-
ural scientists, making it very hard for either group to integrate information
utilized by the other group. If the state government is really concerned about
the relationship between people and the marine environment of Puget Sound, and
if there is this barrier to communication between scientists also interesed in
Puget Sound, it should support research which increases the prospect of fruitful
(pol,icy-oriented) interaction between different types of scientists. The Sea
Grant program at this University is an example of a place where research on such
infegrative approaches should be possible. However, unless there is a perceived
public need to protect a public good or a resource of common value to all of us
which is endangered because of either our ignorance or neglect, this type of
research will not occur here or anywhere else.

I can assure you that the people of this state were quick to point out the value
they attach to Puget Sound in the Alternatives for Washington program. In many
different regions of the state, as well as with respect to many different types
of use of Puget Sound, they were concerned not only with the maintenance of the
quality of the environment, but also with the development of Puget Sound as a
marine resource which can contribute to our economy. They supported this en-
hanced economic role for the Sound with the proviso that it not lead to environ-
mental degradation, like that which frequently accompanies heavy industry such
as petrochemicals, heavy metals production, or petroleum transfer facilities.
In short, if this public preference polling is to be reflected in public policy,
and it should be in a democratic society if the results are arrived at in an
unbiased manner, which I believe they were, then it is clear that the people of
the state will support our coastal environmental laws and regulations.
While our existing regulations for the management of Puget Sound as a public
good and common property resource are imperfect, they are probably moving us in
the desired direction. We can expect that these regulations will be continuously
adjusted as society changes its values or perceives new needs or problems, as.
scientists refine their knowledge of the Sound's environmental system, and as
technologists innovate new ways of using or relating to Puget Sound's resources.
Frequently these changes will occur before we know the effects on man or the
marine environment of the old ways. Hopefully, Bish et. al. were right about
the adaptability and performance of the mechanism we Fave @invented and will

invent to cope with these changes, when they concluded an analysis of management
programs for Puget Sound written several years ago as follows:

. . .the conclusions here must be that humans, whatever their values
and preferences, have done a reasonable job in creating an institutional
structure for the governance of Puget Sound's resources that matches
the diversity and complexity of the Sound's resource system and the
uses that people make of it. This does not mean that the system is
perfect or that it can or should stablize in a static form. Citizen
access is extensive but participation is becoming more costly. Various
subsystems have become more sophisticated in resource management and
in recognizing their interdependencies but there is certainly more to
be done. State and local governments tend to underinvest in relation
to the Sound in management and regulatory functions in contrast to
directly consumable public goods and services. Even so, the system
has demonstrated a capacity for learning and continued evolution as
new resource use preferences and conflicts have emerged (p. 198,
Bish et. al.).

REFERENCE

1. Bish, Robert L., Robert Warren, Louis F. Weschler, James A.
Crutchfield, and Peter Harrison, 1975. "Coastal Resource Use:
Decisions on Puget Sound," Washington Sea Grant and University
of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

MUDDLING THROUGH THE MANAGEMENT OF PUGET SOUND

Brian W. Mar
University of Washington

It is difficult to prepare a paper that will anticipate the views of eight pre-
vious speakers in the same topic and hope that it will contribute something that
was not said. Furthermore, as an outside observer of coastal zone management
activities, it is easy to look at only a small part of the issue and not realize
the complexity of this problem. As the issue was defined for this panel, I find
two key works--restrictive and rationale--of special interest for my remarks. In
the face of increasing demand there does not seem to be any way to conserve and
protect the environment without being unduly restrictive. For example, to pro-
tect any resource whether it be a flowering hush, a beach with abundant intertidal
forms, or a natural delta, it must be realized that these are natural systems with
physically limiting regeneration mechanisms. A flowering bush can be stripped of
all flowers by passers-by, if each wants a flower for his or her own use. Removal
of anything at a rate faster than it can be produced will deplete the resource,
and introduction of a large enough perturbation to the regeneration process will
prevent the maximum production of the resource.

Since there is only a fixed resource in the coastal zone, the more ways it must be
shared, the more restrictive regulations and guidelines must become if any form of
equity is to be maintained. In almost all natural resources, the regulation of
the use must focus on changing types of use rather than just rationing among one
particular use. Consider a hypothetical example of the discovery of a bush that
has pods that contain diamonds rather than beans. Natives have found that it
takes all the energy a person has to get to the bush and remove one pod. Since
diamonds have only ceremonial value to the natives only a few pods are harvested
each year and the rest remain on the bush. One day an explorer stumbles upon this
region and learns of the diamond bush. As the word spreads external pressure to
get to the bush increase. In the mean time, this same series of events have been
repeated in four other parts of the globe. The first group of natives have some-
how acquired an economist as an advisor and have established a free market for
rights to enter their land and travel to the bush. The price for rights increases
as the demand increases. Unfortunately, the delays in information concerning the
number of pods remaining on the bush and the response of demands caused the bush
to be stripped before prices could be raised. Since the income from the rights
had not exceeded the economists' fee the natives received nothing for their efforts

The second group of natives acquired an ecologist to study the bush and provide
information on the regenerative capacity of the bush, the ideal environment to
cultivate the bush, and determine maximum sustained yields prior to taking action.
After forty years of study the ecologist concluded that there were only 5 bushes
in the world, that the bush blooms once every 500 years but does not reproduce,
that the pods remain on the bush 40 years and then are oxidized to C02. The tribe
now is wiser, but must wait 500 years to benefit from this knowledge. In the mean
time 50% of the men have been killed in actions to prevent harvesting of the pods
during the time research was proceeding.

The third group of natives retain a lawyer who suggests the natives pass regula-
tions: 1) that require any one traveling to the bush to file an impact statement,
2) that requires each tribe to develop a master program to define where wars, hunts
and ceremonies can occur, and 3) that requires that separate tribal,councils be
formed to review each of these regulations. Since the level of knowledge was low
on the relationship of the proposed activities and the response of the bush, the
approved actions and plans permitted 2 subchiefs to harvest all the pods since
they had the power to enforce the threat to eat any one venturing near the bush.

The fourth group of natives retained an engineer who argued that by building a new
road, any native can easily travel to the bush and gather many pods. The engineer
indicated that for 15% of the pods harvested they would gladly construct the road.
Unfortunately, the construction crew caused a land slide which exposed a seam into
a nearby volcano and the bush was destroyed by molten lava before any pods could
be harvested.

The fifth group of natives successfully resisted all outside experts, and used the
bush as a sacred symbol to be viewed but not disturbed and enjoyed the viewing and
worshiping at the bush for 40 years until the pods disintegrated. Unfortunately,
during this period severe droughts and other natural hazards destroyed the food
resources of the region, and the natives lacking foreign exchange to purchase food
found that 90% of their people died of starvation.

What this hypothetical series of natural resource management suggests is that 1)
if harvesting begins, the tendency will be to overharvest and the demand will
build until only a very small group can participate (since harvest technology will
soon exceed the ability of the resource to sustain higher levels of harvest). On
the other hand, if it is not used at all, the economic values foregone may be sub-
stantial. This is all too obvious in the case of fish, shellfish, drift wood, and
even sitting on the beach in many parts of Puget Sound. In many of these resources,
the demand to harvest or remove becomes so great that it must be prohibitive.
People must change their use from one of consumption to one of anticipation, pur-
suit, or observation. The entire population cannot dig clams or fish on Puget
Sound to supply a major fraction of its food supply any more; it cannot, even in
many cases, fish for trophy-sized fish, one must be content to view the natural
coastal settings, to look but not touch, since touching by many would destroy. 'In
many cases the viewing is so crowded that there may be little difference between
sitting in the domed stadium and sitting on the beach. With the potential of in-
creasing demands how can regulations not be restrictive and how can but a few
benefit?

To the lower income section of the population, what good are coastal zone regula-
tions that protect the natural environment for the elite few who can enjoy it?
How can one enjoy access to the shoreline when one cannot get to the access point?
What evidence has been gathered to determine that if the natural environment is
protected, the wealthy from all over the world will still not overrun the resource?

Since science can do little to answer these questions before the resource is de-
pleted, one should question the wisdom of planning (which requires almost full
knowledge) and a scientific basis for decision-making. The conventional wisdom
seems to indicate that we have and will continue to muddle our way through coastal
zone management. Muddling is defined as the process where an action is taken and
then if no objections occur further action is taken in the same direction. On the
other hand, strong reaction to any action should result in retracting the action
and trying something else. In the case of coastal zone management the trend seems
to be to continue to introduce regulations that further restrict the ability of
anyone or-any group from changing the status quo. It also suggests that scienti-
fic information can help the management process. In hindsight, the creation of
DOE provided a mechanism to protect the coastal zone, yet SEPA was adopted to be
more specific; subsequently SMA and CZM regulations provided additional actions to
focus on the coastal zone. While each of these actions creates more hurdles to
cross before activities can occur on the shoreline, they do little to address the
real issue of how to equitably share the limited resources that exist. This may
suggest that only those with enough resources to pass the hurdles can qualify
(which is not a satisfying answer).

A common thrust of most regulations has been the requirement for citizen participa-
tion or local involvement. This seems to be another muddling action for decision
makers who have lost contact with their constituencies and are seeking alte@native
ways to hear from the troops. People are tired of serving in citizen's groups be-
cause officials cannot find alternative ways to define where the pressure g1loups
are and how they react. If they have to serve on a citizen's group for each gov-
ernmental action that has major impact on them, they would not have time to attend
all the meetings even if they gave up eating, sleeping and working. I would en-
courage the rapid passage of regulations until major revolts are encountered. I
sense little revolt in the coastal zone area, so more regulations may be in order.
I do sense revolt in citizen participation requirements since many of the active
citizens are becoming weary of the time demands of such efforts and the lack of
major benefits. We need to muddle in a new direction and some are suggesting
mediation.

My early concern for the impotency of science needs further explanation. Science
can only define the limits of the resource and its sensitivity to management
action but science does not address the difficult question of how to allocate the
resource. Allocation is a matter of values and perceptions, a topic ,that has not
yielded to science. Thus overemphasis on science and the ability to forecast
future actions or impacts of such actions may not be significant in the regulation
process. :It just presents an additional hurdle where a scientist can be retained
by opposing interest groups to argue their ignorance over the issue at hand. Can
science tell us the limits of the coastal resource any better than we know it to-
day? Can this added knowledge make much difference in the way allocation of the
resource is made? I would agree that it can for a selected few, but it does little
for society as a whole. If we have enough people concerned about impacts of actions,

we should listen more to their concerns. It will be a value judgement when the
reaction is loud enough that action is necessary. Much of the coastal zone reg-
ulations are still in response to the environmental reactions of the 1960's. The
energy, economic and employment concerns of the 1970's will probably shape the
subsequent actions away from preservation.

As I indicated earlier, the limited amount of coastal zone resources compared to
the staggering competing demands that will develop for these resources, seems to
dictate only two equilibrium results; either it will be preserved on a "look but
don't touch basis" where no one can use it (since use would result in serious deg-
radation) or it will be exploited and consumed till it has little of the natural
features remaining. Whether the transition from the current status to either end
point will be fast or slow will depend on more than regulations; it will depend on
the people selected to administer and develop such regulations. I hope they will
develop their ability to react and observe the reaction of elements of society. I
sense in reviewing the actions to date that many are jumping the hurdles establish-
ed by regulations, but no one knows where they are going or why they want to win.
Like the natives seeking to protect their diamond bush, can we protect the coastal
zone or will our actions accelerate its degradations? The regulations can protect
us from the known, but it is the unknown or the forgotten that continually creates
problems in resource management. Science or muddling i s no match for the unknown
if demand cannot be controlled.

How should use limits
be established?
RESEARCH VIEWPOINTS

b
Ilk

PROCEEDINGS
March 23-25, 1977
A Washington Sea Grant Publication
University of Washington - Seattle

AN INPUT-OUTPUT ECONOMETRIC MODEL OF THE PUGET SOUND REGION:
A SUGGESTION

Richard S. Conway, Jr.
University of Washington

What is the impact on the Puget Sound economy of expanding facilities of the Port
of Seattle? What is the appropriate development of shorelines given the pressures
of regional growth? What will be the nature and source of future pollution affect-
ing Puget Sound? These are examples of the many questions that face citizens,
government officials, businesspersons, and academicians as they plan for the future
of Puget Sound.

Common to the three questions asked here is the fact that underlying each answer is
some forecast of the regional economy. How an expansion of the Port would affect
the Puget Sound community would in part depend upon the resulting direct and in-
direct demands placed upon the local economy for,goods, services, land, labor, and
capital. Shoreline development plans would have to entail projections of the growth
of industry, income, and population, among other things, since shoreline managoment
involves the reconciliation of the industrial and recreational needs of the public.
Similar projections would also have to underlie forecasts ofipollution in Puget
Sound.

An input-output econometric model is designed to provide the long-run economic
projections required to address these and similar questions. With an explicit
but flexible structure, comprehensive and detailed coverage of key economic vari-
ables, a1nd internally consistent forecasts, the model is in general an effective
framework within which to conduct regional economic analysis.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE MODEL

There are a variety of regional forecasting models, some much less complex than the
input-output model described in this paper. The question arises, why not employ
them instead? The correct response is that, indeed, a number of forecasting tools
should be made available. Which one to employ depends upon the particular problem
at hand. For example, if we require an estimate of expected regional income, a
simple extrapolation of past incomes may well provide acceptable precision in many
instances.

However, an econometric model with an input-output core is potentially one of the
most powerful forecasting tools available. Its distinguishing attribute is the
explicitness with which it presents the structure of the economy. Not only does
this structure permit the projection of a large number of economic variables in an
internally consistent manner, but it gives insight into why economic activity is
at one level and not at another. By the same token, forecasters can address ques-
tions regarding how the economy might respond to a change at some point in its
structure, such as an increase in its exports. Impact questions such as this
commonly confront regional decision makers.

The broad outlines of the regiona1forecasting system begin to emerge in Figure 1,
which indicates the major lines of economic force operating on the Puget Sound
region. For modeling purposes, these lines are assumed to be uni-directional, run-
ning from the U.S. economy directly and indirectly (through the state economy) to
the region. As such, the economic behavior of Puget Sound is viewed as being con-
ditioned largely by its external economic environment. Feedback effects from the
region to the state and to the nation are present, but from a forecasting stand-
point, they most likely are of little concern, although this is a statement
requiring empirical substantiation.

A more detailed depiction of a Puget Sound model is found in Figure 1. The model
itself is a system of linear and nonlinear equations, which is designed to explain,
or predict, the long-run interrelated behavior of many economic variables. The
simultaneous solution of this equation system in a given year constitutes the set
of predictions for that year. The individual equations can be conveniently grouped
into blocks, or sub-models. These blocks and interconnecting linkages shown in
Figure I describe the fundamental logic of the regional model.

Following export base concepts, the model identifies two sets of economic demands
placed upon the region, export (or external) demands and local (or internal) de-
mands. The export demands are considered to be a primary driving force behind
regional growth. Exports in this context are meant to include foreign exports,
exports to the rest of Washington State and the-nation, and federal government
expenditures. Exports of regional industries are largely determined by the state
and national economic environments. Specifically, industry exports are postulated
to be rel'ated to the corresponding state and U.S. outputs, an allowance being
made for increasing or decreasing shares of these external markets. Projections
of state and national outputs in turn come from the WPSM model of Washington State
and the INFORM model of the U.S., both of which belong to the family of input-
output forecasting models.

The local output required to support these external sales triggers the first set
of internal demands, the interindustry demands. For example, the export demand for
regionally produced aircraft establishes a chain of demands which affect output in
the local electrical machinery industry and the business service sector, among
others. The induced output in these industries in turn sets up further inter-
mediate demands, all of which are depicted by the equations in the output block.
It is not an overstatement to say that these input-output relations represent the
heart of the model.

However, the linkages are far from completely specified. Industrial output and
projections of productivity combine to predict the number of jobs in the Puget Sound

world Economy

u.s. Economy

Strong

Weak

Strong Washington Weak
Economy

Strong ?

Sound
omy

Figure
The Primary Linkages of a Puget Sound Model

75
Puget
Ecoi

economy. This determines the number of persons employed, which, when coupled with
predictions of unemployment and labor force participation, leads to projections of
the labor force and resident population.

In the course of production, income is earned, primarily in the form of wages,
salaries, and proprietors' income. Independent forecasts are made of property in-
come, transfer payments, employer contributions to social insurance, and personal
tax and nontax payments, which result in a determination of disposable income.

Disposable income and population together are key factors explaining the second
array of internal demands, the final demands of the regional consumption, invest-
ment, and state and local government sectors. Consumer spending is related di-
rectly to the disposable income of households. Residential construction is linked
to household income as well as to the current stock of housing, interest rates,
and the cost of construction. Other private fixed investment is tied to indus-
trial output levels, while inventory change is explained by changes in these
levels. Disposable income also influences state and local government spending,
but factors such as school-age population and federal highway expenditures also
play a role.

At the same time that these feedback loops are operating, so called leakages are
present in the system, These take the form of savings, taxes, and imports, and
represent income or revenue that is not redirected into the flow of locally
oriented demands. Although the model predicts personal taxes, it stops short of
a complete specification of taxes and savings. On the other hand, the model does
generate forecasts of imports. Despite the lack of attention paid to these vari-
ables, they are an important component of the system. Without the drain caused
by taxes, savings, and imports, the flow of demand running through the feedback
loop joining, say, output, income, and consumption would run interminably, caus-
ing the model to "explode" as prediction values grow to infinity. Speaking in
mathematical terms, the leakages permit the system of equations constituting the
economic model to converge to a solution.

APPLICATIONS

Uses of an input-output econometric model fall into two general categories, base-
line forecasting and impact analysis. In the simplest case, the objective of
baseline forecasting is to predict the future path of the regional economy. Ob-
viously, we cannot know for certain what the next 10 or 15 years have in store
for Puget Sound, but the model is a means by which we can reasonably predict
likely courses of events. If there is disagreen.-ient over a particular set of pro-
jections, appropriate changes in the model (such as an alternation in the values
of variables exogenous, or given, to the model) can be readily made. In this
fashion, we can generate alternative growth scenarios for the region.

As indicated by Figure 2, baseline forecasts yield projections of many variables.
For each industry, there are predictions of output, value added, regional inter-
mediate inputs, imports, wages, salaries, and proprietors' income, employment,
regional intermediate sales, and sales to final demand sectors. Other variables
determined by the model include Gross Regional Product, total persons employed,
labor force, unemployment rate, population, personal income, disposable income,
disposable income per capita, personal consumption, residential housing invest-
ment, equipment investment, state and local education expenditures, state and

Coefficient Consumption
Change

as Exports output

U.S. and
Imports output Washington
(1/0 Relations) State
Highway Variables
State and
Local
Government

Employment
Income and Inves went
Population

productivity Rates

W
Wage Rates, Tax Rates. Per Capita Property income and Transfer Payments
age "Rates, Tax Rate.. Pe. L7
Figure 2

Puget Sound Input-Output Econometric Model

local education expenditures, state and local non-education expenditures, and
highway construction.

Nor does the list end here. Any variable, economic as well as non-economic, that
is related to the principal variables of the Puget Sound model can be added to the
system. For example, we can test for the existence of a relationship between
waste residuals and output. If we find one, we can -use the estimated waste re-
sidual coefficient or function to project future pollution in the region. In a
like manner, we can also predict such things as water use, manpower requirements,
energy consumption, land use patterns, and tax revenues.

The second major application is impact, or multiplier, analysis. The most common
impact problem is the measurement of the anticipated effect on the economy of an
expansion in the exports of some industry. Given a fully specified forecasting
model, these impacts can be measured in terms of changes in Gross Regional Prod-
uct, disposable income, persons employed, population, housing construction, or
even kilowatt-hours. In fact, a multiplier value can be estimated for any of the
variables endogenous to the Puget Sound model.

For those familiar with input-output techniques, we should point out that the
multipliers of an input-output econometric model are conceptually superior to
those of a typical static input-output model in at least four respects. First,
the input-output econometric model.is closed with regard to state and local goven-
ment expenditures and investment; that is, there is an accounting of the fe6dback
loops running through these two sectors of final demand. The output-income-con-
sumption linkage is also more accurately specified than that found in static
models. Third, the multipliers are dynamic in the sense that their values follow
a time path as the various lag,s and time-phased adjustments operate within the
system. Lastly, the model is not restricted to linear homogeneous functions and
temporally constant interindustry coefficients, the latter being a chief concern
among input-output practitioners.

THE FEASIBILITY OF A PUGET SOUND MODEL

Although the preceding discussion has been couched in the present tense, there is
no input-output econometric model of Puget Sound at this time. A critical ques-
tion therefore becomes whether such a model is feasible. Experience with
national models and the Washington State model strongly suggests an affirmative
answer, although further study of this question is certainly warranted.

As indicated by Figure 3, building a model of the Puget Sound economy would in-
volve essentially two phases, the data-gathering phase and the construction phase.
The most difficult and time-consuming step would be the collection of facts and
figures necessary to implement a well-specified model. In comparison to publish-
ed national information, the regional data base is thin and often of poor quality.
However, there is good historical information on regional income and employment
by industry. There is even a fair amount of data upon which to develop time
series estimates of output. The biggest gap in the data base involves the final
demand expenditures for consumption, investment, the services of state and local
government, and exports. In this case, one could derive regional estimates from
expenditures series developed for Washington State during the course of the WPSM

Data Gathering Construction

Z 9:

0) 00
Cz 0
ca Aj 0)
0

0 r

U.S x x x x x x INFORM, Wharton, BLS

Washington x x x x x WPSM

Puget Sound ? ?

X = complete
= partially complete or readily obtainable

Figure 3

The Feasibility of a Puget Sound Nodel

project, an approach that would seem not unreasonable, since about two-thirds of
economic activity in the state is concentrated around Puget Sound. As for an in-
put-output table, we would have the choice of a table derived from secondary
sources (such as the 1972 Washington State interindustry table), which could be
estimated without much difficulty, or one based on a survey of businesses, which
would be presumably more reliable but certainly more expensive.

Once the data were gathered, the actual construction of the model would be rather
straightforward. Tinkering with the specification of the forecasting equations
would be necessary, but the formulation of the Washington State model would pro-
vide useful guidelines. One last, but very important, step would be the testing
of the model. Often,,when analysts have an operational model in their hands, it
becomes a toy; and little effort is expended in scientifically evaluating its
properties of predictivecapabilities. Since no model is an exact replica of the
entity being depicted, it must be continually monitored and re-calibrated. In-
deed, the job of regional economic modeling must be an ongoing one--that is, if
forecasting is to be at all effective.

CONCLUSION

The strength of an input-output econometric model stems from its explicit struc-
ture, by which we mean that there is a clearly traceable line of logic underlying
the relationships between economic variables in the system. As much as possible,
this is an attempt to remove the mysticism pervading many of the forecasting
models that have been built strictly on the grounds of statistical correlation.
Furthermore, because of this structure, inherent in the model are a number of
other valuable characteristics, including:

comprehensiveness

detail

consistency

flexibility

As a consequence, an input-output econometric model of Puget Sound would be a
potentially powerful framework within which not only to make baseline projections,
but to understand the intricate workings of our economy, especially with regard
to how the economy would react to changes imposed upon it.

The major drawback of a Puget Sound model would be its cost. Such a model appears
feasible, but it is also clear that its construction would represent a substantial
research investment. However, given the importance of the problems facing analysts
in our community, it seems more appropriate to ask whether we can affort not to
pursue modeling of this sort.

SEDIMENTATION RATES IN PUGET SOUND AND THEIR
APPLICATION TO HEAVY METALS POLLUTION

Ahmad Nevissi a@d William R. Schell
University of Washington

INTRODUCTION

Aside from being an important inland waterway, Puget Sound is the nursery ground
for a number of commercially important marine organisms. Therefore, the natural
balance of nutrients and trace elements in Puget Sound is important to the com-
mercial and sport fisheries that have been established. Any imbalance in environ-
mental conditions may alter the biological productivity of the marine life which
would affect the fishery. In recent years, the residents and industries have ex-
panded, and the disposal of wastes into Puget Sound, including trace metals, has
increased. The key problem in the control of aquatic pollution is how to deter-
mine the amount of waste that can be carried by the receiving waters without
damage to the marine environment.

Lead-210 dating of sediment cores is one technique for measuring sedimentation
rates and establishing the age of recently deposited sediments. The basic as-
sumptions behind lead-210 dating are uniform sedimentation rate, constant input
of lead-210 into the sediment from the overlying water coluinn and secular equil-
ibrium between supported lead-210 and radium-226 over the last several hundred
years at each location (Koide et al. 1972). Sediments are the sinks for heavy me-
tals in marine environment and, thus, changes in concentration of heavy metals in
the overlying water column with time can be indicated in sediment core profiles. The
dating method, in conjunction with analysis of heavy metals in dated cores, have been
utilized here in evaluating the history of heavy metals preserved in sediments
over the past 10-100 years.

METHODS

Sediment cores were collected near West Point and Alki Point outfalls as well as
other areas of Puget Sound using a 5-cm-diameter gravity corer and a 3.5-cm damp-
ed piston corer, equipped with plastic core liners. Sampling stations are shown
in Figure 1 (note the sample numbers). Cores showing any disturbance of surface
sediment were rejected; the selected cores were stored at 50C until sectioning.
In the laboratory the cores were cut into 1-cm sections and the outer 3-mm portions

1220
40 35 30 25 20

x
55- 301 -55
*41292 x
601

0 5
L
Nautical Miles
"0

50. so

368
IE
x

470
45
-45
*41162

Central Puget Sound

TOI Shilshol
x say
40- 05, :4,2:1441053 o
41 51 .41294
4,1
x
39: '41293

x
604

410
62
*41668
Elliot8
my

35
35
k0l,
H,'

41160-
T 10 *41055
I
aXrVO54
k.

41 .;a

3 . . ... ..... 30

40 35 311 25
FIGURE 1. Location of water treatment plants (WTP) and sampling locations
for cores, o, in central Puget Sound.

were removed; the sections were then,dried, homogenized, weighed, and a portion
of the subsample was spiked with 208Po and was wet-ashed with distilled HN03 and
HC103(Smith 1953) for determination of 21OPb and trace metals. Analytical details
on measuring 21OPb activity and trace metals concentrations are given (Schell and
Nevissi 1977).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
An example of the values for a typical core profile for 21OPb dating is shown in
Figure 2. The heavy metals measured in the same core profile are represented in
Figure 3. Other cores measured were observed to have a single or two distinct
sedimentation rates from the several locations.

We have dated 14 cores from different areas of central Puget Sound by the 21OPb
radiometric technique (Table 1). The results show that there are wide variations
in the sedimentation rates at different regions within Puget Sound (2-10.3 mm yr-I).
The input of '21OPb and trace metals to sediment at each location in Puget Sound
depends on the currents, sediment composition, biological activity in the sedi-
dent and the proximity of stream and river input of sand and silt from the land.
The organic carbon content of the sediments and the sedimentological parameters
(percentage of gravel, sand, silt, and clay) have not been measured in the cores
used for this study. However, a granulometric survey of the marine surface sc-,'i-
ments from the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound was reported by Roberts (1974).
By matching the core sampling stations from this study with the stations in the
Roberts report, these sedimentological parameters were estimated as shown in
Table 1. Considering the above factors, an attempt was made to compare the past
history of trace metals deposition at each core location with the present concen-
trations using the 21OPb dating technique to establish the time history.

In an area which may be contaminated by man's waste material, the natural back-
ground of heavy metals cannot be obtained from any measurement of contemporary
samples of the water, sediment or biota. It must be determined from the samples
collected at a previous date, before man's input. However, if measurements of
samples are not available, an indication of the amount of heavy metals which were
present at the previous date, at least in the sediments, may be obtained from the
measurement of the heavy metal concentrations in accurately dated core profiles.
It has been assumed that the migration of elements in the sediment profile is
negligible, although this assumption may not be valid for certain elements,
sediment types, and water conditions.
The use of the 210 Pb dating technique for 14 cores collected in central Puget
Sound and the enrichment of the heavy metal concentrations in sediment layers be-
tween the time period of 1900-1920 and 1955-1975 are shown in Table 1. Since the
sedimentation rates differ at various core sampling locations, the 21OPb dating
technique has been used to reconstruct (normalize) the average concentrations of
trace metals which were deposited as sediment during the above-mentioned time
periods at each station. This most significant enrichment of several heavy
metals is found at station 41053, which is located 2 miles north of the West
Point outfall, and at station 41051 which is located 2 miles east of the West
Point outfall. At these 2 stations the particle size measurements show that the
silt and clay fractions are greater than at other nearby stations; this indicates
that the pollutant heavy metals are associated with fine sediment particles. The
maximum enrichment (station 41053) is for Cu (2.8) and Pb (3.6); all other metals

21OPb

.,P.@Og d'y
4
10

18- 1.4

20-

22- "4 Sedimentation rate 9 mm/year

24-

26-

28-

30-

32-

c
34-

36- FIGURE 2. Example of the
21OPb activity measured as a
31- function of depth in core
#41054 collected I mile north
40L of Blake Island at 196 m depth.
Sedimentation rate 9 mm/year.

42-

44-

46-

48-

so-

Pg/g dry
Core41054
90 "0 130 30 40 50 so 40 50 60 30 40 so 20 30 40 60 10 20 3(' .2 .3 .4 .5 .8 .7
I I 1 -1975
4- - - - - - - -

1
2
E
20- -1955 E
CD

28-

44 E
501 1--@ I I
Z n N I C U P b C r C 0 H g

FIGURE 3. Concentration profiles of Zn, Ni, Cu, Pb, Cr, Co, and Kg in core #41054 collected in central
Puget Sound. (Concentrations in jig/g, dry, � 15Z single sample analytical error.)

Table 1. Surface Sediment Enrichment of Trace Metals in Central Puget Sound. Average concentrations in 1955-1975 time
periods are divided by those of the 1900-1920 period.
Area point _jIlIqL@U Alki Eoint -Con-tral Stations
Core f 41293 41294 41053 41051 41062 41668 1 41160 41059 41058 41055 41054 4JJ62 4115 41292
Lat. '7'39'43" 47*39'5411 47'40'30" 47'38'49"1 47*37'40" 47'36'50"' 47'33'5" 47'33'46" 47'32,311, 47'33,351, 47*33'35" 47'44'48" 47'29 5" 47-50-48"
(N)
Long. 122'28'13" 122*27'4911 122'25'44" 122'29'14"@122'24'56" 122-26-52" 122'27-5" 122-25123" 122*24'53" 122'28'5" 122-28-5" 1122-25-42" 122-30'5.. 122-30.44"
(W)
Water 246 240 100 190 175 196 250 157 187 183 196 283 102 160
depth
(m)

Particle
Size 7***
Sand 9.4 85.6 8'6 85.6 4.7 4.2 30.9 39.1 72.8 85.9 85.9 65.9 87.9 74.6
Silt 51.6 6.5 50.7 6.5 49.4 49.2 34.6 34.5 13.4 6.8 6.8 17.5 ?.7 9.9
Clay 39.0 7.8 40.7 7.8 45.9 46.7 34.6 26.4 13.7 7.3 7.3 12.3 2.8' 4.8
00
ON
Sedimentation
Rate
(mm./yr) 3.4 5,0 4.5 3.9 10.3 8.1 3@7 3.9 10.2 5@9 9,0 2@0 2@2 3@1

Zn 1.1 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.6
Ni 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.2
Cu 1.0 1.1 2.8 1.3 1.5 1.0 1@7 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.8
Pb 1.8 1.1 3.6 6 1 1 1.7 2.2 1.2 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.0 1.8
1-1 1.1 1.3 1.2 1 1.4
Cr 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2
Mn 1.1 1.0 1.3 1,2 1.3 - 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.0
Co 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1 1.1 1@0 1.0 1@0 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.0
Hq 2.4 1.3 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.6 6.1
Metals depleted in top layers.
Not measured.
Reported by Roberts (19)

measured have an enrichment of less than a factor of 2. The enrichment appears
to be localized to the immediate vicinity of the outfall, although the data are
too limited to give better regional distributions.

Core 41054 has high concentrations of heavy metals in sediments even though it was
taken at a region far from the outfall plume. The metal concentrations do not
appear to have changed greatly at this station over the past 50 years (49 cm).
The metal values measured in the surface section (Pb, 54 ppm; Cu, 52ppm; Zn,
122 ppm; Cr, 47 ppm) are comparable to concentrations measured in sediment cores
collected near the industrial areas and population centers of Puget Sound. The area
where the core was taken must be a natural sink for sediment, which may be due part-
ly to the eddies which are formed at thenorth end of Blake Island (Schell et al.1976).

CONCLUSION

The results show that the effective sedimentation rates in central Puget Sound
range from 2-10.3 mm/year and depend strongly on the physical circulation of the
water, proximity of the land and rivers and the bottom topography. The sedimentation
rates are higher than the adjacent continental shelf area (Nevissi and Schell unpubl.).
The enrichment of heavy metals in sediment layers has been determined from the values
obtained from layers which were over 50 years old. Enrichment of trace metals were
observed only in the vicinity of West Point and Alki Point. This probably has
resulted from dumping sewage or sludge from sewage treatment plants. The develop-
ment of plans for the rational use of Puget Sound should include information on
the sedimentation rates and residence times of water and particulate matter,

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO)
under contract No CR 2614.

REFERENCES

1. Koide, M., A. Soutar and E.D. Goldberg, "Marine Geochronology with 21OPb.-'
Earth and Planetary Sci. Lett. v. 14(1972) 442-446.

2. Smith, G.F. 1953. Anal. Chem. Acta 8, pp 397-402.
3. Schell, W.R. and A. Nevissi. 1977. "Heavy Metals from Waste Disposal in
Central Puget Sound." Submitted to Environmenta_1 Science and Technology,
4. Roberts, W.R. 1974. "Marine Sedimentological Data of the Inland Waters of
Washington State, Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound." Departrrent of
Oceanography, University of Washington. Special Report No. 56.
5. Schell,.W.R., E.E. Collias, A. Nevissi, and C.C. Ebbesmeyer. 1976. "Trace
Contarni nan Ls from Duwamish River Dredge Spoils Deposited off Fourmile Rock
in Elliott Bay." Final Report for Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle by
Laboratory of Radiation Ecology, University of Washington.
6. Nevissi, A. and W.R. Schell. "Sedimentation Rates in Puget Sound and Straits
of Juan de Fuca and Georgia." Unpublished.
87

SITE SELECTION AND DESIGN OF COMMUNITY OUTFALLS IN PUGET SOUND

Gary R. Minton, Jeffrey M. Rice, Grant Bailey, and Steven Fusco
URS Company

INTRODUCTION

Society can be expected to continue to use Puget Sound as a receiving water for
its treated wastewater,effluents. Continuation of this practice requires that
careful consideration be given to the site selection and design of new community
outfalls. Legal requirements, the environmental sensitivity of the public, and
the desire of the environmental planner to seek a satisfactory solution require
the use of a procedural methodology which results in a decision concerned
parties will believe is environmentally sound.

A wastewater facilities plan for the Silverdale area recommended in 1974 to aban-
don the overloaded primary plant at Silverdale, which discharged into Dyes Inlet,
with a new secondary treatment plant and outfall at Brownsville (Figure 1). The
plan was reviewed and approved by community leaders and the public according to
the regulatory procedures in effect at the time. The placement of a new outfall
at Brownsville was agreed upon because of the adverse water quality conditions
in Dyes Inlet.

In 1974 the Department of Defense announced its intention to construct the
Trident base at Bangor, and asked Kitsap County to evaluate the feasibility of
discharging the base's wastewater to 6e proposed Silverdale system. Apprehen-
sion by the local residents as to the potential environmental and social impact
of the Trident facility resulted in reevaluation of the previously accepted
wastewater facilities plan. Among other elements of the plan, they requested a
reevaluation of the outfall site including the consideration of additional
alternatives and a more detailed analysis of each alternative.

As Kitsap County's consultant, we advised them to begin the planning process com-
pletely anew, rather than to simply consider modifying the proposed plan. Time
was of the essence because the increased population in the Silverdale area was
creating a potential'health hazard in Dyes Inlet and the water supply wells. It
was essential to develop and implement a planning methodology which would fully
satisfy the public's questions and new regulatory requirements, thereby avoiding
potential delay over unresolved issues.

Poulsbo

Flt
U.S. Naval 4",
Reservation

"RM
angor

al@

IMN

Brownsville
Are 0
11 terce tors
@Silvercla I rea"i nnt,

NSA`,
P, ea Served
IZ Bainbridge Island
1, 619, no", I.-NJI
,13k 'N"
A
h@,
Planning A M "N"',
rea
Boundary
It

Bremerton 0 1 evj

OR
V

rth
--L-@@MILES

Figure 1
Originally Proposed Plan
89

The objective of this paper is to discuss key elements of the methodology utilized,
and based upon our experience with its use, suggest how existing water quality man-
agement and research programs may be modified to provide information which will
improve the planning process for site selection and design of community outfalls.

BASIC CONSIDERATIONS

To develop the methodology, the planner must give consideration to numerous fac-
tors. Although they interrelate, these factors can be placed into three concep-
tual categories: legal, political, and technical.

Legal Considerations

Two areas of legality must be satisfied: 1) the federal and state laws, regula-
tions, guidelines regarding water quality and 2) national and state environmental
policy acts. Specifically, these include the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (U.S. Congress, 1972) and their related regulations (EPA. 1975)
and gu-idelines (EPA, 1974); the Washington State water Quality laws (WWPC 1971,
1973; WNPDES 1974, 1976) and standards (Washington Revised Code, 1977), and the
Department of Ecology (DOE) guidelines on the definition of mixing zones for' out-
falls (DOE, 1973).

Washington standards (WWQS, 1973, 1977) specify conditions for various physical,
chemical and biological parameters. Of particular interest to this paper are
the toxic substances standards. No limiting concentrations for these substances
are specified. Rather, it is stated that deleterious concentrations of toxic
materials "shall be as determined by the Department (DOE) in consideration of
the Report of the National Technical Advi Committee on Water QuL@.@ Criter-
"ry
ia, 1968, and as revised ana/or other ;,ant informationsT7 WWQS 1973, T977

Washington regulations specify the relationship between standards and mixing zones,
specifically: "except for the aesthetic valUEs and acute biological shock condi-
tions the water quality criteria . . . shall not apply . . . within . . . mixing
zones. The total areas and/or volume of a receiving water assigned to a mixing
zone shall . . . not interfere with . . . important species to a degree which is
damaging to the ecosystem; nor diminish other beneficial uses disproportionately."
(WWQS 1973, 1977). Guidelines (DOE, 1973; EPA, 1976a, 1976b) further elucidate
the constraints on mixing zones.

An important legal element of the Federal Law has been the concept of "anti-
degradation. ., (U.S. Congress 1972). As interpreted by EPA and DOE at the initi-
ation of the planning process, antidegradation was understood to include three basic
elements. First, all existing beneficial uses must be protected. Secondly, high
quality waters must be maintained at their existing quality, unless limited de-
gradation is economically and socially justified. Finally, the wastewater is to
be provided wi,th all known, available, and reasonable methods of treatment. These
concepts have recently been included in EPA guidelines (EPA, 1976b) and the present-
ly proposed new standards for Washington (V.IWQS, 1973, 1977).

Attention must also be given to the State (SEPA) and Federal (NEPA) Environmental
Policy Acts (U.S. Congress, 1970; WEPA, 1971)@ U.S. Congress, Washington Revised
Code 1971@ Of special concern here are two major elements of these two Acts and
their attendant guidelines and regulations (DOE 1972, 1976; EPA, 1973, 1974b).
These are the public involvement requirement, and the requirement to consider all
alternatives via an adequate method of comparison.

Political Considerations

In general, the public is apprehensive about the location of an outfall in their
"backyard." This apprehension is complicated by an attitude, not necessarily
unhealthy, of skepticism and at times a lack of understanding of basic environ-
mental processes. The most often heard issues raised by the public are the po-
tential harm to humans and/or aquatic life by "fertilization," heavy metals, and
chlorinated hydrocarbons; land disposal in lieu of water body disposal; and the
precision and accuracy of the technical tools.

Technical Considerations

Site selection and design of the outfall require the quantification of the poten-
tial impact of the discharge on water quality, the biological receptors, and
other beneficial uses which exist within the vicinity of each of the alternative
sites. To do so, it is necessary to outline a technical procedure at the begin-
ing of the planning process. This procedure may follow six general steps:

Select mathematical models for predicting physical dilution and
changes in water quality.

Characterize physical, chemical and biological conditions of the
alternative outfall sites and effluent.

Select criteria for toxic pollutants from literature.

With the above tools and information, calculate physical dilution,
changes in water quality and biological impact at the alternative sites.

Select the most cost-effective site which fulfills the prescribed
environmental criteria.

Design the outfall diffusor to provide the required dilution.

The description of existing conditions at the sites can occur by one or both of
two methods: review of existing data and baseline studies. Conceptually, the
procedure is to identify what data are required by the analytical tools identified
in the first step, extract relevant data from the literature and then conduct a
field program to obtain thL remaining data. The characterization of the effluent
follows essentially this same procedure.

PLANNING METHODOLOGY--CENTRAL KITSAP COUNTY PROJECT

The authors synthesized the above considerations into a planning methodology
which was introduced to the regulatory agencies and the public in March, 1975
(URS, 1975). A preliminary draft document (Phase-0 was published in July, 1975,
with a public hearing held on July 25th. The completed draft plan (Phase II) was
published in December 1975, with a public hearm on January 25, 1976. The final
document was published in March, 1976 (URS, 1976 .

Our focus on this project was to comply with legal requirements and water quality
standards. Although legally required to consider "all" alternatives the number
of alternatives was necessarily limited by time and funds available but was also
limited in order to make the final selection process more coherent and manageable.
Therefore, alternatives were selected which provided a sufficiently broad range
to allow a real choice. Based on this logic, the alternative outfall sites shown
in Figure 2 were selected.

The definition of an "adequate" technical approach was much more difficult. The
regulations and guidelines which support SEPA and NEPA provide a succinct frame-
work of topics which must be addressed, but provide neither an indication as to
the depth to which each topic must be addressed, nor a methodology by which to
determine the appropriate depth.

We were, therefore, left with exercising our subjective professional opinion as
to what constitutes an adequate approach. The authors concluded that the public's
perceptions, and therefore their involvement, were essential to the success of
the planning process and in determining adequacy. Consequently, aside from the
ethical question of involving the public as intimately as possible in the process,
it was found to be very essential given the nebulous nature of "adequacy."

Several vehicles were utilized to involve the public. A Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee (CAC) was established, composed of both proponents and opponents of the
original plan. The technical approach was published (URS, 1975) to provide
an opportunity for the CAC, as well as the public at large, to comment on the
approach before planning began. All alternatives that were to be considered
were included in the document as well as the procedures for their evaluation.
Frequent meetings were held with community clubs. -Issues of most concern to the
public were identified and addressed. A preliminary draft report was published
early in the planning process, indicating the alternatives which, after a pre-
liminary objective analysis, would be given more detailed consideration in Phase
II. Thus, the public was given a formal opportunity to provide us with a mid-
course correction. Finally, the completed draft plan was presented. Of the
original eleven outfall site options three were recommended for consideration by
the public. Based upon their comments the final site was selected.

The objective of a technical analysis is to provide the proper combination of
treatment, outfall site selection and diffusor design which will avoid a viola-
tion of standards. However, within existing standards, the term "violation"
could be interpreted as having found one sample or one computer prediction for
which the concentration of the particular pollutant exceeds the standard value
specified. However, our analytical tools, as well as the complexity of nature
will not allow us to guarantee that a violation as defined above will not occur:

Site J
Foulweather Bluff

Poulsbo
Port Madison

1 Bangor

Silverdale BrownsviIlie Bainbridge Island.
D

E
IF

Dyes Inlet

B m rton

w H G

th Port Orchard
Blake Island

ILES

Figure 2
93 Alternative Outfall Sites

It became apparent early in the analysis that the most likely standard that would
possibly be violated was acute toxicity in the mixing zone. The standards state
that acute toxicity will be avoided but give no numerical values. We therefore
had to rely on recommended criteria to derive actual values not to be exceeded
(EPA, 1976; FWPCA,'1968; EPA, 1972).

It is important to realize that if the proposed criteria are used to represent
the standard, present municipal UTscharges are in violation with regard to
chlorine. Presently, chlorine residuals in municipal discharges are on the order
of 1 mg/l, not 0.002 mg/l and present acceptable cannot achieve a final value of
0.002 mg/l. Short of providing very sophisticated treatment which we believed
would be neither acceptable to the community nor to regulatory agencies, the
authors decided to dechlorinate with the use of sulfur dioxide to achieve a
residual of about 0.1 mg/1 and complete the dilution within the mixing zone.

It was our belief that acute toxic conditions could possibly occur with regard
to ammonia and some heavy metals. It was concluded that reduction for these
two items would be accomplished by biological oxidation of ammonia to nitrate
and chemical precipitation and clarification of the heavy metals, if the analysis
confirmed our preliminary judgments.

The standards specify that the mixing zone will "not interfere with biological
communities or populations of important species to a degree which is damaging to
the ecosystem." The definition of "important species" must occur on a case by
case basis, and is subject to a variation in opinion within regulatory and scien-
tific circles. The authors' approach was to identify a sensitive species based
upon a biological survey at the site and the available data on organism/toxic
level relationships. The coho salmon was selected as the sensitive species.

The final important aspect of the standards is the antidegradation policy. As
previously indicated, the policy consists of three elements: maintenance of
existing high water quality; no compromise to existing beneficial uses; and
provision of all known, available and reasonable methods of treatment.

The problem with the first element is the question of what parameters are to be
considered and what constitutes a change. The authors assumed concern only for
those parameters identified in the standards, but significant change remained
open to the interpretor. The potential cornpromiseto beneficial uses was avoided
by not considering any sites immediately within or adjacent to significant
benthic communities. Regarding the final element, provision of treatment, a
.'reasonable" (i.e. economical) method has typically been considered to be second-
ary treatment. However, this is no longer the case. Dechlorination by sulfur
dioxide is financially reasonable. In addition, it is quite reasonable to provide
additional capacity within an activated sludge system-to oxidize the ammonia to
nitrate, thereby avoiding ammonia toxicity. A reduction in heavy metals can be
achieved with chemical clarification, and nutrient reduction is also quite feas-
ible. In the eyes of the public, it is difficult to "hide behind the skirts" of
secondary treatment. Thus, the authors considered all of the above options
reasonable and open to cost-evaluation if water quality conditions warranted.

The technical analysis consisted of three interrelated elements:

Physical dilution

Water quality changes

Biological community

A preliminary reduction to three sites from the original eleven was achieved via
the use of the University of Washington's physical model of Puget Sound. A qual-
itative evaluation resulted in grouping of the sites into four categories: best,
good, fair, and poor. The eleven sites were then placed into three geographical
groups: Dyes Inlet/Hood Canal, within Port Orchard, and in Puget Sound proper.
A site was then chosen within each of these groups that appeared to provide the
most dilution. If two sites within each geographical category provided relatively
the same dilution, the less expensive option was chosen. The three sites chosen
for final consideration were Dyes Inlet (Site F), north Port Orchard (Site C)
and Point Monroe (Site B). (Figure 2).

Field investigations were then conducted at the above three sites to confirm the
prediction of the physical model, provide water quality data and hydraulic infor-
mation for far and near field prediction models, and provide the biological
characterization.

The mathematical models available for predicting near and far field dilution and
incremental changes in water quality are reasonably well developed. However,
uncertainty remains as to the level of effort, in particular the amount of field
work, which must be expended in identifying the values for the input parameters,
and verifying with field experiments the results predicted by the models. Un-
certainty also exists as to how the biological portion of the field program
should be structured both spatially and temporally to provide a satisfactory
description of the alternative sites.

Both of the above points.have a direct bearing on the intensity of the field pro-
gram, which in turn affects cost and schedule. The basic question the planner
must ask him/herself when developing the field program is "How much will the ad-
ditional data improve the decision?" S/he must ask this question not only from
the technical perspective but also from a political one. It must be determined
whether, upon final analysis, the public will be convinced that the decision was
based upon an adequate data base. While minimizing the data collection phase
will save time and dollars the value must be weighed against the possibility of
.project delay from public questioning of the validity of the data base used.

For this project, all biological sampling occurred during a 2-week period in
August. Hydraulic monitoring (i.e. to calculate the-total mass balance movement
into and out of Port Orchard) occurred over a 4-month period from May to Sep-
tember. Water quality sampling occurred every 3 weeks during the same time
period. Intensive drogue and water quality sampling periods occurred twice over
a 39-hour period: once in July and once in August. The 39-hour sampling periods.
included vertical measurements of water quality. Current and quality measurements
occurred at the surface and at several depths, some down to 40 meters.

Far field water quality changes were predicted using the EPA mathematical model
of Puget Sound. Near field predictions of dilution were made using the methods
of Baumgartner (Baumgartner et al. 1971) Brooks (1959), and Chao (1975).

A literature review provided criteria upon which to judge the question of toxicity.
Analyses of the effluent presently'discharged at Silverdale provided some indica-
tion of heavy metals and ammonia concentrations. This information was then com-
pared to the biological organisms observed at the site. The comparison of waste-
water characterization data to the literature review on toxic criteria indicated
chlorine, ammonia, and possibly copper were of most concern. The sensitive
organism was considered to be the coho salmon. The conclusion of the toxicity
analysis was the dechlorination should be provided, as well as oxidation of
ammonia to nitrate.

Far field water quality predictions indicated possible violations of dissolved
oxygen in Dyes Inlet with possible problems of nutrient fertilization. No no-
ticeably adverse impacts were predicted at the other two sites. Near field pre-
dictions of dilution indicated that good dilution could be achieved within reason-
ably sized mixing zones at all three sites. Based upon the overall analysis, the
north Port Orchard site was chosen, with the treatment process including de-
chlorination with sulfur dioxide and biological oxidation of ammonia.

Further hydraulic, meteorological and water quality field work was conducted in
September and December of 1976 at the north Port Orchard site to provide a more
definitive evaluation of the horizontal and vertical hydraulic characteristics
of the site. The data were used to determine numbers of ports and their sizes,
the diffusor pipe diameter, and the diffusor's placement in relationship to
the currents.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The first recommendation is for regulatory agencies.and local governments to
recognize the sensitivity of the public to.site selection for a new outfall.
Failure to do so may result in unnecessary delays of a project, as occurred for
the Central Kitsap County facility. A delay of approximately 2 years resulted
in an increase in the project cost of about $1,600,000, or about 14% of the
originally estimated cost. Given this realization, it is more likely that suf-
ficient funds would be provided to a planning process and result in a decision
which is more readily acceptable to the public.

Within the planning process itself, it is recommended that an aggressive, open
approach to public involvement be pursued, seeking a wide range of opinions from
citizens. A particularly valuable tool is to publish, prior to the commencement
of the planning process, a work plan which describes in lay terms the nature of
the project, the alternatives that will be considered, the structure of the field
studies, and the technical approach by which the alternatives will be compared.
Based upon comments by both the public and relevant agencies, the work plan can
be modified. This will minimize the opportunity for criticism of the planner's
methodology at the end of the planning process. The publishing of interim outputs,
allowing public input on decisions made during the planning process, is also
highly recommended.

DOE can improve the situation by a reevaluation of some aspects of its regulations
and guidelines. With regard to the water quality standards, DOE should give care-
ful consideration to four areas. First, a specific definition of what constitutes
a violation should be made, based upon frequency of values exceeding the standard
over a given time period and with due consideration to the number of samples which
must be taken with regard to the uncertainty of field sampling and laboratory
analysis. Secondly, specific numerical values should be established for poten-
tially toxic substances. Obviously, this cannot occur for all toxicants, but the
state-of-the art should allow it for heavy metals, chlorine and many synthetic
hydrocarbons. Third, the "sensitive species".should be identified. Finally, to
conform with the realities of existing treatment technology, the present definition
of mixing zone should be modified to state that the standards do not apply to acute
biological shock within the mixing zone for marine outfalls.

-DOE should also provide more guidance as to site evaluation for outfalls and what
constitutes adequate procedure for site comparison and diffusor design. Certainly,
there exist areas where outfalls will not be allowed regardless of the level of
treatment given the location of sensitive biological receptors, the existence of
hydraulic nodal points, and water based recreation. These should be identified.
Also, guidelines for site comparison and diffusor design should identify the basic
structure of the analytical evaluation, including minimum data requirements to
represent critical tidal, seasonal, and meteorological periods. The guidelines
should have sufficient flexibility to allow a variation in the intensity of the
evaluation as determined by the variation in hydraulic conditions within Puget
Sound and the volume of discharge in each case.

It is recognized that DOE cannot, given the state-of-the art and differing opinions
of the scientific community, arrive at a satisfactory conclusion for all of the
above items during its first attempt. At a minimum, some modifications of reg-
ulatory policy within the above four topics will be accomplished, and the exercis 'e
will indicate what areas of applied research require modification and/or enhance-
ment to provide the kind of information needed to complete.the above process.

Our experience has also provided us with suggestions for existing research programs.
We suggest that the investigators, when drawing conclusions from their data, at-
tempt to relate those conclusions to present standards whenever possible. It is
also recommended that the scientific community support DOE by synthesizing exist-
ing knowledge of Puget Sound to answer these questions: what is the fate of
toxicants discharged to Puget Sound; what 'is the impact--specifically what do we
know about the LC50 values for various toxicants; what are the "sensitive" species?
This exercise again will tell us what we do and do not know in specific relation-
ship to regulatory standards. The scientific community should also address issues
raised by the public on chlorine, chlorinated hydrocarbons, metals, and land
disposal--specifically, what do we know and how valid are these issues?

Our final recommendation is that a formal forum be established with representatives
of the regulatory agencies, local governments, organized environmental groups,
industrial research scientists and the consulting profession participating. The
forum would hold workshops atregular intervals. Data and knowledge gathered
since the previous workshop would be synthesized and related to the basic manage-
ment questions originally agreed upon to ascertain the progress of our management
program and our understanding of what is occurring in Puget Sound. Based upon the

findings of each workshop, recommendations could be made as to how both the environ-
mental criteria by which we manage the quality of Puget Sound, as well as the
structure of the research programs by which we gain knowledge to reevaluate those
criteria, should be modified. Only if such an assertive approach is taken will we
make real progress in achieving the goal established by this symposium.

REFERENCES

1. Baumgartner, D.J., D.S. Trent, and K.V. Byram. 1971. User's Guide and
Documentation for Outfall Plume Model. EPA Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Working Paper No. 80. Corvallis, Oregon.
2. Brooks, N.H. 1959. Diffusion of Sewage Efflu:n Pro-
nce on Wa t: in Ocean Current.
ceedings of the International Confere Disposal in th@ Marine
Environment. Pergamon Press, Inc. P. 246 (cited in Camp, 1963).
3. Chao, J.L. 1975. Horizontal Smad of Wastewater Field over Calm Ocean
Surface. J. Water @o_ llutio n Co tro I Fed. q7(10):2504-2510.
4. DOE (Department of Ecology). 1972, 1976. Guideli nes for I7,2ple,,ntation
of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971. December 19 revised July
1-976.

5. DOE (Department of Ecology). 1973. Guidelines for the Establishment of
T
Dilution Zones. 4th draft, October 1, 9-T3-.

6. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1972. Water Quality Criteria.

7. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1973. Environmental Impact Statement
Guidelines Region X. Seattle, WA, Revised edif@ion, April 19/3.

8. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1974a. Guidance for Facilties
Planning. January 1974.

9. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1974b. Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements. Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 6, Federal Register, July 17, 1974.

10. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1975. Construction Grants for Waste
Treatment Works. Federal Register, April 14, 1-975.

11. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1976a. Quality Criteria for Water.
Prepublication copy.

12. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1976b. Water Quality Standard
Guidelines. Chapter 5, Information Memorandum 36, June, 1976.

13.- FWPCA (Federal Water Pollution Control Administration), 1968. Water
Quality Criteria.

14. URS Company. 1974. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Final Plan Phase I,
Brownsville, Silverdale, Meadowdale, Kitsap County, Washington. June 1974,

15, URS Company. 1975. The Proposed Approach for the Facilities Plan Sub@
drainage Basins 9 and 0, and the Bangor Annex. March 18, 1975.

16. URS Company. 1976. Central Kitsap County Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Summary Volumes I through III Seattle, WA. March 1976.
17. U.S. Congress. 1970. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-190).
January 1, 1970.

18. U.S. Congress. 1972. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (PL
92-500). October 1972.

19. WEPA (Washington Environmental Policy Act). 1971, Washin gton Revised Code
43.21C. 19/1.
20. WNPDES (Washington NPDES Permit2Pro'"T Regulations). 1974, 1976. Washing-
ton Revised Code, Chapter 173-2 0, 'NPDES Permit Program; adopted February 15,
1974, amended Apri,l 30, 1974, May 19, 1976.
21. WWPC (Washington Water Pollution Control Laws), 1971, 1973. Washington
Revised Code, Chapter 90.48, Water Pollution ontrol, amended by laws of 1971
and 1973. Chapter 90.50, Water Pollution'Control F-ac-ilities Financing Laws
of 1971 Chapter 90,52, Pollution Disclosure Act of 1971; Chapter 90.54, Water
Resources Act of 1971.
22. WWQS (Washington Water Quality Standards), 1973, 1977, Washington Revised
Code, Chapter 172-201; adopted June 19, 1973; amended November 16, 1973;. draft
proposal for amendment, February, 1977,

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB's) IN PUGET SOUND:
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL ASPECTS AND BIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES

Spyros P. Pavlou*, R.N. Dexter* and W. Hom
University of Washington

INTRODUCTION

The importance of organic compounds in controlling the biological, chemical and
geochemical processes in marine systems is well recognized. However, the con-
tinuous increase in consumer and agricultural products on a global scale, has
precipitated a serious concern regarding the accelerated buildup of organic
compounds in the biosphere and the potential change of ecosystems (Neuhold and
Ruggerio, 1977; Blodgett, et al., 1975). Since the marine environment provides
a natural sink for these chemicals, understanding their transport, their inter-
actions with the various components of the ecosystem and their ultimate degrada-
tion and removal are crucial factors in predicting their accumulation and
toxicity potential to the biota.

The polychlorinated biphenyls (C C1 H with N = 1 2 . . . . 10) are well
recognized as ubiquitous componeAis qn1RqAatic ecosysiems (National Academy of
Sciences, 1971; Nelson, 1972; Lee and Falk, 1972). Their worldwide occurrence
has become an issue of increasing concern due to their continued global produc-
tion and persistence, their slow rates of chemical and biological degradation,
their capacity for bioaccumulation, and their toxicity to living systems.

Coastal ecosystems in particular receive substantial input loads of chlorobiphenyls
(CB) with the main sources being industrial and municipal sewage outfalls, river
run.off, aerial fallout, and dredge spoil disposal (Nelson, 1972; Schmidt, et al.,
1971; Holden, 1970; Bidleman and Olney, 1974). Since these regions are capable
of providing large quantities of harvestable food resources, as a result of high
productivity in the lower trophic levels (Ryther, 1969), any biological effects
induced by CBs are of critical importance to man and the stability of the eco-
system. Furthermore, these c 'ompounds have been shown to alter the species com-
position of mixed phytoplankton cultures (Mosser, et al., 1972; Fisher et al.,
1974). Consequently, adequate information on current residue quantities and
distributions in lower pelagic trophic levels is essential for predicting
potential effects at the ecosystem level.

*Present address:
URS Company, Fourth & Vine Bldg., Seattle, WA 98121

100

In 1672 we initiated a project to study the distribution of CBs in Puget Sound.
The project included a baseline assessment of CB levels in the major subregions
of the estuary and laboratory investigations to evaluate their accumulation in
marine phytoplankton and their toxicological impact to algal growth., These
studies were intended to provide a data base for adopting appropriate criteria
for regional enforcement, as well as an estimate of the potential hazard to the
ecosystem in terms of their effect on the primary productivity of the region and
the associated long term implications to ecosystem dysfunction. However, through-
out the course of the study it was realized that in order to assess the impact of
these chemicals on the lower trophic level biota, it was necessary to obtain some
quantitative information on the mechanism of accumlation based primarly on field
residue data which reflect the actual concentration levels commonly encountered
in the marine environment. Therefore, during 1973 and 1974, the emphasis in re-
search was shifted from the biological aspects to chemical considerations. The
main concern was to assess the distribution and bioaccumulation characteristics
of CBs in terms of the physical chemical processes that control their flow
throughout Puget Sound. From 1975 to 1976, enough CB residue data were acquired
to initiate interpretive procedures. Since 1976, we have been developing both
theoretical and empirical models to validate the field results. For the low
levels detected in seawater, the data suggest that accumulation in the various
marine components, including biological uptake, is predominantly governed by
equilibrium partitioning of the chemicals between suspended phases and ambient
water. Therefore, the concept of equilibrium partitioning has been the funda-
mental framework upon which both the analysis of the data and formulation of the
recommendations for regulatory control have been based.

The material presented in the paper includes; 1) a general discussion on the
characteristics of the CB distribution in Puget Sound, 2) an evaluation of their
partitioning in suspended phases and lower level biota, and 3) a set of cri-teria
recommendations applicable to the region.

DISTRIBUTION OF CHLOROBIPHENYLS IN PUGET SOUND

The field program completed during these studies has provided us with a sufficient
data.base to obtain a fairly coherent and comprehensive description of the distri-
bution of CBs in Puget Sound. A complete presentation of the CB data together
with supporting hydrographic and biological measurements is available elsewhere
(Paviou, et al., 1973; Krogslund, 1975; Pavlou, et al., 1977); these publications
also contain a detailed discussion on sampling and analytical methodology. Two
additional projects have also added substantial supporting information to our
data base.

One of the projects, Duwamish River Dredge Project (DROP), was conducted under
support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through the Region X Lab-
oratory. The sampling scheme was designed and conducted to monitor the release
of polycholorinated biphenyls (PCB) during the dredging operation of Slip-1 in
the Duwamish River and was part of the overall'cleanup monitoring program con-
ducted by the Region X Laboratory. The results from this investigation have been
published elsewhere (Pavlou, et al, 1976; Hafferty, et al., 1977). The second
project, Elliott Bay Disposal Project (EBDP), to be completed by July 31, 1977,
involves tile evaluation of PCB pulses induced by the dumping of contaminated

101

sediments in Elliott Bay in an effort to establish criteria for open water dredge
disposal operations. This study is part of a multifaceted physical, chemical,
and biological program sponsored by the Corp of Engineers Dredge Material
Research Program.

Characteristics of the Spatial Distributions of CB

A summary of the mean CB levels in Puget Sound is presented in Table 1. For some
areas the averaging of values tends to obscure gradients which existed within the
region, but they still provide a convenient basis for comparison.

Identification of Input Sources. In general, the values for all sample types
correlate well with areas of increased industrial and municipal activity. The
water, SPM, and sediment from the highly industrialized Duwamish River Estuary
contained the highest concentrations of CB observed in Puget Sound, while un-
developed areas of the main basin, Southern Sound, and Hood Canal exhibit gen-
erally low levels in all samples. Certain local areas such as the inner harbor
at Everett and Sinclair Inlet had elevated concenirations; it is interesting to
note that the residue levels in zooplankton collected in Sinclair Inlet were the
highest observed during the baseline study (no zooplankton samples could be col-
lected in the Duwamish River). Although regional "hot spots" are apparent, the
isolation of point sources in these areas was beyond the scope of this work.

CorreZation with CircuZation. In most of the regions where residues were meas-
ured, significant horizontal or vertical gradients of CBs within the water column
were gendrally absent. These trends are illustrated in Table 2; the regional
mean concentrations of CBs in whole water are given for 2 depth ranges; surface
to 25 meters, and below 25 meters. This uniformity apparently extends even be-
yond the Sound itself, and well within some distance from Admiralty Inlet into
the Straits of Juan de Fuca. These uniform, relatively low concentrations are
expected in view of the rapid mixing in Puget Sound generated by tidal action,
and therefore can be considered as representative of the long-term "background"
concentration ubiquitous to the region. In contrast, the levels in the Elliott
Bay-Duwamish River system showed distinct horizontal and vertical gradients which
correlated well with the distribution of the more highly contaminated brackish
layer of the river. Typical plots of CB concentrations in water as a function
of salinity for a number of subsurface water samples collected in the Duwamish
River and Elliott Bay are depicted in Figure 1. The concentrations of the CB
decrease linearly with increasing salinity reflecting the mixing of the less
saline, but more contaminated, river water with that of the bay. This is nicely
demonstrated by the distribution of CB residues in the surface sediments of
Elliott Bay (Figure 2). A strong gradient, with CB levels decreasing away from
the mouth of the Duwamish River is evident.

Below a relatively narrow surface mixed layer, the concentrations of CBs in
Elliott Bay rapidly decreased to the "background" values (Table 2). A plot of
all the concentrations of CBs in whole water versus depth for all regions sampled
in Puget Sound is shown in Figure 3, relatively uniform levels exist in all re-
gions below 25 meters. The upper layer values, however, encompass a much wider
range of concentrations, in part due to the data obtained in the Duwamish River.
Similar behavior was observed during the DRDP and EBDP cruise series. The former

102

TABLE Mean Total Chlorobiphenyl Concentrations in Various Regions of Puget Sound a

REGION SAMPLE TYPE

Code Area WATER SPM ZOOPLANKTON SEDIMENT SURFACE FILM
No. (ngl-1 [ngg-1 [4g(g-lipid)-l [ngg- 11 [ngl-l I

9 Duwamish River 41.02 + 12.87(4) 1019 + 541(20) 115.5 + 101,2

0 Elliott Bay 11.04 + 12.50(18) 251.7 + 198.0(27) 6.79 + 3.13(11) 636.6 + 828.4(4) 98.17 + 82,82

4 Main Basin 4.33(l) 104.4 + 31.0(3) 5.92 + 4.40(4) 12.17(l)

5 Sinclair Inlet 167.5 + 21.2(4) .16.17 + 6,64(3)

6 Whidbey Basin 4.44 + 2.2105) 82.14 + 36.65(7) 3.71 + 1.12(12) 30.15 +13.80(5)

3 Northern Sound and
3.73 + 1.72(9) 1.34 + 1.16(3) 16.17 +13.52(3)
Straits of J.F.

1 Southern Sound 7.98 +8.27(.6)

2 Commencement Bay 28.01 +17.13(8)

7 Hood Canal 2.96 + 2.21 88.33 + 36.68(3) 1.78 + 0.99(4) 11.94 +3.03(3')

aValues in parenthesis are the number of data ooints.

15.0

10.0

5.o

0.0
27.0 23.0 29.0

Salinity, X.
Figure 1. Plots of the conCentrationS of CB in water vs salinity.
A, 5-chlorobiphenyl; e, 3-chlorobiphenyl. The solid
lines are the least square regressions.

2 2' Q2 2. 0'

C .3
VAOTICAL MILE$
Ly

100
T7 BAY
CD
CD
kf,I

DLIV@AMISH 800
HEAD

5 W1
U

J _J I
J

Figure 2. Contour chart of the concentrations of total chlorobiphenyl
concentrations in the surface sediments of Elliott Bay.
Limits are in 10-3 gg-1-
'IISH
'D

0 +
00 + + + +
0
so 4D 0
0 ID
& (S)
0" 0
0 D
(:p 9 0
-40.0 0 0

0 0 0 0
60.0 0 0 CD0 P0 0 0
00 00 0
0 0
60.0- 0

LU
100-0- a *so

.120.0-

140.0-

160-0-

180-0-

200.01
loo 2 5 101 2 S loz 2 5 103 2 5 104

TOTAL CONC - NRNOGRHMS .,CB PER LITER 14RTER

Figure 3. Plots of the concentrations of total CB in whole water
vs depth for all regions sampled. SYOPS series, 9;
0
0
0
;&b 7t
0 00 0 0
00
0
eo
0

CJ)
0
0 @@ 22Z

DRDP project, +; EBDP project, o.

TABLE 2. Mean Chlorobiphenyl Concentration in the Surface and Deep Water Layers of Puget Sounda
REGION CONCENTRATION (ngl-l

Code Area Surface Deep
No. (<25m) (>25m)

9 Duwamish River
SYOPS 41.02 + 12.87(4)
DROP 20.39+ 14.35(56)

0 Elliott Bay
SYOPS 13.84+ 14.60(12) 5.46 + 2.5(6)
EBDP 6.96 + 9.40(103) 27.82 + 165 (205)

4 Main Basin 4.33

5 Sinclair Inlet

6 Whidbey Basin 4.15 + 1.66(10) 5.02 + 3.21(5)
3 Northern Sound and 3.55 + 1.53(6) 4.07 + 2.38(3)
Straits of J.F.

1 Southern Sound

2 Commencement Bay

7 Hood Canal 2.61 + 2.29(8) 3.65 + 2.18(4)

a
Values in parenthesis are the nunber of data points.

includes only Duwamish River samples, which agree with those obtained exclusively
in Elliott Bay, but the vertical trends are not as obvious since most of the high
values in the deep samples represent a transient pulse induced_by the dumping.

Intercomparisons with Other Regions. The mean CB levels in water and sediments
observed in Puget Sound are given in Table 3 together with values reported in
other national ecosystems, both fresh water and marine. In general, the levels
in Puget Sound are comparable to those of other contaminated areas in the nation.
It is also interesting to note that concentrations of nearly the same magnitude
have been detected in major oceanic systems.

Temporal Trends

While time constraints and limited equipment precluded rigorous replication in
most areas, a time series profile of the CB concentrations over a 4-year period
was obtained in Elliott Bay. Plots of mean CB values versus time for whole water,
suspended particulate matter, sediments and zooplankton are shown in Figure 4.
Within the uncertainty of the data there is no indication that concentrations in
this region have changed significantly. It appears that the persistence of these
compounds is due to a relatively stable diffuse input source which does not seem
to have dininished despite regulatory attempts to restrict their discharge in the
area. However, it should be noted that the high load of CBs in the sediments of
the Duwamish River and the exchange with the water may mask any CB reduction in
the overlying water that might iesult by a decrease in the present inputs. Very
little is known about sediment-water transfer rates, but it is interesting that
no long-term increase was detected in either the river or the bay following the
PCB spill at Slip-1 in September, 1974.

Fluxes of CB in Puget Sound

Although the data presented below,are based on gross calculations, we feel that
enough information can be drawn from a variety of sources to aftempt to account
for the major routes of transfer of the CBs through Puget Sound. These computa-
tions are useful for identifying major sources and sinks, some of which might be
subjected to regulatory control.

Input Rates. The predominant input sources which can be documented are associated
with river runoff and municipal outfalls. The concentrations of CB in the atmo-
sphere of the region are low (D. Schuetzle, personal communication) so that di-
rect input from dry fallout and precipitation is probably negligible. However,
the occurrence of transient direct inputs associated with commercial activity on
the Sound has not been evaluated and should not be ruled out.

The estimated input rates are presented in Table 4. Somewhat surprisingly, the
Whidbey Basin rivers appear to constitute by far the largest input source. The
watersheds of these rivers are relatively undeveloped; however, they do provide
nearly 75% of the fresh water input to the Sound (Friebertshauser and Duxbury,
1972). Both the Duwamish and Puyallup Rivers undoubtedly have higher concentra-
tions of CB, but their lower fresh water flow rates reduce their contribution to
the total budget. The outfalls and combined sewer overflows (CSOF) constitute
relatively intense sources (approaching 300 ppt), even though not all CSOF input

108

WHOLE WATER

1000 -%-Cy-o - 0
CCB(tot) 500 PM
0 - 10

ZOOPLANKTON 5

1000 0
SEDIMENT

500 -

'72 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77
NIE11MENT

,Time

Figure 4. Time plots of the mean total chlorobiphenyl concentrations
in various marine components of Elliott Bay. Whole water
(ngc-1), o; SPM (nng-1), A; Zooplankton [pg(g-lipid)-11,
0; Sediment (nng-1),O .

TABLE 3. Summary of Mean Chlorobiphenyl Residues in Water and Sediments (National Levels)

REGION WATER SEDIMENTS REFERENCE
(ngl- (ngg-I

FRESH WATER

Lake Ontario 55 121 Haile, et al., 1975

Lake Michigan 38 Nisbet, 1977
Hudson River <100-2.8xlO 6 TR-6700 Nisbet, 1977'

Connecticut River TR-3500 Nisbet, 1977

Duwamish River 30 TR-2000 Pavlou, et al., 1977

MARINE

Atlantic Ocean <0.9-3.6 Bidleman and Oln@y, 1974

Gulf of Mexico 0.8-4.1 <0.2-35.0 Giam, et al. (Nisbet, 1977)

Escambia Bay <100 190-61000 Nisbet, 1977

California

California Current 4.4 Pavlou, et al., 1@75

S. California Bight 7.4 Scura and McClure, 1975

Palos Verdes Peninsula 8.8 30-7900 Pavlou, et al., 1975

San Francisco Bay TR-1400 Nisbet, 1977

Puget Sound 6.7 143 Pavlou, et al., 1977

TABLE 4, ESTIMATED INPUTS OF CBs IN PUGET SOUND

SOURCE RATE IN
(g CB day- 1

MAJOR RIVER SYSTEMS

Snohomish, Skagit 220
Stillaguamish Riversa
Lake Washington (Ship Canal) b 10
Duwamish Riverc 97

Puyallup'River 30

OUTFALLS
Westpoint d 30
Renton d 3
CS0 e 10

TOTAL 400 (1.44 x 10 5 g/y)

aBased on an ambient surface water value of 4 ppt in Whidbey Basin, a
total volume of the mixed layer of 19.05 x 109 M3 and an annual fresh
9 3
water runoff volume of 2.02 x 10 M
bBased on a fresh water input of approximately 4 x 10 6 m3/day and an
ambient PCB level in Lake Washington of 2.5 ppt.

cHafferty, et al., 1977
dDalseg, personal communicaltion from METRO data, 1976.

eBased on an ambient PCB concentration of 400 ppt, a CSO flow of
9.5 x 106 M3 /year, Tomlinson, et al., 1976; Metropolitan Engineers, 1976.

ill

has been accounted for in the computations (Dalseg, personal communication;
Tomlinson, et al., 1976). However, these sources also have relatively low
water discharge rates.

Loss Rates. The predominant losses of CB from the water column can be accounted
for by advection and sedimentation. The loss rates associated with each process
are summarized in Table 5. Advective losses occur primarily as the excess fresh
water of riverine origin is transported out of the Sound through Admiralty Inlet.
Water transport through Admirality Inlet is both into and out.of the Sound. Low-
er salinity water generated by the entrainment and mixing of fresh and salt water
within the Sound is transported out at the surface, while more saline water enters
at depth. The net exchange is out of the Sound in a volume equal to the fresh
water (riverine) influx. Since the concentrations of CB are comparable in the
saline waters on both sides of the Inlet, no net transport of CB appears to be
associated iwth the salt water exchange. Therefore the net volume out carries
most of the CB quantities.

Sedimentation rates are difficult to estimate and are highly variable within the
Sound; we used a mean value of 0.27 cmlyr as a rough estimate (W. Schell, personal
communication). At this rate, the accumulation in the sediments is estimated to
be slighly larger than the advective loss rate. However, due to the high-un-
certainity in the sedimentation rate value the difference might only be an
artifact of the computations.

ConcZusions. Even though the estimated loss rate for CBs is nearly twice that of
the inputs, realistically the balance is quite good considering the gross approxi-
mations and averaging required in at least an order of magnitude lower than the
corresponding SPM values. As a result, F for zooplankton is usually small, for
these studies it never exceeded 4%. For the upper trophic level biota one can
use the same argument, i.e., these systems will exhibit even a lower F value con-
sidering that there is a reduction.of biomass in each succeeding trophic level
(normally up to an order of magnitude; Riley and Skirrow, 1965), but with no cofit-
mensurate increase in the K values. These observations have some important con-
notations regarding 1) the way the CBs and other similar organic compounds
fractionate between water and suspended phases and between water and sediments,
and 2) the validity of assuming a constant K.

For the first case, since the normal range for the suspended load encountered in
coastal zones is within 0.5 to lo gm-3 (Armstrong, 1965; Krank, 1973), compounds
with K <1 x 105 will reside primarily in the water and not on suspended phases
of less than 40% of the total CB load in water. Therefore, the spatial distri-
bution of these chemicals will depend mainly on the hydrodynamics of the water
column. Regarding their partitioning between water and sediments, the data
support the following argument.
The dry mass of natural sediments is normally about 50% (= 5 x 10 5 g/m3 ) of their
wet weight at the water interface. As a result, a relatively large fraction of
organic compounds, such as both sets of calculations. Therefore, the data are
sufficient to warrant the following conclusions:

1) Municipal marine outfalls probably do not constitute the major input of CB
in the Sound. Although other municipalities maintain direct discharges,
these are-small relative to metropolitan Seattle.

112

TABLE 5. ESTIMATED LOSSES OF CBS IN PUGET SOUND

SINK RATE OUT
g-CB (g day-1

ADVECTIONa 300
(Fresh water out only)

SEDIMENTATIONb 430

TOTAL 730 (2.6 x 105 g/yr)

dBased on fresh water inflow and the ambient concentration of CB in
Admiralty Inlet (3 ppt).
bBased on a mean sedimentation rate value of 0.27 cm y-l (W.R. Schell,
personal communication).

113

2) Indirect inputs, associated with industrial activity within the major
river watersheds, account for the predominant input load. Whether these
are indu,strial effluents discharging into the rivers or the results of
transient inputs (e.g., spills, dumping of waste materials, residual
chronic input, etc) is unknown.

3) While significant quantities of CB are continually advected out, it appears
likely that the majority of the residues are retained in the sediments
within the Sound. However, at present, it is not known whether sedi-
mentation constitutes a permanent loss to the system or merely temporary
storage. Undoubtedly, when contaminated sediments are disturbed, e.g.,
during dredging operations, at least a portion of the load is redistri-
buted and the sediments may revert from a trap to a source. These aspects
are currently being investigated under the EBDP project sponsored by the
Corp of Engineers.

4) The estimated total load of CB residues presently in Puget Sound is
summarized in Table 6. The data-indicate that approximately 80% of the
residues reside in the sediments and that the CB contamination of
Puget Sound is not negligible.

PARTITIONING OF CBs IN VARIOUS MARINE COMPONENTS

When an organic molecule is introduced into a natural water reservoir, it inter-
acts with the abiotic and biotic components of the system. These interactions
include processes that take place at the boundaries between the various components
and the chemical. Therefore, interfacial processes can be considered as the pre-
dominant factor that governs the flow of an organic compound through the ecosystem.
Since the physical, chemical and biological interactions occurring at interfaces
mediate the ability of ecosystems to absorb the chemical and simultaneously con-
trol its biological availability, the isolation of measurable paramenters and
their utilization as indices of transport access component boundaries are essential
to constructing explicit mathematical models for predicting the eventual
environmental distribution.

These interactions can be conceptualized in the following scheme.

I
YJ [YI] ij Yi (1)

Y i ZZ (2)
n nJ

(3)
Y Ezn,j
n

YIZ [PQ 11ij (4)
n n

114

TABLE 6. TOTAL CB LOAD IN PUGET SOUND

COMPONENT AMOUNT (g)

Whole Watera 0.34 x 106

Sedimentsb 1.33 x 106

TOTAL 1.67 x 106

aBased on a value of 1.7 x 10 17 g for the total mass of Puget Sound
water and an ambient concentration of 2 ppt for CBs.
bBased on a mean value of 50 x 10- 99 9-1 for CBs on the upper 2 cm
layer.

Reaction (1) represents the simple transfer of an organic chemical Y between 2
components, i and j, which may involve a specific interfacial site, I... Y may
also undergo a variety of transformation reactions either within the alisociated
component (reactions (2) and (3) or at the interfact reaction (4)) yielding
multiple products, denoted as Un, Zn, and Qn. The rapid accumulation of dis-
solved organic matter at available marine interfaces (Bader, et al., 1950; Riley,
1963; Sutcliffe, et al., 1963; Parker and Barsom, 1970) is a good example of
reaction (1). A large number of abiotic and biologically mediated transformations
that can be represented by reactions (2) through (4) have been discussed by a
number of investigators(Parke, 1968; Stumm and Morgan, 1970; Denny 1971;
Nickerson, 1971; Owen, 1971; Crosby, 1973 and 1975).

Considering the extreme complexity of these interactions, it seems unlikely that
the flow mechanism can be evaluated only from classical physical/chemical con-
siderations within a reasonable time frame. It is therefore desirable to look
for empirical parameters that 1) can be easily measured in the marine environ-
ment, 2) reflect net effects of the complex intermediary transport and chemical
transformation steps, 3) are amenable to theoretical interpretations, and 4)
can be used as universal indices in predicting the distribution of organic
molecules in marine components.

The parameter that can meet the above criteria is the component concentration
ration K, defined as

C
Y, Y(j)'X (5)
Y(i),x'

where c is the instantaneous concentration of chemical Y in component j norm-
alized 8jLme parameter x, e.g., wet mass, dry mass, etc. ' and CY(i I *_.-is the
corresponding concentration of Y in component i. The choice of x: an x. is ar-
bitrary and represents the best quantitative measure of j or i for data consis-
tency and uniformity when the measured K's are compared to the values predicted
by theory. Although K does not provide information on the actual processess
affecting the distribution of a given chemical among two components, it can serve
as an empirical constant for that compound in an ecosystem where these processes
are spatially uniform. This has some practical connotations in determining the
concentration of Y in any particular component within a given region.

,Since interfacial interactions for stable molecules are essentially limited to
inter-component transfers (reaction (1)), K represents the instantaneous distri-
bution or partitioning of Y between the marine components in question. With
rapid exchange rates, K becomes a quasi-equilibrium constant for the transfer
reactions. Therefore, we have selected the component concentration ration K as
the most appropriate parameter to test the concept of chemical partitioning in
the marine environment. We have applied this framework to the study of.Css in
'3uget Sound in an attempt to validate these concepts.

116

Suspended Particulate Matter

The component concentration data are summarized in Table 7. The values show a
fairly uniform distribution within the Sound except for the Duwamish River which
is higher by approximately one order of magnitude. The magnitude of K for CBs
can be predicted based on a relatively simple fundamental equation derived from
physical chemical principles (Pavlou and Dexter, 1977). The predicted K values
are also included in Table 7. This model represents a first approach to defin-
ing the accumulation of stable organic molecules on marine particulate interfaces
within a coherent theoretical framework. As such, it provides a guide to select-
ing appropriate ecosystem parameters which influence the distribution and bio-
accumulation potential of CBs and other complex organic chemicals in the marine
environment.

Zooplankton

The K values measured for zooplankton are presented in Table 8 and are reasonably
constant over the range of spatial and temporal regimes encountered in these
studies and appear to be independent of changes in faunal composition. The data
suggest that the residue levels in ambient water and in the organisms (normalized
to lipid) play an important role in controlling the degree of accumulation, par-
ticularly when lipid constitutes more than 2% of zooplankton fresh weight, thus
providing further support-to the equilibrium partitioning argument.

Implications of the Equilibrium Partitioning Concept to the Distribution
Characteristics of CBs

The utility of K in the marine environment is not limited solely to the predic-
tion of the accumulation potential of an organic compound. If one can ascertain
that K is constant within an ecosystem, then the component fractionation can be
expressed in a more useful form. We have applied this treatment to the evaluation
of the CBs in Puget Sound.

Considering only the factionation of the CB residues in water and on phase j, the
total concentration of CBs within a volume of water, Ct(w),v can be expressed as

C C @CYW'v (6)
t(w),v Y(W),v + i

where Ct(w),v is the concentration in water and C(j), v refers to the amount bound
to j per unit volume of water. By definition
Cy(j),v = C y(j),d 0 mj(w),V (7)

where Cy(j),d is the concentration of CB per dry mass of i and mm(,w),v is the
mass of j per volume of water. By combining these two equations and equation (5),

117

TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF REGIONAL MEAN KN VALUES FOR SPM IN PUGET SOUND
d
REGION DEPTH KN_CB X 10 4 DATE
m

N = 3 4 5 6 7 n

Duwamish 3 1.64a 2.00 2.79 3.99 6.87 4 9-74
River 0.19 0.51 0.70 0.94 1.72

8 1.79 1.60 2.25 3.71 4.05 2 9-74

1 14.34 10.63 18.24 25.29 18.99 21 3-76
DROP 12.17 7.58 15.75 17.50 2.20

8 8.04 9.88 12.54 22.24 19.21 35 3-76
5.47 6.89 8.95 19.38 11.64
co
Elliott Bay 3 1.06 2.86 3.16 4.07 2.75 3 6-73

6 1.55 1.73 1.95 2.69 6.15 13 9-74
0.34 0.28 0.35 0.62 2.02

Hood Canal 1-20 2.07 2.-32 2.96 2.26 NC 3 7-75
1404 1.26 1.53 1.07

Average b 4.36 4.43 6.27 9.18 9.67

Predicted 1.57 2.94 5.31 7.83 9.45

aValues in italics represent one standard deviation of the K value.
bThe unweighted means of all regional values.

TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF THE REGIONAL MEAN K' VALUES FOR ZOOPLANKTON IN PUGET SOUND

K N , 101
I

REGION n N = 4 N = 5 N = 6 DOMINANT FAUNA

Elliott Bay a 6 1.06 (tO.81) 1.42 ('-1.06) 2.17 (tl.64) Euphasiids
Main Basin a 4 1.07 ('-0.61) 1.90 (11.25) 3.18 (12.32) Copepods
Whidbey Basin b 12 0.80 (tO.38) 1.09 ('-0.51) 1.47 ('-0.75) Copepods/Euphasiids
(Port Gardner)
Hood Canald 3 0.98 ('-0.56) 0.74 (tO.52) 0.43 (tO.32) Ctenophores
Sinclair Inlet b 3 1.12 (tO.68) 3.61 ('-2.02) 6.90 ('-3.45) Ctenophores
Admiralty Inlet d,d 3 0.34 (tO.21) 0.28 (tO.18) 0.29 ('-0.18) Copepods
and Straits of
Juan de Fuca

Average e 0.90 1.51 2.41

aCruise CA 608, September 24-27, 1974; b Cruise OA 552, November 5-8, 1973; CCruise OA 665, July
14-17, 1975 (Clayton, et.al., 1977; Pavlou, et al., 1977). dThese values are based on the chloro-
biphen10 concentrations measured at depths greater than-20 meters. eThe unweighted means of.all
re6ional values.

the ratio of the CBs bound to phase j per volume of wate@ to total CBs present in
the same volume of water can be obtained as
= KyMj(W),V
F (8)
. Ct(w),V KyMj(W),V+l

i.e.. equation (8) states that the fraction associated with component i will be
a function only of the magnitude of ly and the ambient suspended load. Figure 5
shows plots of F (expressed in percent) versus m i(w),v for a number of K values
superimposed on field and laboratory data for SPM. A good agreement with the
predicted behavior is shown for both the laboratory and field determinations; the
same argument can be applied to the biota, even though the concentration ratios
for these components may be a somewhat complex function of the organism's phys-
iology (e.g., percent lipid). The data obtained for zooplankton in Puget Sound
are also included in Figure 5. Although the K values for zooplankton were greater
than the ones for SPM, the dry mass concentrations of the former were usually
within at least an order of magnitude lower than the corresponding SPM values.
As a result, F for zooplankton is usually small; for these studies it never ex-
ceeded 4%. For the upper trophic level biota one can use the same argument; i.e.,
these systems will exhibit even a lower F value considering that there is a
reduction of biomass in each succeeding trophic level (normally up to an order
of magnitudq; Riley and Skirrow, 1965) but with no commensurate increase in the
K values. These observations have some important connotations regarding 1) the
way the Us and other similar organic compounds fractionate between water and
suspended phases and between water and sediments, and 2) the validity of-assuming
a constant K.

For the first case, since the normal range for the suspended load encountered in
coastal zonesjs within 0.5 to 10 gm-3 (Armstrong, 1965; Krank, 1973), compounds
with K <1 x 1 will reside primarily in the water and not on suspqnded phase
For example the CBs which have K values within the range of I x 104 to 1 x 1P.
show an accumulation on suspended phases of less than 40% of the total CB load
in water. Therefore, the spatial distribution of these chemicals will depend
mainly on the hydrodynamics of the water column. Regarding their partitioning
between water and sediments, the data support the following argument.
The dry mass of natural sediments is normally about 50% (= 5 x 105 g/m3) of
their wet weight at the water interface. As a result, a relatively large frac-
tion of organic compounds, such as the CBs is expected to be absorbed to the
solid matrix. However, their concentration, either on the sediments or in the
interstitial water, will not vary greatly from the corresponding SPM and water
concentrations in the overlying water column. This assertion is supported by
the data in Table 9, where the CB concentrations for sediments can be compared
with those for the SPM collected from the overlying water within a number of
subregions in Puget Sound. The agreement is good, especially in view of the
face that sediment values reflect a time-averaged concentration and may not show
a one to one correlation with the SPM if their magnitudes in the water column
fluctuate greatly. Therefore, the spatial di.stribution of the residues in the
surface sediments should reflect the long-term, integrated flow patterns and

120

TABLE 9. COMPARISONS OF THE TOTAL CHLOROBIPHENYL CONCENTRATIONS IN
MIXTURE SEDIMENTS SPM FROM SOME REGIONS OF PUGET SOUND a

REGION SEDIMENTS (10 -7 g/g) SPM (lo-7 g/g)

Duwamish River 12.4 2.51 (14) 10.05 + 2.84 (21)

Elliott Bay 1.64 0.39 9) 1.73 0.24 (13)
Main Basin 0.82 0.03 3) 0.70 0.09 3)
(Point Jefferson)
Whidbey Basin 0.63 + 0.16 5) 0.71 + 0.09 6)

aValues in parentheses represent the number of data points.

121

100

0
80

60
40 10 K 105 K 104
10,
X rL

coo

A
10-1 10-2 10-i 1 10 102 103 104

Mi (w) , V (gzi-3
Figure 5. Plots of the per cent absorbed, F, versus the ambient suspended load, m i(w).
The solid lines represent the theoretical predictions (equation 8). Measure-
ments are included for SPM samples from the Quwamish River (SYOPS, 0; DRDP, X)
and Elliott Bay (SYOPS, A), laboratory uptake experiments with phytoplankton,
A, and resuspended Elliott Bay sediments, 0 , and for Puget Sound zooplankton
samples,

sedimentation properties of the overlying water. This is clearly illustrated
in the distributions of CBs observed in Puget Sound, as well as in those of
other coastal regions (Table 3). The values indicate that essentially all mun-
icipalities and industrial centers are apparent sources, although data for the
main channel are insufficient to show this trend clearly. The detailed distri-
bution in Elliott Bay (Figure 2), confi rms the Duwamish River as a source. In
this case, the pattern indicates a spreading out between the Duwamish Head and
the middle of the bay; this trend agrees well with the prevailing circulation
as shown in recent studies of the sediment regimes and biotopes of Elliott Bav
(Harman, et al., 1975).

The above discussion together with the supporting data suggests that 1) sediments
can provide a rapid assessment of the mean residue levels and dynamics in a system
which receives stable organic chemicals like the CBs since, on a mass basis they
will always contain higher concentrations of residues and can be easily sampled
and analyzed. However, it should be emphasized that such data must be interpreted
with care, because even though the residue levels in the sediments represent a
temporal mean concentration, they depend on the sedimentation rate in the area,
the depth of sediment taken for analysis, the particle size and the natural organic
content. 2) Assuming temporal and spatial uniformity in the magnitude of K, 6e
concentration of a compound measured in the water, SPM, or sediments at a given
sampling site can be directly converted to the corresponding value in the other
components through the appropriate K relationship. These conversions are often
useful in generating a broader data base of easily comparable values for describ-
ing spa-'-Ial and temporal trends. Therefore, within the limitations discussed
above there is good evidence that the concentration of CB in SPM and sediment
can be considered identical in a given region.

Toxicological Aspects

We have evaluated the results from a series of dose/response experiments perform-
ed with phytoplankton and zooplankton in the light of our present knowledge of
the aqueous behavior of CBs (Pavlou and Dexter, 1977). The data obtained in this
work and much of that in the literature should be interpreted with care. In gen-
eral, our results agree with the literature data in postulating an acute toxicity
threshold of approximately 10 x 10-6 g/1 PCB for both phytoplankton and zoo-
plankton. Similarly, we have documented more subtle effects on phytoplankton
nutrient uptake and glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) activity at an order of magni-
tude lower PCB concentrations. These levels were also observed to reduce the
competitiveness of similar species in mixed cultures by other investigators. The
toxicity thresholds determined in the batch culture experiments were converted to
the corresponding concentrations in the phytoplankton by multiplying each water
value by the appropriate K. When these values were compared with the ambient
levels measured in Puget Sound, even for the most toxic PCB compound (2,5,2'-
trichlorobiphenyl) the envircnmental levels are approximately two orders of mag-
nitude below toxicity threshold. However, the ambiguity in the data due to
deviations from equilibrium partitioning, phytoplankton resiliency and selective
toxicity of the CBs does not justify establishing an absolute "safe" level. Re-
cognizing these difficulties and although both higher and lower threshold values
have been reported in the literature, it appears that a threshold of I x 10-6
gl-1 for total CBs' and of 0.1 x 10-6 91-1 for individual components are
justifiable.

123

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CRITERIA FORMULATION

Within the last few years the concern regarding the accelerated change of eco-
systems resulting from the release of organic chemicals in the biosphere has been
increasing steadily (Blodgett, et al., 1975; Neuhold and Ruggerio, 1977). This
concern has been substantiated by recent congressional action through which the
Toxic Substance Control Act was passed. Included in the Act was the ban on
polychlorinated biphenyls.

Marine ecosystems, which constitute natural chemical sinks for anthropogenic ma-
terials, have been receiving substantial amounts of polychlorinated biphenyls,
which in certain cases have reached hazard levels for both biota as well as public
health. Therefore, it was not surprising that a major effort was placed to ac-
quire scientific information on the input, distribution, fate, and toxicological
aspects of these chemicals that was needed to establish realistic environmental
strategies and regulatory controls. Extensive research has been conducted on CBs
on a national level within the last decade. However, the informational feedback
to regulatory agencies, upon which they can base their policy decisions, has been
rather meager, mainly because of the lack of a comprehensive approach and the
absence of perturbation considerations at the ecosystem level. Therefore, the
task of establishing effective water quality criteria for CBS has been extrPmely
difficult. Evidence of this; state of affairs has been well documentea in the
most recent detailed review and criteria formulation for CBs prepared by Nisbet
(1977).

Current Criteria

In view of the information obtained in our study and the conclusions generated
thereof, it was deemed necessary to readdress the issue of criteria formulation.
We have reviewed.carefully the justification presented by Nisbet in establishing
the 0.001 1,g/1 (Ippt) level in water and analyzed our results within the regional
environmental framework, as well as within the national picture. In principle,
we do not disagree with the current criteria level, but we feel that applying a
uniform value is unrealistic due to the high diversity and variable degree of
complexity of aquatic ecosystems (physical, chemical and biological) and the
absence of conclusive toxicological data. 'We are therefore proposing a modifica-
tion of the current requirements by adopting a "best applicable criteria level"
(BACL) approach which introduces a greater flexibility in establishing realistic
requirements appropriate to a given marine region. Our recommendations are
based on the considerations presented below.

The ippt level was established in order to protect aquatic life and provide a
margin of safety for consumer organisms. This requirement was based primarily
on 3 types of experimental information:

1. bioaccumulation from aqueous media

2. response studies with organisms under varying dose levels in the water

3. physiological changes in o rganisms fed with contaminated food sources

124

For example, under certain CB dose levels in water, population shift in phyto-
plankton were observed and invertebrates showed reproductive anomalies with
some species exhibiting reduction in diversity. Bioaccumulation facto@s of 105
in fish were also measured in a limited number of experiments, thus suggesting
that a potential accumulation in harvestable biota to levels of > 0.1 ppm, from
ambient water at the I ppt level, 'is not an unreasonable expectaDon. Assuming
that such am amplification is possible and in view of independent observations
indicating the CB concentrations within a range of 0.6 to 5 ppm in food caused
reproductive dysfunction, metabolic anomalies, microsomal enzyme inhibition and
mortality in mammals, the I ppt level was adopted as a reasonable limit (Nisbet,
1977).

However., there are a number of factors that were not considered which we feel
argue against the strict enforcement of the I ppt level.

1. Upon examination of the current global background levels in water, it is
apparent that in virtually all regions where data are available, including the
Atlantic and Pacific Oceans; the 1 ppt level is consistently exceeded (Risebrough,
1976; Harvey and Steinhauer, 1976; Williams and Robertson, 1975; Pavlou, et al.
1974). Therefore, a uniform requirement below these equilibrium val@jes is
unrealistic.

2. Most toxicological investigations and toxicity data generated under labora-
tory control are of extremely limited applicability to actual environmental condi-
tions. For the phytoplankton case, mixed populations have rarely been used; the
variation of response to tB perturbation under natural environmental stresses
(e.g., nutrient limitation) has not been considered; synergistic and/or antago-
nistic effects with other commonly encountered pollutants (trace metals, other
organic compounds) or naturally abundant chemical constituents (nutrients, dis-
solved organic matter, etc.) have not been examined, i.e., the counterbalancing
effects of biostimulation and bioinhibition and their implication to species
.competition and predominance within a given marine region under CB exposure are
virtually unknown; the evaluation of long-term effects under continuous low level
exposure to CBs in laboratory microcosms is lacking; a systematic biochemical
assessment of metabolic processes (photosynthesis, respiration, enzyme regulation)
to detect early symptoms of dysfunction has received limited attention. For
organisms at higher tropic levels a similar situation exists; toxicity studies
have been limited to acute effects under doses far above the natural levels;
biochemical monitoring of enzyme function has been the exception rather than the
rule; the effects of synergism, natural stresses (changes in the overall chemistry
of their habitat, alteration of food sources and type) are largely unknown.

3. The present criteria do not account for the variation in the physical/chemical
characteristics of the individual chlorobiphenyl.components which in turn affect
the toxicological behavior of these compounds. For example, in our studies we
observed preferential toxicity for a number of PCBs to phytoplankton; the 3-CB
were more toxic than the 5-CB by almost a factor of 10, but the 3-CB showed a
lower bioaccumulation factor than the 5-CB. This observation has some important
connotations to the criteria formulation, i.e., only the level for specific
chlorobiphenyls might have to be reduced rather than the total CBs. We have de-
veloped an analytical technique throughout the course of these studies by which-
the concentrations of individual chlorobiphenyl components can be accurately

125

determined (Dexter and Pavlou, 1976). Consequently, it is possible to measure
their concentration at a lower level than what would be acceptable for the whole
mixture, if that component appears to be a specific toxicant to an organism.

4. The concept of biological availability and bioaccumulation potential from the
ambient medium is not clearly understood. The bioaccumulation data currently
available are as inconclusive as the toxicity information. Most of@the measure-
ments are of questionable quality due to the way the experiments were conducted,
e.g., the range of concentrations normally used were close to the solubility
values so that agglomeration effects could have biased the data. Therefore, bio-
accumulation might be grossly overestimated. Furthermore, determinations of*ac-
cumulation factors were at CB levels of approximately 3 to 5 orders of magnitude
above environmental levels. Normalization of residue data to appropriate biomass
parameters has rarely been considered as a factor that might eliminate the high
variability in the measured accumulation factors. And finally, there is no evi-
dence of any attempt to systematically examine the variables which control the
biological availability of CBs in natural systems.

5. It has been our experience that the routine analytical error at the low ppt
level is not much better than + 50%. This does not account for the uncertainty
introduced by spatial and temporal variability which may exceed + 100% (Pavlou
and Dexter, 1977). Therefore, it would be difficult to report a statistically
significant concentration value at the 1 ppt level within any aquatic region with-
out obtaining a high sampling density to account for both spatial and temporal
gradients.

6. The physical, chemical, and biological constraints of a system may introduce
a substantial uncertainty in the measurements due to spatial, temporal variabil-
ity and biological patchiness, e.g., a stratified body of water such as a brack-
ish estuary might have concentrations of CBs on one side of the pycnocline which
meet the required level, while the other portion could grossly exceed it.

7. There is no evidence as to the cost effectiveness of enforcing the 1 ppt
level versus the environmental and public health trade-offs regarding the use of
a given ecosystem for near-term performance and long-term life support function.

Alternative Recommendations

Based on the previous considerations, we are presenting below a set of alternative
recommendations for more realistic criteria levels.

1. Initiation of regional assessment consisting of: a baseline study on the
physical, chemical, and biological dynamics of the ecosystem under study to de-
termine turn over rates of energy and material, and the recycling capacity of
limiting resources for biomass production; definition of processes which control
the recycling capacity of resources within the region and which are sensitive to
chemical stress; determination of background CB levels. This regional evaluation
can be conducted by synthesis of existing data and/or implementation of a field
program to acquire the necessary information for interpretations. In this manner
a synoptic picture of the environmental dynamics of the region can be obtained,
upon which the BACL can be based.

126

2. The ambient level for total CBS in water should not exceed 5 ppt, and the
level for individual CB components should not exceed 2.5 ppt. We recommend these
values since they are within the current range of the global levels of CBS.
Those regions presently below the 5 ppt level should be maintained at the lower
level and not permitted to exceed it.

3. CB levels in outfall effluents should not exceed 500 ppt for total CBS and
250 ppt for individual components. These limits are recommended as upper bound
values (assuming a minimum dilution of 100/1 at the diffuser) to maintain the
desired levels in ambient water within the vicinity of an outfall discharge.

4. Introduction.of criteria levels for surface sediments is necessary since they
constitute the long-term trap/source systems for all persistent and sparingly sol-
Iuble organic compounds in the aquatic environment. We recommend that the total
CB concentration does not exceed 500 ppb (dry weight basis), and the individual
components do not exceed 25 ppb. These limits are based on the lower value
(I x 104 ) of the component concentration ration determined for sediments in our
work, and are necessary to maintain the desired level in ambient water as recom-
mended above. The sediments provide an excellent marine component for monitoring
CBs, because the residues reflect a time-averaged profile of input levels in the
overlying water without the bias of transient effects; they alqn Drnvide a nicture
of the long term deposition pattern of suspended particulate matter containing
these compounds. Areas with high sediment loads constitute a chronic source of
CBS through desorption. This is particularly important in regions that have
received direct but transient inputs of CBS from sources such as spills (Duwa-
mish River), dumping of contaminated sewage (New York Bight, Long Island Sound)
or dredge spoil (Elliott Bay). In such cases, a simple reduction or elimination
of future imputs may not significantly reduce the ambient levels in water, at
least until the sediment load is removed or buried (by cleaner silt build up) to
a depth sufficient to prevent contact with the overlying water column.

5. At present, regions which have total CB concentration >5 ppt in water and
> 50 ppb in surface sediments should be considered polluted. In such cases reg-
ulatory action and abatement of input sources are recommended based on cost ef-
fectiveness. Initiation of long-term monitoring of ambient levels in both water
and sediments to establish seasonal variability and trends is also recommended.

Recommendations for Regulatory Action in Puget Sound

Based on the above criteria and the CB levels measured in the Sound we are con-
sidering the following areas under CB stress: Duwamish River, Elliott Bay and
Sinclair Inlet exceed the required limits substantially. Commencement Bay and
Whidbey Basin are within the criteria range and should be considered marginal
cases. 'ior the above areas we recommend 1) immediate identification and abate-
ment of sources consistent with the standards recommended above, 2) announcement
.,of the public health hazard from consuming contaminated food resources collected
in these areas and 3) initiation of biochemical and histopathological monitoring
together with the residue analysis of commercially important resident biota to
assess levels of accumulation, physiological changes, metabolic anomalies and
carcinogenic effects.

127

For the areas not on the critical list, a routine monitoring of ambient levels in
water and sediments should be initiated to establish long-term trends and to en-
sure that these regions are maintained at acceptable levels. Regulatory action
should be taken in a coordinated manner among the various federal and state en-
forcing agencies and the user organizations of these areas so that the most cost
effective alternatives are adopted to revert the stressed ecosystem to background
conditions.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Our recommendations for future research stem from our basic beliefs that the most
effective manner to transfer technological information from a scientific per-
spective to a management and poli6y decision level is by adopting an ecosystems
approach. These aspects have been amply stressed elsewhere (Neuhold and Ruggerio,
1977). What we would like to re-emphasize here is the necessity to adopt a
rigorous and coherent framework to tackle the complex problem of ecosystem pertur-
bation and its potential dysfunction induced by the continuously increasing input
loads of organic chemicals. In order to maximize the utility of research results
in formulating realistic and effective environmental decisions, the research
should be conducted in a manner that informational. feedback is continuously
provided to the decision makers, who in turn can modify their regulatory process
to the best benefit for both society and environment.

Field Program in Puget Sound

Although the field investigations conducted to date provide good "baseline" in-
formation regarding the distribution and dynamics of CBs in the estuary, certain
aspects should be further examined.

All on-going input sources of CBs should be assessed quantitatively. Significant
sources should be eliminated or appropriately modified to minimize their impact.

Studies should be initiated to determine thellevel of CBs in the major rivers of
the Sound (Skagit, Snohomish, Stillaguamish) and the Straits of Juan de Fuca and
off the Washington Coast. These rivers are the major fresh water input in Puget
Sound; the Straits provide all the saline water and most of the volume exchange
in the Sound. Elimination of inputs within the Sound may have little effect on
the CB abundance in the region, if their oceanic source water is itself
contaminated.

Research on Physical Chemical Exchanges

Our research demonstrates that the primary modes of transport of per'sistent or-
ganic compounds through an aquatic ecosystem, including accumulation on abiotic
and biotic components, are generated by interfacial processes and are amenable
to theoretical treatment. However, considerably more research is required to
generate a universally applicable predictive model. It should be apparent that
an accurate delineation of the factors affecting the biological availability of
these compounds is of critical importance to the interpretation of toxicological
data and to any realistic assessment of potential ecosystem dysfunction.

128

Toxicological Research

The studies which claim to have documented the toxic response of aquatic organ-
isms to CB stress provide a good example of the prevailing deficiencies of the
current toxicological research. The lack of a sophisticated and comprehensive
approach which accounts for the physical chemical behavior of the test compounds,
the parameter(s) chosen to measure a stress response, and the conditions under
which the test organisms are maintained, seriously limit the utility of the
available data in formulating realistic "safe" levels. We claim no expertise in
biology or toxicology; nevertheless, we have gained enough experience during this
study to offer a number of suggestions which we hope can be incorporated into a
coherent strategy for evaluating the impact of organic contaminants in the marine
environment.

At present, the establishment of water quality criteria results from the identi-
fication of a suspect compound followed by laboratory testing (bioassy analysis)
to determine the lowest exposure level which will produce a response in test
organisms. An extrapolation is then attempted to establish an environmental
level which will produce no effect on the resident biota or their consumers. Al-
though this approach is operationally simple, it would be more desirable to de-
velop methods for the direct evaluation of the "health" of an ecosystem. For
example, a "protocol" could be developed based on a pool of representative organ-
isms from the region, maintained specifically for testing purposes (the microcosm
approach). These organisms could be exposed to water samples from a suspect
region and a stress analysis can be conducted. This technique may suffer from
some of the same difficulties in extrapolating the data to predict the impact to
natural resident populations, but would provide a means of quantitatively com-
paring water quality of various regions in terms of positive/negative response
to a general stress.

Correlations between a variety of biological indicators of vital ecosystem pro-
cesses such as histopathological changes, metabolism, photosynthesis and respira-
tion, nitrogen utilization enzymatic rates and community structure within a sus-
pect region and one which is similar in all respects except in the level of
contaminants could also be used to determine if the contaminant load is inducing
alterations of the system.

In summary, rather than basing regulatory action only on the concentrations of a
few specific chemicals, one should examine whether system dysfunction is possible
under the existing input load of stressers and then identify and regulate the
compound or compounds which are causing the problem. Control should still be
exercised over certain stable compounds, even in the absence of apparent toxicity,
to protect consumer species and avoid long-term accumulation in the system.
Furthermore, the methodology suggested here has the added advantage that the over-
all stress and synergistic effects from as yet unrecognized contaminants can be
detected and intercepted prior to the onset of irreversible disruption of the
system.
All toxicity experiments should be preceded by a careful determination of the
pertinent physical chemical properties of the stresser. These must include:
accurate determination of the aqueous solubility including its dependence on
temperature and salinity, structure-activity correlations-, determination of

129

volatilization rates, and an estimate of the accumulation behavior. Only then
can realistic levels and experimental designs for toxicological investigations
be generated.

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Grant Number R-800362; Contract Numbers WY-6-99-0451, 68-01-3369 and the U.S.
Amy Corps of Engineers, Contract Number DACW 39-76-C-0167. Contribution No.
983 of the Department of Oceanography, University of Washington.

REFERENCES

1. Armstrong, F.A.J. 1975. Silicon. in J.P. Riley and G. Skirrow, eds.
Chemical Oceanography, Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York. Pp. 409-432.

2. Bader, R.G., D.W. Hood, and J.B. Smith. 1960. Recovery of Dissolved
Organic Matter in Sea-Water and Organic Sorption by Particulate Material.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 19:236-243.

3. Bidleman, T.F., and C.E. Olney. 1974. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the
Sargasso Sea Atmosphere and Surface Water. Science, 183:516-518.

4. Blodgett, J.E., J.M. McCullough, J.P. Binick, G.A. Costello, and J.R. Justus.
1975. Effects of Chronic Exposure to Low-Level Pollutants in the Environment.
Prepared for the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere of the
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-
Fourth Congress, First Session. U.S. Government Printing Office, 60-7520.

5. Clayton, J.R., S.P. Pavlou, and N.F. Breitner. 1977. Polychlorinated Bi-
phenyls in Coastal Marine Zooplankton. Bioaccumulation by Equilibrium
Partitioning. Environ. Science Technol. (in press)

6. Crosby, D.G. 1973. The Fate of Pesticides on the Environment. Ann.
Review Plant Physiol. 24:476.

7. Crosby, D.G. 1975. The Toxicant-Wildlife Complex. Pure and Applied Chem.
42:233-253.

B. Denny, D.B. 1971. Chemical Oxidation of Organic Compounds. S.M. Faust
and J.V. Hunter, Eds. Organic Compounds in Aquatic Environments. Marcel
Dekker: New York.

9. Dexter, R.N. and S.P. Pavlou. 1976. Characterization of Polychlorinated
Biphenyl Distribution in the Marine Environment. Bull. Environ. Contam.

10. Fisher, N.s., E.J. Carpenter, C.C. Remsen, and C.F. Wurster. 1974.
Effects of PCB on Interspecific Competition in Natural and Gnotobi-
otic Phytoplankton Communities in Continuous and Batch Cultures.
Microbial Ecology. 1:39-50.

130

11. Friebertshauser, M.A., and A.C. Duxbury. 1972. A Water Budget Study of
Puget Sound and Its Subregions. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17:237-247.

12. Giam, C.S., J.S. Chan, J.P. Kakareka and G.S. Neff. 1976. Trace Analyses
of Phthalates and Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Gulf of Mexico Samples.
I.C.T. Nisbet, Criteria Document for PCBs, Environmental Protection Agency
Document, 440/9-76-021.

13. Hafferty, A.J., S.P. Pavlou, and W. Hom. 1977. Release of Polychlorinated
Biphenyl (PCB) in a Salt-Wedge Estuary as Induced by Dredging of Contaminated
Sediments. Science of the Total Environment. (in press)
14. Haile, C.L., G.D. Veiter, G.F. Lee, and W.C. Boyle. 1975. Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons in the Lake Ontario Ecosystem (IFYGR). EPA Report. EPA
660/3-75-022.

15. Harman, R.A., J.C. Serwold, and "Marine Technicians, Shoreline Community
College, Seattle, WA. 1975. Baseline Study of Sediment Provinces and
Biotopes of Elliott Bay and Vicinity, Washington. Unpublished manuscript.

16. Harvey, G.R., and W.G. Steinhauer. 1976. Transport Pathways of Polychlor-
inated Biphenyls in Atlantic Water. J. Mar. Res. 34(4):561-575.

17. Holden, A.V. Nature. 288:1220.

18. Krank, K. 1973. Flocculation of Suspended Sediments in the Sea. Nature.
246:348-350.

19. Krogslund, K. 1975. Data Report: R/V ONAR Cruises 552, 608, 615, 665, and
R/V HOH 902. Hydrographic, Chemical, and Biological Measurements. Special
Report No. 61. Department of Oceanography, University of Washington.
Ref. No. M75-134.

20. Lee, D.H.K., H.L. Falk, eds. 1972. Perspectives on PCB- Environmental
Health Perspective, Experimental Vol. 1.

21. Metropolitan Engineers. 1976. Task Reports B7/B6: METRO Waste Treatment
Management Strategy, and Formulate Planning Objectives. Metropolitan
Seattle Sewerage System. Metropolitan Engineers: Seattle, Washington.

22. Mosser, J.L., N.S. Fisher, and C.F. Wurster. 1972. Polychlorinated Biphenyls
and DDT Alter Species Composition in Mixed Cultures of Algae. Science,
176:533,

23. National Academy of Sciences. 1971. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Marine
Environment. Committee on Oceanoaraphy, NAS, Washington, D.C.

24. Nelson, N. ed. 1972. Environ. Res., 5:249.

25. Neuhold, J.M. and L.F. Ruggerio, eds. 1977. Ecosystem Processes and
Organic Contaminants: Research Needs and an Interdisciplinary Perspective.
Prepared for the National Science Foundation Directorate for Research
Applications. RANN-Research Applied to National Needs, Division of Ad-
vanced Environmental Research and Technology. U.S. Government Printing
Office. 038-000-00304-6.
131

26. Nickerson, W.J. 1971. Decomposition of Naturally occurring Organic Polymers.
S.M. Faust and J.V. Hunter, eds. Organic Compounds in Aquatic Environments.
Marcel Dekker: New York.

27. Nisbet, I.C.T. 1977. Criteria Document for PCB. EPA 440/9-76-021. Office
of Water Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. Pp. 583.
P8. Owen, E.D. 1971. Principles of Photochemical Reactions in Aqueous Solutions.
S.M. Faust and J.V. Hunter, eds. Organic Compounds in Aquatic Environments.
'larcel Dekker: New York.

29. Parke, D.V. 1968. The Biochemistry of Foreign Compounds. Permagon Press.

30. Parker, B. and G. Barsom 1970. Biological and Chemical Significance of
Surface Microlayers in Aquatic Ecosystems. Bioscience. 15:87-93.

31. Pavlou, S.P. and R.N. Dexter. 1977. Environmental Dynamics of Polychlorinated
3iphenyls (PCB) in Puget Sound: Interpretations and Criteria Recommendati@rs.
Special Report No. 75, Department of Oceanography, University of Washington.

32. Pavlou, S.P., K.A. Krogslund, R.N. Dexter, and J.R. Clayton. 1973. Data
Report: R/V ONAR Cruises 434, 450, 502. Hydrographic, Chemical and Bio-
logical Measurements. Special Report No. 54, Department of Oceanography,
University of Washington.

33. Pavlou, S.P., R.N. Dexter, and J.R. Clayton, Jr. 1974. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Transport of Persistent Chemicals in Aquatic
Ecosystems, National Research Council of-Canada, Ottawa, 334.

31. ravlou, S.P., R.N. Dexter, F.L. Mayer, C. Fisher, and R, Haque. 1975.
Proceedings: Workshop of Ecosystems Processes and Organic Contamination,
June 1-6, 1975. The Institute of Ecology.

35. Pavlou, S.P., A.J. Hafferty, K. Krogslund, and W. Hom. 1976. PCB Monitoring
in the Duwamish River: A Study of Their Release Induced by Dredging Activities
in Slip-1. Special Report No. 66, Department of Oceanography, Universit.Y
of Washington.

36. Pavlou, S.P., R.N. Dexter, W. Hom, and K. Krogslund, 1977. Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCB) in Puget Sound: Baseline Data and Methodology. Special
Report No. 74, Reference No. M77-36, Department of Oceanography, University
of Washington.

37. Riley, G.A. 1963. Organic Aggregates in Sea-Water and the Dynamics of Their
Formation and Utilization. Limnol. Oceanogr. 8:372-381.

38. Riley, J.P., and A. Skirrow, eds. 1965. Chemical Oceanography, Vol. 1.
Academic Press, New York.

132

39. Risebrough, R.W. 1976. Recent Studies of Transport of PCB's to Marine
Environments. In Conference Proceedings, National Conference on Polychlor-
inated Biphenyls, November 1975, Chicago, Illinois. EPA-560/6-75-004,
Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. Pp. 230-235.

40. Risebrough., R.W., V. Vreeland, G.R. Harvey, H.P. Mklas, and G.M. Carnignani.
1972. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 9:376

41. Ryther, J.H. 1969. Science. 166:72.

42. Schmidt, T.T., R.W. Risebrough, and F. Gress. 1971. Bull. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 6:235.

43. Scura, E.O. and V.E. McClure. 1975. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Seawater:
Analytical Methods and Levels in the Northeastern Pacific. Mar. Chem. 3:337-346.

44. Stumm, W. and J.J. Morgan. 1970. Aquatic Chemistry. Wiley-Interscience.

45. Sutcliffe, W.H., and E.R. Baylor, and D.W. Menzel. 1963. Sea Surface Chemistry.
and Langmuir Circulation. Deep Sea Res. 10:233-243.

46. Tomlinson, R.D., and B.N. Bebee, R.G. Swarty. 1976. Combined Sewer Overflow
Studies. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle.

47. Wildish, D.J. 1972. Bull. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol. 7:182,

48. Williams, P.M. and K.J. Robertson. 1975. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in
Sea-Surface Films and Subsurface Waters at Nearshore Stations and in the
North Central Pacific Gyre. Fishery Bull. 13:445-447.

133

ON NEARSHORE TRAPPINGS OF POLLUTANTS BY TIDAL EDDIES DOWNSTREAM FROM
POINTS IN PUGET SOUND, WASHINGTON

Curtis C. Ebbesmeyer, Jonathan M. Helseth
Evans-Hamilton, Inc.
Clifford A. Barnes, John H. Lincoln, and William P. Bendiner
University of Washington

INTRODUCTION

Estuaries are often bounded by complicated shorelines. In many cases shoreline
irregularities are associated with local nearshore flow patterns important in
dispersing pollutants (Pritchard 1960; Okubo 1973). In Puget Sound, hydrographic
charts show many irregularities such as prominent points and embayments (Figure 1).
In a recent study using time-lapse photographic techniques and a hydraulic model
of Puget Sound, McGary and Lincoln (1977) showed vividly that during major flood
and ebb tides eddies formed downstream from prominent points. Qualitatively it
is reasonable to speculate that pollutants discharged in or near tidal eddies at
depth may be upwelled and recirculated toward shore.
Of particular importance in Puget Sound is the dispersion of 5 - 15 m3/sec
(1 - 3 x 108 gallons/day) of sewage effluent at approximately 73-m depth about
1 kilometer west of West Point (Figure 1). This discharge represents the great
majority of Seattle's total effluent. In comparison with the natural environment,
Barnes and Ebbesmeyer (1977) determined that the average estuarine flow northward
past West Point equaled a discharge of about 30,000 m3/sec (7 x 1011 gallons/day)
or about 2,000-6,000 times the effluent discharged from West Point. Superimposed
on the net seaward estuarine flow is the oscillatory tidal flow equivalent to
ratios several times larger than those just noted. These ratios suggest that the
effluent discharge is greatly diluted by the natural estuarine flow. However, in
an experiment tracing dye injected into the effluent, Bendiner (1976) found con-
centrations in surface water sampled close to the beach near West Point up to
0.4 percent. This concentration corresponds to a dilution ration of 1/250, assum-
ing that the source is effluent from the outfall ports. This value is roughly an
order of magnitude larger than that which would be found if complete mixing oc-
curred with the net estuarine flow. It is also considerably larger than found in
dye patches well downstream from the diffusers.

134

15' 123' 45' 122* 30' 15'

4 91ANACOR7ES,
R
30'
13
@2
VICTORIA DE CEPT101v
PASS

WHIDBEY

15' c 15'

A
SLAN

Tow PORT
NSEN
CAMANO HEAD

48-- 0 -9 10 EVERETT
AD44i LTY
NAUTICAL MILES INLET

125- 124- 123. 22* POSSESSION POINT

@NCOUVER
45' 49' - CANADA -49- WEST PT.
VANCOUVE S 45'
ISLAND

T RIA,
SEATTLE
T' FUCA

48- -48-
ANGELES
47' 47-
OLYMPIC
10, 30'

PENINSULA
I COLVOS PASSAGE

PACIFIC
PASSAGE
47@=
125- 124- 123.
122:
15, AA 15'

rhE' NARROWS

k 123* 45' 122*30' 15' 122*

Figure 1 Puget Sound and study area

135

a) PLAN VIEW

PRESSURE =,CORIOLIS +CENTRIFUGAL
FORCE FORCE FORCE

MPROFILE VIEW
ING
S ZONE S

dC- 3*1
UPPER
LAYER C D
D
UPWELLING
D
LOWERf
LAYERt j T: A D
j
7 @- 7

Figure 2. Hypothetical plan (a) and profile (b) views
of counter-clockwise eddy. Notations: A, suspended sediment
accumulated by secondary flow (J); C, flotsam accumulated by
<

upwelling under pycnocline; D, isopycnals; I, lateral inflow/
outflow induced by mixing; S, surface slicks.

It is worthwhile to explore possible physical processes by which the West Point
effluent could be transported onto the beach. In this paper it is suggested that
eddies forming south of West Point on flood tides may produce upwelling of efflu-
ent beyond that of its natural buoyancy. Once the effluent from the outfall has
risen towards the surface, it can be transported shoreward by other processes
such as those associated with wind and secondary tidal currents. Near shore,
occasional pockets of water containing effluent may be trapped behind density
fronts associated with insolation and local runoff.

Tidal eddies generally occur throughout Puget Sound near promontories and some
are near other outfalls (e.g. Alki Point, see Rattray and Lincoln 1955). These
locations have not received sufficient study to define the role of eddies in the
movement and dispersion of effluent.

EDDY UPWELLING

Eddies long have been recognized as playing an important role in oceanic,circula-
tion. Numerous examples may be cited including:
1. rings pinched off the Gulf Stream (Fuglister and Worthington 1951),

2. the vortex formed above the Altair submarine volcano in the Atlantic
Ocean (Defant 1940),

3. MODE (Mid-Ocean Dynamics Experiment) eddies now under investigation
(Robinson 1976).

In general, productive fishing areas in the northern hemisphere are often located
within counter-clockwise flows where both Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations
are directed outward. There upwelled nutrients provide a base for intensive
food chains.

Within small scale tidal eddies having high current speeds and radii on the order
of meters to a few kilometers, the centrifugal acceleration may greatly exceed
the Coriolis acceleration. In such cases, with peripherial speed decreasing with
increasing depth, upwelling near the core can occur with either clockwise or
counter-clockwise rotation. Figure 2 shows hypothetical, profiles of circulation
and density within a counter-clockwise tidal eddy in the northern hemisphere.
Displacement of denser water above its static equilibrium level is driven prima-
rily by the outward directed centrifugal acceleration, and combined with the
gravitation acceleration, the isopycnals approach an equilibruim shape although
it probably is never attained in this continuously accelerating tidal system. In
addition to this doming of isopycnals is the buoyancy of the effluent which is
less dense than the ambient water. Further upwelling occurs if the domed iso-
pycnals rise and are eroded in strong shear zones often found near the primary
pycnocline which is frequently near the surface in Puget Sound. The mixture tends
to move laterally at a depth appropriate to its density. Contact with the bottom
possibly results in secondary flows which would tend to accumulate suspended
sediments in the eddy's core, somewhat as seen in a tea cup after stirring when
tea leaves form a mound on the cup's bottom.

137

EXPERIMENTS NEAR WEST POINT

Recent experiments indicate counter-clockwise eddies formed on major flood tides
south of West Point. Three types of studies were performed during summer and
winter:
1. droque trajectories (Ebbesmeyer and Helseth 1975) in order to track fluid
parcels passing over the West Point outfall, groups of drogues were released on
several occasions at the prevailing depth of maximum effluent concentration, and
tracked during several flood tides (Figure 3). The term 'drogue' as used here
refers to a drag moved at depth by prevailing currents, and attached by thin line
to a surface float;

2. dye distribution (Bendiner 1976 and Karr 1975) in order to trace the efflu-
ent, Rhodamine B dye was injected continuously into the West Point effluent and
its concentration measured along with temperature and salinity using a sensor
package towed horizontally and cycled vertically; this yielded quasi-vertical
profiles of dye and the associated densitT field (Figure 4). The dye can be
detected at concentrations as low as 10-1 gm/cm3;
3. model experiments (Lincoln 1976) in order to obtain a simulated view of
horizontal movement and dispersion of effluent, dye was continously injected in
a hydraulic model of Puget Sound and periodically photographed using a 16-mm
camera (Figure 5). The model, constructed in the early 1950's, has a horizontal
scale of 1/40,000 and a vertical scale of 1/1152, and is equipped with a tide-
producing mechanism and means for adding regulated amounts of fresh and saltwater
(Rattray and Lincoln 1955). Comparison with field data have shown the model
representative of tidal currents near West Point (Lincoln 1976).

The results of the drogue and model experiments show that within th6 tidal area
south of West Point the effluent spreads as filaments which ultimately break down
into patches (compare Figures 3 and 5). The 2 patches nearest mid-channel main-
tained their identity during the ensuing ebb tide, whereas the patch nearest shore
was drawn northward and quickly dispersed by strong current shears near West Point.
Visual inspection of dye in the model suggests that occasional dye reaches shore
as the nearshore patch moves northward. The dispersion pattern formed north of
West Point on ebb differs markedly from that just shown south of West Point on
flood. The ebb pattern is more finely dispersed consisting of a highly complex
mixture of filaments and patches (Ebbesmeyer and Helseth 1975). *

During the field dye experiments in a number of traverses made on flood tide, the
sensor package passed through the West Point eddy Figure 4 shows an east-west
profile from results of Bendiner (1976) and Karr 4975). Isopleths of both density
and dye concentration rise about 20 m toward surface near the center of the eddy
shown schematically in Figure 2. A quantitative check on the consistency of the
drogue trajectories and the interface slope of the eddy's density profile may be
performed using the following equation (Defant 1961):

138

28, 122*26' 28' 12 2* 26'

27 FEBRUARY 1975 31 AUGUST 1974
DEPTH 50 METERS +
47@ - + DEPTH 20 METERS + 47*
4 40'
EST PT .@ST PT

1600
-60o

38'- + + + 38'
15- 15- 914

10-

5- 5-

I SEPTEMBER 1974 2 SEPTEMBER 1974
47@ - DEPTH 50 METERS + DEPTH 50 METERS
+ + + + 47*
4 40'

------ EST PT
.@ST PT

5 5m.,
38 + + + + -38,
15- -15-
wIO- Ic-
0 1 5-
k rn

28' 12 Z' 26' 21- 12 2* 26'

Figure 3. Drogue trajectories. Ticks on trajectories
mark hour intervals. Ticks on tidal curves (insets) indicate
trajectories' durations. Traverse at upper right corresponds
to profiles in Figure 4. (Adapted from Ebbesmeyer and Hel-
seth 1975).

1
9
3

o)DENSITY (0.1 SIGMA-T UNITS)

-22.0 ------ 7L'

50- 22.3

22.5
E

F- 0-
o.
b) DY E (0. LOG UNITS I

50- -11 0

-10.2

80- -7-
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600
WEST EAST
DISTANCE (m) ALONG TRAVERSE

Figure 4. Density (a) and dye (b) profiles. Traverse
is shown in Fi ure 3. Example: 22.0 sigma-t units = densit
of 1.022 gm/cm ; and -10.0 log units = concentration of 10- 0
gm/cM3. Hatching denotes isopycnals characteristic of upwell-
ing. (Adapted from Bendiner 1976 and Karr 1975).

28' 122* 26'

47-
47*
40' + + 40

WEST PT
*+ ...........
a, FORT LAWTON

MAGNOLIA
BLUFF

-3Q@ft

28' 122*26'

Figure 5. An example of dye patches formed during major
flood tides. Ticks near West Point denote dye sampling loca-
tions. (Adapted from photographs by John H. Lincoln of dye
injected into the Puget Sound tidal model).

141

P V + P V 2 P V 2
Interface _2 w sin 0 02 1;2 1 2 2
Slope 9 P - 1 2 P
2 P R9 P J

Effect of Coriolis Force Effect of Centrifugal
Force

where subscripts 1, 2, refer to the upper and lower layers, respectively, in the
eddy as illustrated in Figure 2; and Table 1 describes the individual terms and
gives values estimated using Figures 3 and 4. In equation (1) it is assumed that
a two-layered flow is in.steady rotation. Substitution of the parameter esti-
mates into equation (1) yields a slope of 0.039, comparing favorably with a slope
of .036-0.050 scaled from Figure 4. In this computation, the term representing
the effect of centrifugal force contributes approximately 90% of the slope.

At change of tide there occurs considerable cross-channel movement, and the par-
ticular suite of conditions leading to the formation of the original eddy is lost.
Alternating onshore and offshore movements can be expected. The probability of
such movements should be considered in the interpretation of biological, chemical,
geological and physical observations. Measurements are customarily taken near
mid-channel, but not concurrently along the estuarine periphery.

EFFLUENT REACHING SHORE

A portion of the dye released during the summer experiment apparently reached
shore at locations shown in Figure 5, whereas during winter no dye was detected
at these locations (Bendiner 1976). Existing data are not sufficient to estab-
lish this variation as seasonal, or define pathways by which effluent may reach
shore. Possibilities include onshore movement of the following:
1. nearshore patch observed in the model,

2. West Point eddy during change of tide,

3. effluent upwelled directly to surface during change of tide when current
shears tend to be minimal.

Occasional boils visible at the surface over the outfall have been reported, al-
though none were reported during the time when dye was observed nearshore. This
condition or possible seepage from the outfall at shallower depth might lead to
the relatively high concentration observed at shore.

In conjunction with these pathways, effluent may be trapped behind nearshore
density fronts (Figure 6). Such fronts develop in shallow water between more
rapidly moving tidal streams offshore and slowly circulating water near shore
where heating effects associated with insolation are intensified. Elsewhere in
Puget Sound a vivid example of nearshore heating has been observed in Skagit Bay
where peripheral surface temperatures exceeded those at mid-channel by 30C
(Collias, Barnes and Lincoln, 1973).

142

Table 1. Descriptions and estimates of eddy parameters
during dye and drogue experiments.

Parameters Description Estimate
W Earth's angular velocity 7.29 x 10-5 sec-I

Latitude 470 40' North
9 Gravitational acceleration 980 cm/sec 2
Pi Upper layer density 1.0220 gm/cm 3
P2 Lower layer density 1.0226 gm/cm 3

VI Upper layer velocity 40 cm/sec

V2 Lower layer velocity 20 cm/sec

R Eddy radius 600 M

143

SOLAR
RADIATION
PRECIPITATION

RUNOFF

-A
D SEEPAGE

Figure 6. -Hypothetical cross-section of shallow depths
along periphery of Puget Sound, Notation: A, offshore water;
8, pycnocline separating nearshore and offshore waters: C,
lens of relatively low density water; 0, bottom roughness
elements.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence suggests that some of the effluent discharged offshore at depth
may reach the intertidal and subtidal zones. In the West Point locale, one of the
best documented examples of the dispersion of effluent from outfalls in Puget
Sound, the data base is insufficient to define the pathways or quantify the ex-
change of water and waterborne substances between mid-channel and nearshore areas.
The inshore regimes are rich in biological production, both primary and secondary,
and are used extensively both in recreation and industry. The quality of near-
shore waters is dependent to a large extent on inshore-offshore interchange which
in turn cannot be understood short of intensive field programs devoted to the
particular areas in question.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work described here was supported by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
as part of its Puget Sound Interim Studies for Best Practical Treatment Alter-
natives. Contribution No. 968 from the Department of Oceanography, University
of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

REFERENCES

1. Barnes, C.A., and C.C. Ebbesmeyer. 1977. "Some Aspects of Puget Sound's
Circulation and Water Properties," presented at the 7th Baruch Research
Symposium on Transport Processes in Estuarine Environments, Georgetown,
South Carolina, 19-22 May, 1975 (in press).

2. Bendiner, W.P. 1976. "Dispersion of Effluent From the West Point Outfall."
University of Washington Applied Physics Lagoratory, Final Report.

3. Collias, E.E., C.A. Barnes and J.H. Lincoln. 1973. "Skagit'Bay Study,
Dynamical Oceanography Final Report." University of Washington Department
of Oceanography, Reference M73-73.

4. Defant, A. 1940. "Die ozeanogr. Verh!Sltnisse viihrend der Ankerstation des
'Altair' am Nordrand des Hauptstromstriches des Golfstromes nurdlich der
Azoren." Aus den Wiss. Erg. der Intern. Folfstron-Unternehmen 1938.
Ann. Hydr. Mar. Met. Beih. Nov. 1940.

5. Defant, A. 1961. "Physical Oceanography," Volume I. The MacMillan Company.

6. Ebbesmeyer, C.C. And J.M. Helseth. 1975. "A Study of Current Properties
and Mixing Using Drogue Movements Observed During Summer and Winter in
Central Puget Sound, Washington." Evans-Hamilton, Inc., Final Report.

7. Fuglister, F.C., and L.V. Worthington. 1951. "Some Results of a Multiple
Ship Survey of the Gulf Stream." Tellus 3: 1-14.

145

8. Karr, K.R. 1975. "Spatial and Temporal Behavior of the West Point Sewage
Effluent in Puget Sound." Master of Science Research Report, University
of Washington.

9. Lincoln, J.H. 1976. "Oceanographic Model Study of Tidal Currents and
Effluent Dispersal at METRO West Point Outfall Site." University of
Washington Department of Oceanography, Reference A76-41.

10. McGary, N., and J.H. Lincoln. 1977. "Tide Prints, a Surface Current Atlas
of Puget Sound." Sea Grant Publication WSG 77-1.

11. Okubo, A. 1973, "Effect of Shoreline Irregularities on Streamwise
Dispersion in Estuaries and Other Embayments." Netherlands Journal of
Sea Research 6(1-2): 213-224.

12. Pritchard, D.W. 1960. "The Movement and Mixing of Contaminants in Tidal
Estuaries," p. 512-525. in E.A. Pearson (ed.), "Waste Disposal in the
Marine Environment." Pergamon Press.

13. Rattray, J., Jr., and J.H. Lincoln. 1955. "Operating Characteristics of
an Oceanographic Model of Puget Sound." Transactions of American Geophysical
Union 36(2): 251-261.

14. Robinson, A.R. 1976. "Eddies and Ocean Circulation." Oceanus 19(3): 2-17.

146

UPDATING MONITORING ON THE DUWAMISH RIVER

Ruth W. Shnider
URS Company

This presentation is concerned with a discussion of the methods of water quality
monitoring carried out on the Duwamish River, and those characteristics of the
river and its estuary that adversely affect monitoring equipment, thus increasing
normal monitoring effort and cost. Current technological developments are noted
that suggest a potential for updating monitoring techniques and making them more
cost-effective.

Water quality of the Duwamish River directly affects that of Elliott Bay and
Puget Sound. Outfalls of the METRO Renton Treatment Plant and several industries
empty into the river. Hence knowledge of the water quality of the Duwamish is a
necessary part of the examination of the impact of man on the waters of Puget
Sound. The Duwamish water quality monitoring network was established in 1963 by
the United States Geological Survey in cooperation with METRO. It originally
consisted of 4 fixed water quality and 5 gaging stations along the river, from
just above the Renton Sewage Treatment Plant outfall into the Upper Duwamish
(Green River), to Elliott Bay. Funding was, and still is, 50-50 by METRO and the
Survey. The network satisfies primarily an ambient objective: to provide a con-
tinuous record of the change in the parameters over time, to assess the effect of
the changing waste disposal in the estuary, and to obtain data for verifying the
water quality simulation model of the river (and the location of the salt wedge).

The locations of the 5 fixed submersible pump-type stations with float devices
that are currently in use are shown in Figure 1. Most of the stations are still
at their original locations, which were selected intuitively on the basis of pop-
ulation, associated industry, and the requirement to locate the salt wedge.
Meteorology and topography were not considered.

Parameters measured at each station include temperature, turbidity, dissolved
oxygen concentration, specific conductance, and pH. Both surface and bottom re-
cordings are taken at the stations located at the Spokane St. Bridge, and at the
16th Ave. South Bridge, where the probes are 1m below the surface and 1m above
the bed. Solar insolation, also, is measured at the East Marginal Way Station.
Mobile surveys are used to supplement the data from the fixed stations.

147

REAT MENT
PL.H,

Fig.1
OUW&MISH-GREEN
IRK
N YWO

E. Marginal Way

16th Ave. 5.
co

Ave S

SPOKANE S
BELLO"

Maintenance problems have plagued the data collection effort, resulting from sev-
eral characteristics of the Duwamish environment that adversely affect the equip-
ment. At the 3 lower stations, tidal action changes the salinity from fresh to
salt water. As a result, electrolytic effects on the pumps are such that they
must be replaced on a regular maintenance schedule, every few months. In the
summer months, periphyton and algae collect on the sensors to such an extent that
the sensors must be cleaned twice weekly,in order that the data be considered
reliable. Because these sensors are e 'xtremely sensitive, they require inspections
and calibration at least weekly the rest of the year. The need for such frequent
maintenance contributes to the difficulty and cost of the monitoring program.
For instance, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, in 1973, the cost to op-
erate 4 fixed stations was $43,700, of which maintenance ind calibration costs
were over $32,000. The costs of equipment replacement are not included.

In comparison, the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANC 0) operat-
ed a robot monitoring network comprised of 19 remote stations, at a cost of
$41,000 in 1974. The cost does not include-instrument depreciation. Furthermore,
the ORSANCO robot monitors contain sensors for more parameters than those measured
on the Duwamish, since they measure dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, temp-
erature, pH, chloride, oxide-reduction potential, and solar radiation. They are
maintained regularly at 2 week intervals under contract with the Schneider
Instrument Company of Cincinnati, Ohio, who designed the system. 'Signals from
the monitors, which are sent via a leased-wire service, are received at ORSANCO
headquarters in Cincinnati, and are monitored at 2 minute intervals.

It is thus apparent that the ORSANCO network is far more cost-effective than that
of the Duwamish River. However, ORSANCO monitors are operating in an entirely
fresh water system, whereas in the Duwamish, the estuarine environment creates
additional instrumental problems.

In the following paragraphs, several applications of modern technology are of-
fered for consideration as being potentially useful in providing a more cost-
effective monitoring effort.

The first alternative to the present system that is suggested is the modification
of in situ equipment to allow more effective operation. Consultation with equip-
ment manufacturers would be required to determine whether they could provide
modifications that would allow successful and cost-effective use of their robot
monitors in estuarine conditions.

Difficulties encountered during in situ monitoring, particularly in the estuarine
environment, suggest examination of remote sensing potentialities. Remote sens-
ing equipment has been used to advantage in many cases, where the equipment is
mounted in aircraft that overfly areas of interest, such as power station cooling
ponds, or harbors. However, the cost-effectiveness of such a procedure
would not be an improvement over methods currently in use. If one observation
were sufficient, or if long intervals between observations were acceptable, it
would be possible to employ data from satellite observations. For instance,
(Reference 1), through analysis of data from the Multispectral Scanner mounted
on the ERTS-1 (Earth Resources Technology Satellite), it was possible to observe
sewage sludge, acid waste, suspended solids and the major water mass surface
boundaries of these pollutants dumped in the New York Bight. The scanner collects

149

data in 4 spectral bands from 0.5 to 1.1 micrometer, and the satellite orbit
provided repeat coverage of the study area every 18 days, thus providing informa-
tion to allow calculation of the surface movement of the wastes. Adaptation of
remote sensing techniques to the Duwamish network may offer some possibilities
of cost-effective monitoring.

One remote sensing technique that could provide information on temperature of the
Duwamish is use of the Airborne Infrared Line Scanner. This equipment has been
used, mounted in aircraft, to scan the surface of a water body, recording temp-
erature and circulation data on magnetic tape, for subsequent detailed processing.
Infrared scanning presents two potential uses. The first potential is the use
of a radiometer, such as the Barnes Engineering Company PRT-5, with a 10' field
of view. Such radiometers could be fixed beneath the bridges that cross the
river, and would measure the temperature of the top 1-3mm of water. According
to information obtained from the NASA Ames Research Center, such a surface meas-
urement is representative of the column temperature, if the water is moving at
a reasonable velocity. Furthermore, since atmospheric attenuation of infrared
increases with altitude, the bridge location would minimize such attenuation.

A second application of airborne infrared scanning has been developed by Daedalus
Enterprises, Inc. of Ann Arbor, Michigan. This method combines an airborne in-
frared scanning instrument with the highly accurate Daedalus DIGICOLOR process
to provide thermal contouring of water bodies. The Daedalus procedure on which
information is available is expensive and appears impractical for use on the
Duwamish. However, a brief review of the results are presented, since the com-
pany claims that thermal discharges or seepages into rivers and lake.s have been
successfully mapped, and many have been mapped for each tidal cycle, or period-
ically, to assess effects of factors that may influence a discharge. The.company
solicits the opportunity to answer questions on specific problems, and it is pos-
sible that the process could be adapted for use in monitoring on the Duwamish.
To map the Commonwealth Edison's Powerton Station cooling pond, the scanner was
mounted in a twin engine Beech aircraft that made 6 passes over the pond with a
36% sidelap, at an altitude of 1,500 feet. The circulation pattern of the Power-
ton cooling pond is shown in Figure 2. Each color in this pattern represents a
VF thermal range, commencing with red and continuing through magenta, as illus-
trated. Thus, the pond exhibits a temperature drop of 18'F from the point of
discharge (white) to the intake point (black). The system is also capable of
temperature sensitivity mapping in IOF intervals. The color mapping can then be
converted to a contour map of water temperature, if desired.

An airborne differential radiometer has been demonstrated to be a sensitive real-
time detector of surface chlorophyll and temperature in marine and fresh waters,
as described in articles by John C. Arvesen, et al., of Ames Research Center,
NASA, Moffett Field, California (Reference 2). The method is based on the cor-
relation spectrometer principle, by configuring the instrument to correlate to
specific characteristics unique to the parameter to be detected. All phyto-
plankton posses chlorophyll a as one of the chromophores that absorb solar energy.
For a large number of phytoplankton species, as shown in Figure 3 (an illustrat-
tion of Arvesen's report), there is a maximum absorption in the blue, at about
440 nm, due to chlorophyll, there is carotenoid absorption into the green, a
relatively transparent region between 530 and 650 nm, and another absorption
maximum at 680 nm. This characteristic spectral signature is used in the

150

SCALE-CORRECTED DIGICOLOR
MASTER MOSAIC OF COOLING POND FIG. 2

r@4

rw
Lae

correlation method to detect phytoplankton. The intensity at a reference wave-
length located at the absorption maximum. Variations in the concentration of
phytoplankton pigments primarily affect the intensity at the sample wavelength,
resulting in a signal output from the differential radiometer proportional to the
apparent absorption band strength. An infrared radiometer was used to provide
water surface temperature as a conjugate measurement to chlorophyll. The results
of approximately 50 comparisons between remote measurements of chlorophyll from
an aircraft and laboratory analyses are shown in Figure 4, also taken from
Arvesen's report. The data cover a wide range of chlorophyll and turbidity levels.

Analysis of simultaneous measurements that were made of chlorophyll and tempera-
ture in Howe Sound, British Columbia, are illustrated in Figure 5, which is from
Arvesen's paper. This plot demonstrates the correlation found between surface
temperature (a physical property of the water) and chlorophyll (a biological
property).

This last described technology is of particular interest because, according to
Mr. William Haushild of the U.S.G.S., the early mobile surveys of the Duwamish
indicated plentiful phytoplankton, also evidenced by the accumulations on the
sensors. The techniques discussed above required the installation of equipment
in a Cessna 401 aircraft (Fig. 6), and overflying the area. Such monitoring would
be an expensive undertaking, on a continuing basis. However, it is possible that
the techniques involved could be applied to monitoring the Duwamish by the use of
fixed monitors, installed beneath the bridges over the river. Comparison of
results between stations may serve to locate causes of changes in water quality.

Another potential measurement is the use of color time-lapse photography in cameras
positioned beneath the bridges. Such photography would allow the detection of
temperature and sediment load, which can be correlated with the color. Details of
the camera mounting, timing devices, and protection can be readily resolved.

Of all the technologies noted above, only the robot monitors would provide all the
data presently gathered at the fixed stations, and the feasibility of the use of
modifications of these sensors has not as yet beeen demonstrated. It can be argued
that techniques providing only one or two categories of data are inadequate replace-
ments for the multi-parameter data currently available at fixed stations. However,
installation of equipment for one or more of the suggested techniques at locations
above the existing stations should provide correlations between the presently meas-
ured in situ data and temperature, circulation, sediment load, and chlorophyll con-
centrations measured from the bridge locations. It is also possible that infrared
data can provide some information on the organics in the water, and that correla-
tions could be developed from simultaneous measurements of the temperature, organics,
and dissolved oxygen concentrations. In addition, correlations should be made with
the numerical model of the salt wedge reach of the Duwamish River Estuary (Ref. 3).
This model was used to calculate distributions of salinity, temperature, chlorophyll
a concentrations, biochemical oxygen demand, and dissolved oxygen concentrations in
the Duwamish River Estuary, to estimate effects of changing sewage-effluent discharge.

Furthermore, analysis of the large amount of existing historical data may indicate
that the frequency of some analyses can be reduced. For instance, U.S.G.S. examin-
ed bottom sediment at the Renton junction, and stopped taking samples when enough
data were available. Results of the presently conducted mobile surveys may prove
to be adequate checks, in combination with correlations developed for the remote
sensors,

152

1.0- DIATOM, Cyclole#0 AP.
.9 - DINOFLAGELLATE, AmPhIdXVm SP-
GREEN FLAGELLATE, Chlomydomonos.
.8 - NATURAL POPULATION -
WOODS HOLE WATER
.7
u) 6 4 YENTSCH (REF. 10)
z

CL
0 .3

0
400 500 600 700 800
WAVELENGTH, nm
FIG.3 Absorption spectra of a variety of marine phyto-
plankton.

10
LAKE CAMANCHE@
6-
4 OCEAN (100km)
PARDEE
2 IRESERVOIR9+ PYRAMID LAKE
E BONITA POINT 0
OCEAN SAN FRANCISCO
0N (200 km //i@
E .6 LAKE BERRYESSA
-J .4-
>- LAKE
m: . - TAHOE
Q- 2 0 2/19/71
0
cc OCEA;@N.@ 0 2/26/71
0 -1 (60 km)
Z@ 6/20/71
N ACCEAN (40okm)
.06 Z OCEA
-- (700 k@v OCEAN (60o km)
04

.02 SOLAR ZERO

.01
2.4 -1.8 -1.2 -.6 0 .6
DIFFERENTIAL RADIOMETER SIGNAL, V
FIG. 4 Remote sensing compared with laborator'vtnzdN-sj'-@.

HOWE SOUND BRITISH COLUMBIA CANADA
MAY 26,1971

ENTRANCE TO SQUAMISH,
HOWE SOUND BRITISH COLUMBIA
16- 17

E EMPERATURE 16 Uj
" 1 0
2 U
15 < Uj
E U- 0@
CHLOROPHYLL cr_ D
14 ' I---
>- 8 (n <
0 @-TEMPERATURE -13 uJ uj-
Ir 2
0 Uj
4, -12 3:
CHLOROPHYLL

0 4 8 12 16 2-0 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
61STANCE INTO HOWE SOUND, km
I G. 5 Chlorophyll and temperature correlation in Howe
Sound, British Columbia, Canada on May 26,1.971.

n'42,

ma
AM
v,7 -3V
Aff
OEM

DIFFERENTIAL RADIOMETER (0.3 TO 1.01i)
SPECTRORADIOMETER (0.3 TO 1.01i)
INFRARED FILTER RADIOMETER (2 TO 201t)
HASSELBLAD CAMERA
DATA ACOUISITION SYSTEM

6 (*c,,,,11;1 401 ;11fc[;lll 11"cd for remote sensilli!.

The alternative techniques suggested would require investigation and trial to
determine their usefulness. If proved feasible, they would provide more cost-
effective methods of monitoring the Duwamish.

REFERENCES

1. C.T. Wezernak and F.J. Thomson, "Monitoring of Dumping by Means of Satellite
Remote Sensing," Ambio, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp 84-86, 1973.

2. John C. Arvesen, John P. Millard, and Ellen C. Weaver, "Remote Sensing of
Chlorophyll and Temperature in Marine and Fresh Waters," Astronautica
Acta., Vol. 18, pp 229-239, 1973,

3. E.A. Prych, W.L. Haushild, and J.D. Stoner, "Numerical Model of.the Salt-
Wedge Reach of the Duwamish River Estuary," U.S.G.S., Tacoma, Washington,
Report 75-13, 1975.

157

INTERTIDAL DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL
IN WASHINGTON ESTUARIES

Richard Albright
Washington State Department of Game

INTRODUCTION

Throughout man's history, estuarine ecosystems have been subjected to various
forms of his pollutants. Their natural resources have attracted a high percentage
of the world's population to areas adjacent to or on what was once estuarine lands.
The need for more and larger navigable waterways and additional agricultural or
industrial land became a necessity as technology progressed and populations in-
creased. It seemed inevitable that man would see fit to combine these two prob-
lems into a common solution; to use materials dredged from creation or mainten-
ance of navigable waterways to create agricultural and industrial lands by
"reclaiming" tidal flats. As agricultural and forest practices began to cause
increased problems with erosion, the need for dredging became more imperative,
with greater amounts of material to be disposed.

Several works have discussed the biological resources of estuaries (Lynam, 1972;
Green, 1968; Lauff, 1967; Knox and Kilner, 1973). As a result, increasing con-
cern has developed over the impact on our biological resources resulting from the al-
teration of estuarine lands, In early 1974, the U.S. Army Corps of Enginpers (USACE)
contracted the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) to conduct a studv on the
effects of dredging on the environment in Grays Harbor, Washington. DOE in turn
subcontracted the Washington Departments of Game and Fisheries and staff.members
at Grays Harbor College to perform most of the actual field work. The Deparment
of Fisheries investigated the impacts of dredging on Dungeness crabs and performed
bioassays on both salmon and oysters. Grays Harbor College contributed work on
-the effects on water quality and on heavy minerals and grain size distributions
in the harbor. DOE performed a literature review on hydrodynamics of the harbor
and conducted an underwater investigation of a disposal area. The portion of the
study contracted to the Department of Game included assessment of impacts on fish,
mammals, birds, vegetation and benthos. -Although portions of the study included
observations on several types of di,sposal areas, my remarks will be based on the
impacts of disposal of,intertidal, unconfined dredged material.

-158

Dredging has occurred in Grays Harbor since at least 1905. Accurate records of
quantities dredged and disposal sites have not been kept until recent times, but
extensive portions of the harbor have been disposed on at some time (K. Willin,
Port of Grays Harbor, personal communication, 1975). Since 1940, approximately
16 km2 (3954 acres) of intertidal habitat have been lost. Plans exist by the Port
of Grays Harbor to remove another 25-30 km2 (6200-7400 acres) of tidelands (.Port
of Grays Harbor, 1975), although these proposed fill areas must first be approved
by the Grays Harbor Estuary Planning Task Force, comprised of representative from
5 cities in the area, the Port of Grays Harbor, regional and county planning com-
missions, and several state and federal natural resource agencies.

INTERTIDAL DISPOSAL IN GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY

The intertidal disposal area is designated by the USACE as Site E (Figure 1). As
disposal had occurred there before the study began, the use of control or contrast
sites was used to evaluate biological impacts. The 2 contast areas are designated
as Sites E-1 (just east of Site E) and E-2 (across the navigation channel from
Site E to the south). The term 'contrast' is preferred as variations between
these areas and the disposal site are unavoidable. Contrast areas used in the
fish sampling were different, being located both to the north and west of Site E
(Figure 2). Benthos and sediment sampling stations were located at Sites E,
E-1, and E-2 (Figure 3).
A total of 206,415 m3 (270,000 yd3 ) of dredged materials were deposited on Site E
in the spring of 1974 by means of a hydraulic dredge. Another 204,160 m3 (267,
050 yd3) were deposited in 1975 during the course of this study. As a result of
the 1975 deposition, elevations above mean lower low water (MLLW) were drastically
altered (Figure 4). At the 9 benthic sampling stations for Site E, the average
increase in elevation was +0.92 m. There was also an apparent change in sediment
type which occurred at Site E. Coarser sediments were found in'the middle of the
outfall area where elevations were highest. This was because finer sediments,
which are more subject to dispersion by wave action, were carried away from the out-
fall, leaving the coarser sediments behind. This fits the general pattern in Grays
Harbor of a gradation from coarser@sediments iri higher intertidal areas where wave
action is greater, to finer sediments in lower intertidal areas (Dr. J. Phipps, Grays
Harbor College, personal communication, 1975).

The impact on the benthic community was severe (Figure 5). Following disposal,
the number of species present in Site E was a minimum of 66.0 percent lower than
at the 2 contrast sites (E-1 and E-2). Mean numbers of individuals and biomass
per station were a minimum of 96.7 percent lower than at the contast sites. A
change in species composition accompanied the changes in. elevation and sediment
composition. The gammarid amphipod, Corophiwn stimpsoni, the most numerous
benthic organism in the inner-portion of Grays Harbor, was particularly affected
by the disposal operation. High elevation and coarse sediments at Site E were
responsible for low densities. At Site E-1 the-density of Corophium stimpsoni
also showed the same decrease above +2.13 m (MLLW). The change in elevation is
expected to be permanent. Benthic sampling at Site E after 1974 indicated that
recolonization was inh-lbited at approximately +2.13 m to +2.44 m. After disposal
in 1975, 8 stations were-above +2.44 ni in elevation, and 5 were +2.74 m or higher.
Thus it is expected that recolonization in much of the disposal site will be greatly
inhibited and the impact on the benthic community is expected to-be permanent.

159

12740

I
Oc
S 111.

mw C

..... .......
old C

A-

A-2

FIGURE 1, Map of Washington Department of Game
(WDG) Study Sites,.Grays Harbor,
1974-1975. The intertidal disposal
area -is designated as Site E.

160

ST-XST .......
ST41
x S1
ST2 ST5 ST-VI.
ST

STI

Ix Ss
OT51

23-.1 4w

FIGURE 2. Washington Department of
Game, summer fish sampling
sites, Grays Harbor, 1975.
x - Seine
0- - OtterTrawl
44- - SledTrawl
161

SKORELINFO .7

FINE SAND

5ILT)( 6AND

L AY E RE D -@W3 t .5 1 LT- C LAY

-f LLAY

riNjE. @,AND V,//61LT CLAY
IN PATcKEt ON TOP
!N@RWK` MAR*.@H

BOWERMAN AiKPDKT

S%M.io

..........

PI&URE 3

vot oismbuTtoim
IN STUO*f 61TEb L,E--l AND F--Z

NORTH CHANNEL

49 os
r. 77;
L o o

4.0

3.5

3.0
Elevation

above 2.5
:11 NO -
MLLW -M
2.0 7
(in meters)
1.5

1.0

E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 (E-3) (E-3) (E-6)
N-1 N-3 N-2

Station Numbers

Figure 4. The elevations at nine stations in the unconfined
intertidal disposal area (Site E) both before and
after the 1975 dredging operation. The shaded
region indicates the resultant change in elevation.

163

4o--
SEASON I SEASON 2 SEASON 3
P@ @-A 30--
to E@

20 --
F-

lo --
o.-F-] FT
E E-1 E E-1 E-2 E E-1 E-2

SITE

SEASON 1 SEASON 2 SEASON 3
4o--

30
E-
;Z; 0
20
0 PA 0
P, -11 10

E E-1 E E-1 E-2 E E-1 E-2
SITE

SEASON 1 SEASON 2 SEASON 3

5--

0-
E E-1 E E-1 E-2 E E-1 E-2

SITE

FIGuRE 5,. Comparison of mean number of species, mean
number of individuals, and mean biomass per
st ation in Sites E, E-1, and E-2 in Grays
Harbor, Wa., 1974-75.

164

3500

3000

U)
SITE E

2500 SITE E-1

2000

0 -4

1500

1000

500

WINTER SPRING SUKMIR FALL

FIGURE 6. Total seasonal densities of birds using tideflats
at disDosal Site E and contrast Site L-1.
(Figure by Jack L. Smith and David R. Mudd.)

165

The pattern of bird usage of Site E reflected a trend similar to the benthos, al-
though not quite as drastic (Figure 6). Bird utilization of Site E-I was sixteen
times that at Site E. The population of birds was dominated by shorebirds, as
the disposal area and contrast site are in a portion of Grays Harbor heavily used
by shorebirds. Maximum numbers for the area reached 70,000 during the spring of
1975. Observations of feeding shorebirds at Sites E and E-1 showed a much great-
er contrast, similar in magnitude to differences observed for benthic inverte-
brates between the two sites (Figure 7). These benthic organisms provide a food
source for the shorebirds, Dunlin were the most numerous shorebird species in
the area, comprising 80 percent of the total number of shorebirds. They were
most often found to feed at elevations below +2.13 m where benthic populations,
especially that of Corophium stimpsoni, were highest. Six other species of
shorebirds (Western Sandpipers, Long-billed Dowitchers, Red Knots, Black-bellied
Plovers, and Lesser and Greater Yellowlegs) also fed at elevations below +2.13 m.
Only 4 species fed above +2.13 m in both sites combined. The mean density of
feeding shorebirds was one hundred times higher below +2.13 m than above. This
relationship correlated well with the food habits work which'indicated that Dunlin
were feeding heavily on benthic tnvertebrates with carophium stimpsoni comprising
52.5 percent of the number of food items. It is also likely that Western Sand-
pipers and Long-billed Dowitchers also utilized Corophium stimpsoni as a food
resource to a lesser extent.

Site E was often used by birds as a resting area, especially during higher tides
when much of the tideflats used for feeding were inundated. This accounts for
the densities of birds at Site E being much closer to densities found at Site E-1
when all birds were considered, as opposed to density differences when only feed-
ing shorebirds were considered. Thus an area suitable for resting has replaced
a high quality feeding area.

Corophium stimpsoni and other invertebrates abundant at Sites E-1 and E-2 also
provide food 'for many fish species which occur in Grays Harbor, including several
commercially important species. Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), shiner perch
(Cymatogaster aggregata), "English sole (Parophrys vetutus), starry flounder
(Flatichthys stelZatus), longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), Pacific staghorn
sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), three5pined stickleback (Gasterosteus acuZeatus),
snake prickleback (Lumpenus sagitta), juvenile Pacific tomcod (Microgadus
proximus), and saddleback gunnels (Pholis ornata) are species which feed on
Corophium stimpsoni in Grays Harbor. Fish sampling in areas around Site E in-
dicated that English sole used that portion of the harbor as a nursery area (Figure
8). This is probably true for other species as well (Lynam, 1972).

These populations were all impacted as a result of disposal of dredged material
in the same manner as shorebirds, i.e. through destruction of their food re-
sources. In addition, their predators will also be impacted. These benthic
feeding fish and birds are important to piscivorous waterbirds, raptors, marine
mammals, other fish and man. Many organisms which ultimately benefit from this
food chain do not even occur in Grays Harbor proper.

Even before the 1975 disposal operation, the eelgrass (Zostera marina) habitat
at much of the Site E area had been destroyed due to the increase in elevation.
After disposal in 1975, an estimated minimum of 70.8 ha (175 acres) of eelgrass
habitat had been destroyed. Therefore, Widgeon, Pintails, and other species of

166

3.66

Elevation 3.05
above
M.U.) 2.44
(in meters) 1.83

1.22

3000

spring
Number of Summer
Amphipods 20OU -
per .0625
meters2
luou -

25,000-

'lean 20.Uu@)-
Densi,y (&JI stations sampled)
of Feeding 15,003..
Shorebirds
per 10,uou@-
40.5 ha
5,000
OL

3u Spring
sum@er
Number of 20
Invertebrates U
Species per
.062.5 m2
, 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 b 7 0 5 4 3 2 1
el ----------- site 1:-l --------- ------- - sit, L ----------------- >

FIGURE 7. Some relationships between elevation at Sites E and
and E-1, populations of benthic invertebrates occurring
along the transect, and the utilization of the area by
feeding shorebirds from April through September, 1975.

167

100-

80-

60-

20-

0
April May June July August
Figure 8. Mean.size by month of Engli.sh sole CParophrys
vetulus) taken in Moon Island Flats-s-re-d-Tr-awls,
Grays H rbor'1975. (Figure by Cliff Bengston
and John Rrown).

168

waterfowl and perhaps fish which feed directly on eelgrass were also affected by
a loss of food resources. The epiphytic organisms associated with eelgrass, which
may sometimes equal 50 percent of the biomass in an eelgrass bed (Thayer, Wolfe
and Williams, 1975), and an enriched infauna associated with eelgrass presence
(Phillips, 1974; Orth, 1973) were both lost. Thayer, et al..(1975) also stated
that a significant portion of eelgrass production is used as detritus outside that
area, meaning that the impact of disposal reaches beyond the boundaries of the
disposal area. The detritus and/or bacteria associated with it, which are unavail-
able to benthic organisms, will ultimately have an effect on higher trophic levels
including many of the same benthic feeders mentioned earlier. Loss of eelgrass
represents a significant loss to estuarine productivity. Phillips (1974) stated
that eelgrass has a high rate of production--higher than that of many agricultural
crops.

DISCUSSION

As a result of these direct impacts on the biota of Grays Harbor, the Washington
Department of Game has recommended that there be no further intertidal disposal
of dredged material. At the time of this study, the only legal criteria guiding
disposal of dredged material were the Environmental Protection Agency's maximum
values regarding water quality parameters. These criteria by themselves were in-
appropriate, as normal variations in water quality occasionally exceeded certain
of these values, without apparent large-scale impact on the biota. They did not
take into consideration such gross biological impacts as destruction of habitat
or disruption of the food web.

As a result of the Grays Harbor Dredging Effects Study and other studies conducted
throughout the country, the regulations regarding disposal of dredged mater 'ials
were revamped. The basic water quality criteria are now used as guidelines rather
than maximum permissible values to determine relative quality of dredged materials
in relation to possible adverse impacts on biological communities in or at the
disposal site (Ron Lee, EPA, personal communication, 1977). Elutriate tests and
bioassays are now considered by EPA to be better indicators of water quality.
Both EPA and USACE are required to consider a wide range of potential impacts that
should be avoided before a permit for disposal can be issued. Included are impacts
on the food chain, alterations or decreases in diversity of species, effects on
adjacent areas, and in general , any "activities that significantly disrupt the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the aquatic ecosystem, of which
aquatic biota, the substrate, and the normal fluctuations of water level are in-
tegral components" (EPA, 1975:41295). Due to the diversity of potential disposal
areas to be considered, it is impossible to state specific criteria which will
cover the wide range of possible impacts. The new criteria thus allow for case-
by-case reviews of environmental impacts. The criteria are such that additional
environmental information regarding baseline biological or water quality data
relevant to a potential disposal site can be rfaquired. These criteria appear to
be superior to the former regulations. However, the result is a set of guidelines
that are extremely judgemental and therefore are dependent on the availability of
sufficient biological baseline data and thorough study of various potential impacts.

169

The "state of the art" does not include conclusive evidence as to all, potential
impacts concerning disposal, especially in cases where dredged materials come
from a polluted source. Synergistic effects involving chemical and physical
changes in the environment and their effects on biological communities are not
well understood and need more study. Baseline information on biological re-
sources is essential and must cover trophic relationships within communities
and interactions between communities so as to establish the true extent of
possible impacts. This will greatly facilitate all management decisions regard-
ing the shoreline of Washington State.

Habitat creation, most notably island and marsh creation, should be evaluated to
determine both detrimental and beneficial effects. Such studies should begin by
looking at existing islands created by disposal, such as those in Padilla Bay,
Washington, to observe avian and mammalian activity, vegetative colonization,
and adjacent benthic and fish communities. Artificial planting of marsh plants
on these islands should also be investigated. If any exotic marsh plants are to
be used in planting experiments, their interaction with indigenous salt marsh
plants must be evaluated. Deep water disposal should be studied as a possible
alternative to intertidal disposal. Decisions regarding this alternative should
not depend largely on studies done in other parts of the country. An intensive
study on the biological impacts should be conducted in Puget Sound waters to
provide a sound basis for management decisions.

Long-term management of Puget Sound waters must also include involvement in
terrestrial activities which affect the marine environment. Forest and agricul-
tural practices have resulted in large quantities of sediments entering estuaries.
This has increased natural sedimentation rates and is largely responsible for the
quantities'of material that must be dredged. Control of soil erosion at the
source will greatly enhance the longevity of our estuarine resources. Recycling
of these eroded sediments may be feasible using upland disposal sites and through
treatment of the soils to leach out salts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funding for a study of the effects of maintenance dredging in Grays Harbor orig-
inated through a Seattle District, Corps of Engineers contract to the Washington
State Department of Ecology (contract #DACW67-74-C-0086). The Washington Depart-
ment of Game was in turn subcontracted (contract # 74-164) to perform the above
studies.

The following Washington Department of Game personnel were involved in the re-
spective portions of this study and are gratefully acknowledged:
Vegetation, mammals, birds Jack L. Smith, Project Leader
David R. Mudd
Louis W. Messmer (vegetation only)

Fish Cliff Bengston
John Brown

Benthos Alan D. Rammer

170

I would also like to thank Fred Winmann, Ph.D., Seattle District USACE; Gene
Dziedzic and Michael Jennings of the Washington Department of Came; Norm Knott,
Chuck Blackstock and Dick Todhunter, Washington Department of Ecology-. Jeanette
M. Bushnell, University of Washington; and all those who aided in the field and
laboratory work. I would especially like to thank Sammy P. Albright for his
unending loyalty and moral support.

REFERENCES

1. Albright, R., and A.D. Rammer. 1975. The Effect of Intertidal Dredged
Material Disposal on Benthic Invertebrates in Grays Harbor, Washington.
Unpublished report from the Washington Department of Game, under Washington
DOE Contract # 74-164.

2. Bengston, C., and J. Brown. 1975. Impact of Dredging on the Fishes in
Grays Harbor. Unpublished report from the Washington Department of Game
under Washington DOE Contract #74-164.

3. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Navigable waters. Part 11. Dis-
charge of Dredged or Fill Material. Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 172.
September 5, 1975.

4. Green, J. 1968. The Biology of Estuarine Animals. University of Washington,
Seattle. 401 pp.
5. Jennings, M.D., R, Albright, C. Bengston, D.R. Mudd, and J.L. Smith. 1975.
Dredging and Some Ecological Relationships in Grays Harbor, Washington.
Unpublished report from the Washington Department of Game, under Washington
DOE Contract # 74-164.

6. Knox, G.A., and A.R. Kilner. 1973. The Ecology of the Avon-Heathcote Estuary.
Unpublished report to the Christchurch Drainage Board. University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 358 pp.

7. Lauff, G. (ed.) 1967. Estuaries. American Association for the Advancement
of Science, Washington, D.C. 757 pp.

8. Lynam, L. 1972. Estuaries: A Resource Worth Saving. Washington Department
of Game. 21 pp.

9. Mudd, D.R., and J.L. Smith. 1975. Impact of Dredging on the Mammalian Fauna
in Grays Harbor. Unpublished report from the Washington Department of Game,
under Washington DOE Contract # 74-164.

10. Orth, R.J. 1973. Benthic Infauna of Eelgrass, zostera marina, Beds.
Chesapeake Science, 14(4):258-269.

11. Phillips, R.C. 1974. Temperate Grass Flats. In: Odum, H.T., B.J. Copeland,
and E.A. McMahan (eds.), Coastal Ecological Systems of the United States,
Vol. II. Conservation Foundation, Washington D.C. Pages 244-299.

171

12. Port of Grays Harbor. 1975. Proposed Sites for Placement of Dredged
Materials: Grays Harbor Deep Draft Navigation Project. Correspondence
to Colonel R.J. Eineigle, USACE, from the Port of Grays Harbor.

13. Smith, J.L., and D.R. Mudd. 1975. Impact of Dredging on the Avian Fauna
in Grays Harbor. Unpublished report from the Washington Department of
Game, under Washington DOE Contract #74-164.

14. Smith, J.L., D.R. Mudd, and L.W. Messmer, 1975. Impact of Dredging on the
Vegetation in Grays Harbor. Unpublished renort from the Washington Department
of Game, under Washington DOE Contract #74-164.

15. Thayer, G.W., D.A., Wolfe, and R.B. Williams. 1975. The Impact of Man on
Seagrass Systems. Amer. Scientist 63:288-296.

172

CURRENT SHELLFISH PRODUCTION IN PUGET SOUND
AND POTENTIAL FOR THE FUTURE RELATED TO PRESENT
AND FUTURE INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS

Ronald E. Westley
Washington Department of Fisheries

An evaluation of the oyster producing potential of Puget Sound reveals that a
sustained annual production of up to 6 billion pounds of meat may be possible.
Production at this level is based upon using the methods of floating culture
developed in Japan in combination with the tremendous fertility and food pro-
ducing ability of Puget Sound.

Puget Sound currently has a thriving fishery for shellfish, both sport and com-
mercial, and considerable opportunity exists for expansion. Principal species
taken are oysters, hardshell clams, soft-shell clams, geoducks, crab, and shrimp.
Particularly the harvest aspects of clams have become controversial and legal
constraints have been placed on many of these activities. It would appear that
in the future these problems may become more wide-spread and affect major aspects
of the shellfish industry.

Problems have arisen over interpretation of laws and regulations concerning shell-
fish harvest (the Shoreline Management Act and the State Environmental Policy
Act). Problems are also occurring in reference to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors
Act of the Corps of Engineers.

Washington is now an important shellfish producing state, and has the potential
for a major increase in the shellfish harvest. The current level of production
is as follows:

Commercial Sport

Geoducks 53000,000 ?
Clams 2,000,000 4,000,000
Oysters 6,000,000 100,000
Crab 10,000,000 250,000
Shrimp 10,000,000 ?

173

An important aspect for potential increased shellfish production is the unique
nature of Puget Sound, resulting from a combination of tide range and the extreme-
ly high levels of nutrient. This makes Puget Sound one of the cleanest and most
fertile estuaries with extremely high primary productivity levels. Due to basic
relationships in converting primary productivity into human food, Molluscan shell-
fish are vastly more efficient than higher forms of animal life, and it therefore
seems certain that serious efforts to increase food production in the Sound will
heavily involve Molluscan shellfish (oysters and clams). If food production be-
comes a high priority activity, and we are willing to commit the needed area and
effort, the following harvest levels could be achieved on a sustained basis.

Geoducks 15,000,000 pounds or more
Clams 12,000,000
Oysters 11000,000,000

Most of the increase would be based on oysters and I do want to stress that while
this level of harvest is biologically feasible, it is not now economically feas-
ible and that major changes in demand and economics would have to occur before
these levels of harvest would be realistic.

In addition to the biological and economic aspects, problems of a legal nature are
becoming an increasingly important factor in continuing or expanding shellfish
production in Puget Sound. This is the combined effect of several state and fed-
eral laws that have recently been passed or re-interpreted to regulate or control
the utilization of water areas. Today, for example, a person entering or wanting
to continue in extensive marine farming in Puget Sound must overcome the following:

1. Obtain a permit from the Corps of Engineers under Section 10 of the 1899
Rivers and Harbors Act. Currently as the Corps interprets the law, this
is the case for mechanical clam harvest and raft culture of oysters
or mussels.

2. Depending upon the outcome of current legal proceedings, a person probably
would need a Shoreline Management Permit. This would appear to apply to
mechanical clam harvesting and any operation involving raft or floating
culture, such as oysters or mussels.

3. If any phase of farming activity comes under the jurisdiction of any state
or county agency, that is if it involves a lease, license, or permit, that
agency must follow the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act
prior to granting of any license, permit, or lease. Often this requires
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

That any project is subject to careful scrutiny is, of course, good. However, in
my opinion from a practical point of view, with the possible exception of the State
Environmental Policy Act, the standards of acceptability are somewhat nebulous and
it appears possible for the soundest of projects to become bogged down. Under the
current system, if someone chooses to challenge a proposal, all possible informa-
tion on all aspects could be required and even if this could be achieved, there
is no assurance of approval. Under this system, the proponent could be in a po-
sition to prove a negative which by elementary logic is impossible. However, at

174

present even well intentioned but either poorly informed or careless people can
bring almost any project to a complete standstill. Almost anyone can exploit
areas where information is less than complete.

Based on previous experiences in trying to protect water quality in the Sound,
long before it was a popular cause, I believe that encouraging food productions
is of considerable value. Firstthis can be done as a non-consumptive, non-
degrading use of the water@ Second, it could furnish needed food for people.
Last, since shellfish production can only be carried out in waters of the high-
est quality, substantial use of Puget Sound for food production establishes a
considerable economic justification for maintaining high water quality. It is,
therefore, with considerable frustration that I find our current system, intended
to protect Puget Sound, can lead to blocking its potential use for food produc-
tion. Based upon the aforementioned previous experience, I keenly sense the
value that the present level of public support has had in efforts to protect this
area. There is no question that major strides have been made via the current laws
and regulations. However, I think we are overdue for a much needed second step.
I believe we now need to ask the question "Management of Puget Sound--for what
purpose and for whom?" From a practical point of view, the present situation
provides more control than management. Instead of sound rational management in
the best interest of all of the citizens of state as is, we are at times trading
some past problems for new ones. Blocking Uses in certain areas can have the
net effect of allocating portions of this common property resource to different
interest groups, the so-called "taking issue."

Solving this problem and outlining the action that is needed is far from simple,
and my method may not be the best, but it is an approach. In considering the
problem I started by tryi,ng to list the major potential uses Which in my view are
transportation, food production, recreation, and waste disposal. While I consider
education and advancement of knowledge as valid uses, I do not consider scientific
research as such a use by itself. Some of these uses are competing and some are
conflicting. However, with careful planning based on adequate knowledge, these
conflicts can be minimized in the best interest of all of the citizens of the
state, both now and in the future.

I suggest that the first step to be taken is to carefully identify the proper
interests that need to be represented in development of a Management Plan for
Puget Sound. Second, we need to determine the purposes and objectives of a
Management Plan. This must be done in fairly specific detail to minimize
conflicts.

Coincidently, I believe a carefully selected panel of very knowledgeable people
should be set up both to help in development and implementation of the Management
Plan and to serve as a decision making body. I believe that such a panel would
require the ability and responsibility to evaluate the information available and
that needed in the identified subject areas concerned with management of Puget
Sound. The panel would also need to have the proper balance to represent all of
the citizens of the state.

Although the legal community would need to be represented, I do not believe that
,by itself it would be capable of adequately assessing all factors to make the
proper decision.

175

I believe that while the scientific community must be represented, it has not by
itself been able to adequately provide solutions.

Provision must be continued to represent local area interests, but we must also
reflect the overall interest of the entire state.

I suspect that to achieve this, certain federal and state laws would need to be
changed, combined, or eliminated, but we must develop a workable system to
eliminate the current problems and allow sound management.

I do not know if my approach is the best solution, others may be better. My main
purpose is to point out what I believe to be the problem and to stimulate a solu-
tion. I strongly believe that at present we are controlling use of Puget Sound
but not managing it.

I do not want to create the wrong impression. I firmly believe in the need to
protect and preserve Puget Sound. I believe that major steps and excellent
efforts have been made in this regard. However, I see a major problem and I
would like to see it solved.

176

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS OF SUBTIDAL SEWAGE OUTFALLS ON
INTERTIDAL MACROFAUNA OF SEVERAL CENTRAL PUGET SOUND BEACHES

John W. Armstrong, Ronald M. Thom, Craig P. Staude, and Kenneth K. Chew
University of Washington

INTRODUCTION

For several years Seattle has been discharging its wastewater into central Puget
Sound from several subtidal outfalls (in order of discharge volume--West Point,
Alki, Carkeek, and Richmond beach outfalls). Bendiner (1975) has shown through
dye studies that the effluent from West Point outfall (the only one studied in-
tensively to date) does reach the intertidal area at West Point beach. This oc-
currence is further supported by the drogue studies of Ebbesmeyer and Helseth. (1975)
which described eddies on the north and south sides of West Point. These eddies
increase the amount of time which effluent enriched waters remain in the inter-
tidal and nearshore areas. Previous research in both fresh waters and marine en-
vironments indicates that the fauna and flora in areas influenced by municipal
sewage outfalls often change dramatically when com'oared to communities in unaffect-
ed areas (Filice, 1959; Jones, 1973; Reish et al., 1975; Otte and Levings, 1975,
and Smith and Green, 1976).

In July, 1974, we began a 2-year study of the intertidal macrofaunal communities
at 4 beaches adjacent to the sewage outfalls and 1 beach without an outfall,
Lincoln Park beach. The intertidal zone was chosen for this study because of its
relative ease of access and sampling, its importance in overall marine productivity'
and its recreational and aesthetic importance to the general public. Furthermore,
most intertidal animals lead a sedentary or nearly sedentary life and cannot leave
an affected area as motile organisms, such as fish, can. The intertidal organisms,
many with relatively long life cycles, integrate and reflect the effects of con-
ditions in their distributions, abundances, growth rates, and community structure.

We have attempted to find significant differences between the faunal communities of
these 5 beaches which would indicate the existence of wastewater-related stresses.
We have chosen our sampling methods and statistical approach in such a way as to
maximize any existing differences between the organism@ and communities of the
beaches.

177

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 5 Seattle area beaches which were studied (Figure 1) have been previously
described (Armstrong, 1976).

The sewage treatment plant at West Point discharges an average of 122 million
gallons per day (mgd) while the treatment plants at the other beaches discharge
considerably less (Alki--8.3 mgd, Carkeek--3.7 mgd, and Richmond 1.7 mgd).
Lincoln Park beach, our control, has no sewage treatment plant outfall.

The beaches were sampled quarterly from July, 1974 through April, 1976. Quarter-
ly sampling was conducted to collect species whose intertidal occurrence is of a
seasonal nature. Several transect lines were established perpendicular to the
water at each beach. Systematic sampling wasc;onducted at 0, 0.9 (3 ft.) and 1.8
(6 ft.) meters above the mean lower low water level. Other areas of each beach
were intensively searched for additional species,
The systematic sampling consisted of examining 2 .25 m 2 areas at each of the
above tidal levels in sandy and mixed sediments at each beach. "Mixed-sediments"
refers to mixtures of sand and various gravels (up to abou,t 60 mm in diameter)
and cobbles (from about 60 to 260 mm in diameter). The macroscopically evident
epifauna within each *25 M2 was subsampled from 4 random 100 CM2 areas, identi-
fied and counted. Two sediment samples were taken from within each .25 m2 with
a cylindrical coring device (31.2 cm2 in tross-sectional area and 15 cm long).
Each .25 m2 was then dug to a depth of approximately 25 cm and live-screened
through a 6 mm screen on the beach. The sediment core samples were preserved
and stained in a 10% formaline and Rose Bengal solution for at least 24 hours
and then washed through a 1.0 mm screen in the laboratory. After both of the
above screening procedures, all animals were removed from the screens, identified
and counted.

Biomass was recorded for the 6 mm screen preserved bivalve and polychaete samples.
Polychaetes were blotted dry and weighed. Tubaceous species were removed from
their tubes before weighing. Bivalves were weighed in the shell after all liquid
was drained off.

Species diversities were calculated for individual taxa (polychaetes, bivalves
and amphipods) and compared within and between beaches by a parametric one-way
analysis of variance. The species diversity indices calculated were those of
Brillouin (1956), Shannon-Weaver (1949) and Simpson (1949) as suggested by
McErlean et al., (1972) and Green (1975). Hurlburt (1971) species-area curves
were also calculated for the above taxa and confidence limits were placed in
these curves (Smith and Grassle, 1977).

Similarities between the fauna of different sampling stations were compared with
classification techniques. The Bray and Curtis (1957) similarity coefficient
was calculated for the fauna collected by each sampling method at each station.
The abundances of each species at each station were transformed by taking the
cube root of the abundance value. This transformation rises the contribution of
minor species which may be ecologically discriminating (Smartt, et al., 1976).
Station similarity values were compared with the group-average sorting strategy
and resulting "clusters" of stations were graphed in dendrograms.

178

Richmond

Carkeek

Q)
West'

-0

F- ...
ILLI
01) <C,
(D
Z)
CL

A I k i

Lincoln

k m

0 4 8

Figure 1. Map of central Puget Sound, showing the positions of the five study
beaches in relation to Seattle, Washington. The actual areas sampled
are indic a t ed by heavy lines.
.7@

179

RESULTS

At least 301 species of macrofauna (some groups such as.flatworms, oligochaetes,
and nematodes are considered as single entities due to taxonomic difficulties)
were collected during the 2-year course of this study. These species were col-
lected by systematic sampling and intensive searching on each beach. Approximate-
ly 2% of the species collected are new to science and we are presently describing
4 of them.

In Table 1, the species list is condensed into several taxa so that qualitative
comparisons may be made between beaches. West Point (the beach adjacent to the
largest volume wastewater discharge) and Lincoln Park (the control beach) have
the most species. Richmond, Mki, and Carkeek beaches have 10-15% less species
present but the relative abundance of each taxa is the same for all 5 beaches
(tested by Kendall's coefficient of concordance, P 0.005). West Point and
Lincoln Park beaches also have more species found only at their sites (unique)
than the other 3 beaches but this is probably due to the more heterogeneous
habitat and subsequent increased variety of niches at West Point and Lincoln
beaches.

The total number of species collected per cobble transect (at tide heights 0,
+0.9, and +1.8 m) was compared between transects (2 per beach) and beaches (Table
2). All transects sampled will be identified by the first letter of the beach
and the transect number. The number of species per transect was tested for sea-
sonal differences at the 5 beaches (a total of 10 transects) by Friedman's non-
parametric two way analysis of variance and multiple comparisons tests. The tests
indicate a seasonal difference in the number of species present, with October,
1976 having significantly more species than July, 1976 and April 1977 (P .05).

On each transect the fauna were quantitatively sampled at the 3 previously men-
tioned tide heights. While all sampling methods were employed at each tide
height, only selected data will be presented here.

The dominant (by abundance) species collected with the 6-mm screens in the cobble
substrate (0 and +.9 m tide heights) were compared between beaches. Only the data
from July, 1975 through April, 1976 are presented. The 7 most abundant polychates
(Table 3) contributed 97% to the total number of polychaetes collected. Due to
great within-beach variability, the ranks and abundances of the fauna in Tables
3-7 are not presented for statistical comparisons. These tables summarize the
species collected in 2 mixed-sediment habitats at each beach.

Differences between the beaches include the occurrence of large numbers of capitel-
lids. Carkeek, Lincoln, and Richmond beaches had the greatest numbers of capitel-
lids (grouped as a family, but excluding Capitella capitata due to identification
inconsistencies) and West Point, Lincoln, and Alki beaches had the great numbers
of Owenia fusiformis. Lumbrineris zonata occurred in large numbers only at Rich-
mond beach. West Point and Lincoln Park had the most individual polychaetes while
Alki, Carkeek, and Richmond beaches all had 25 to 30% less.

The 6 most abundant infaunal bivalves accounted for 99% of all infaunal bivalves
(Table 4). West Point and Carkeek were both characterized by a reduced number of
Prototheca stoninea while Alki had a large number of this species. Carkeek Beach

180

Table 1. The organisms occurring on the five study beaches by major taxa.

Richmond Carkeek -West Point Alki Lincoln

#species/beach 206 195 230 203 230

#species unique
to each beach 8 8 16 5 20

Coelenterates 6 6 5 7 7

Annelids 75 64 73 64 73

Molluscs 44 43 51 51 48

Bivalves 20 20 20 20 18

Gastropods 13 13 15 14 13

Nudibranchs 4 5 9 8 8

Arthropods 59 53 73 65 67

Isopods 9 8 11 10 10

Gammarid Amphipods 19 19 26 24 26

Decapods 19 15 23 19 21

Echinoderms 5 7 8 9 11

Fish 4 5 7 5 8

181

Table 2. Number of species collected per cobble transect by standard sampling
methods. A = Alki, C = Carkeek, L = Lincoln, R = Richmond, W = West Point.

Number of Species Collected
Transect July, 1975 October, 1975 January, 1976 April, 1976

A 9 49 78 54 49

A 10 56 80 66 63

C 7 42 52 42 42

C 11 50 v66 61 55

L 1 59 79 77 60

L 17 57 71 62 64

R 13 57 73 62 48

R 15 46 68 47 45

W 10 54 77 71 71

W 19 51 66 41 46

182

Table 3. Ranking of the mo@3t abundant polychaetes collected in cobble areas with a 6 mn
screen. Includes 0 and +.Ogm - tide height samples..

Ranks per beach with numbers collected in parentheses

Alki Carkeek Lincoln Richmond West Point
Capitellidae, 3 (414) Y (1112) 1 (1094) 1 (793) 3 ( 319)

Owenia fusiformis 1 (865) 2 ( 573) 2 ( 918) 3 (226) 1 (1493)

Hemi2odus borealis 2 (565) 3 ( 280) 3 ( 446) 5 ( 98) 4 ( 265)

Glycinde picta 5 ( 65) 4 ( 144) 4 ( 68) 6 ( 80) 5 ( 167)

Plantynereis 4 (241) 5 ( 29) 6 ( 64) 4 (167) 2 ( 403)
bicanaliculata
Lumbrineris zonata 6.5 ( 4) - ( 0) - ( 0) 2 (365; 6.5 ( @1)

Glycera. capitata 6.5 ( 4) 6 ( 2) 5 ( 66) 7 ( 90) 6.5 ( 31)

Total (2158) (2140) (2656) (1819) (2709)

Table 4. Rankings of the most abundant infaunal bivalves collected in cobble
areas with a 6-mm screen. Includes 0 and +0.9-m tide height samples.

Ranks per beach with number collected im parentheses

ALKI CARKEEK LINCOLN RICHMOND WEST POINT

Macoma inquinata 2 (125) 1 (712) 2 (219) 1 (447) 1 (383)

Prototheca staminea 1 (603) 3 ( 17) 1(314) 2 (321) 4 45)

Saxidomus giganteus 3 (121) 2 (127) 3(165) 3 (249) 2 74)

Tresus capax 4 45) 6 1) 5( 14) 4 ( 41) 3 53)

Clinocardium nuttallii 5 19) 4 12) 4( 19) 5 ( 29) 5 33)

Tellina buttoni 6 2) 5 8) 6( 2) 6 ( 3) 6 6)
Total (915) (877) (733) (1090) (594)

183

Table 5. Rankings of the five most abundant infaunal bivalves by biomass.
All specimens collected were retained in a 6 mm screen. Includes 0 and
+0.9-m tide height samples.

Ranks by beach with biomass collected (grams) in parentheses

ALKI CARKEEK LINCOLN RICHMOND WEST POINT
Saxidomus giganteus 2 (134) 2 62) 1 (306) 1 (345) 1 (190)

Prototheca staminea 1 (145) 3 28) 2 (243) 2(119) 4 ( 27)

Macoma inquinata 3 39) 1 (310) 3 ( 83) 3( 72) 2 (129)

Tresus capax 4 13) 5 1) 4 ( 9) 4( 61) 3 ( 90)

Clinocardium nuttallii 5 6) 4 24) 5 ( 2) 5( 14) 5 ( 23)

Total (337) (425) (643) (611) (459)

Table 6. Rankings of the most abundant polychaetes collected in cobble areas with
a 1.0-mm screen. Includes only 0 tide hdight samples.

Ranks per beach with numbers collected in parentheses

ALKI CARKEEK LINCOLN RICHMOND WEST POINT

Mediomastus capensis 8 (10) 2 (22) 1 (210) 1 (82) 1 (215)

Owenia fusiformis 2 (39) ll( 1) 2 (143) 6 (20) 2 ( 79)

Armandia brevis 3 (38) 4 (11) 3 ( 81) 2(54) 5 ( 32)

Notomastus sp. 10.5 (1) 5.5(9) 5 ( 41) 3(48) 4 ( 54)

Malacoceros FIutaeus 5 (25) 1 (37) 6 ( 38) 8(16) 9 ( 10)

Platynereis
bicanaliculata 4 (36) 9.5(4) 10 7) 7(19) 3 ( 62)

Micropodarke dubia 1 (92) 8 ( 5) 4 52) 4(44) 7 ( 26)
Pholoe minuta 10.5(l) 3 (17) 7 29) 10 @ 7@-10 ( 4)

Glycinde picta 6 (21) 5.5(9) 8 17) 5(36) 6 ( 28)

Hemipodus borealis 9 ( 8) 7 ( 8) 9 16) 9(12) 11 2)

Capitella capitata 7 (11) 9.5(4) 11 2) 11 1) 8 11)

Total (282) (127) (636) (339) (523)

184

Table 7. Rankings of the most abundant surface animals collected in cobble areas.
Includes only 0 tide height samples.

Ranks per beach with numbers collected in parentheses.

ALKI CARKEEK LINCOLN RICHMOND WEST POINT

Balanus crenatus &
Balanus glandula 1 (614) 1 (209) 1 (2323) 1(1587) 1(1010)

Lacuna sp. 4 (216) 2 (152) 2 ( 815) 2(1015) 2( 834)

Flabelligerid isopods 2 (324) 3 77) 6 ( 52) 7( 82) 3( 183)

Collisella @.@i atella 3 (275) 7 9) 3 ( 243) 5(191) 6( 64)

Mytilus edulis 5 (191) 5 50) 8 ( 25) 3(318) 5( 117)

Caprell laeviuscula 7 ( 53) 4 72) 12 ( 6) 6(159) 11 ( 23)

Platynerei bicanaliculata 9.5 ( 40) 6 19) 11 ( 8) 4(216) 4( 124)

Hyale frequens 8 ( 50) - 0) 4 ( 254) 11( 2) 9( 12)

Allorchestes angustus 6 (115) 8 5) 5 ( 86) -- 0 8 32)

Ampithoe simulans 9.5 40) 9 3) 7 ( 46) 9.5( 6) 7 54)

Idotea wosnesenskii 11 17) 11 1) 9 ( 23) 9.5( 6) 12 11)

Pontogenei cf. ivanovi 12 9) 10 2) 10 ( 13) 8 ( 14) 10 22)

Total (1944) (599) (3894) (3596) (2486)

185

had the greatest number of Afacoma inquinata and the lowest number of Tresus capax.
Richmond and Alki beaches had the greatest number of infaunal bivalves while West
Point and Lincoln Park had the lowest number.

The 5 most abundant infaunal bivalves were also ranked at each beach by biomass
(Table 5). saxidamus giganteus, Prototheca staminea and Macama inquinata con-
tributed the majority of the infaunal biovalve biomass. Tresus capax was also an
important contributor at West Point and Richmond beaches. Lincoln Park and Rich-
mond.had the greatest bivalve biomass and Alki had the least.

The 11 most abundant polychaetes collected from July, 1975 through April, 1976 at
the zero tide height cobble sites (2 transects per beach) by our 1.0-mm screen
sampling technique are ranked in Table 6. These 11 species make up 93% of all
polychaetes collected by this method at the cobble sites. Mediomastus capensis
and Owenia fusiformis were generally the 2 most abundant polychaetes although at
Alki, Mic2-opodarke dubia was the most abundant and MaZacoceros glutaeus was the
most abundant at Carkeek. As with the 6-mm screen samples, Lincoln and West Point
have the greatest number of individuals.

The 12 most abundant surface invertebrates collected at the zero tide height cob-
ble sites were ranked by beach in Table 7. These invertebrates were collected
during October, 1974 and from April, 1975 through April, 1976. These organisms
make up 97% of the number of surface animals collected. The barnacles Balanus
@
ZanduZa and BaZanus crenatus dominate the epifauna at all beaches while Lacuna Sp.
a snai-1) is usually second in abundance (due to its presence in high numbers in
the October samples). Lincoln and Richmond beaches have the most surface
invertebrates and Carkeek has the least.

The 5 beaches were examined for significant differences in total polychaete and
infaunal bivalve biomass by a series of "t" tests. At the zero tide level, Alki
had a significantly lower polychaete biomass per unit area than Richmond beaches
(P 0.05). At the +0.9-m tide level, Alki has a significantly greater polychaete
biomass than West Point beach (P 0.05). None of the other beach comparisons of
polychaete biomass were significantly different.

Species diversity values were calculated for all of the polychaetes and bivalves
collected at zero tide height with the 6-mm screen and for all polychaetes sam-
pled at zero tide height with the 1.0-mm screen. All samples at a given cobble
transect and tide height were pooled for each sampling period (2 6-mm screen
samples were pooled and 4 1.0-mm screen samples were pooled). Using the species
diversity obtained at 2 cobble transects per beach during 1 sampling.period as 2
samples of each beaches "cobble diversity," a one-way analysis'of variance was
computed for the 5 beaches. This test was performed on data collected from
October, 1975 and January, 1976 using each of the previously listed species di-
versity indices. The variance of the species diversity.values was found to be
greater "within" each of the 5 beaches than between the beaches for each tide
height and each taxa (P 0.05).

The Hurlbert species-area curves for the combined amphipods collected in both the
surface and core samples in October, 1976 at the zero tide height cobble sites
are illustrated in Figure 2. Although the 95% confidence limits (Smith and
Grassle, 1977) are not included in Figure 2, they indicate that sites A9, L17,

186

12-

L 17
10-
WO
A9

6-
wig

R 13
R15
Ll

C11

5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of Individuals

Figure 2. Species-area curves for gammarid amphipods collected in
surface and 1.0 mm screen samples at the-0 tide height
cobble sites. A=Alki, C=Carkeek, L=Lincoln, R=Richmond,
and W=West Point. The numbers represent specific transects.

187

and WIO are not significantly different from each other but are different from
the other homogeneous group (CII, LI, R13, R15, and W19). Additionally, AID and
W19 are not significantly different from each other.

Species-area curves are also presented for all species collected (October, 1975,
through April, 1976) in the 1.0 mm-screen at sandy sites (Figure 3). None of
these curves are significantly different from one another (P 0.05). Neither
Lincoln or Alki beaches have any fine-sand sites and therefore can not be com-
pared in this analysis.

Another method of comparing the similarity of the abundances and types of organ-
isms in different samples or areas is by means of similarity coefficients
(Clifford and Stephenson, 1975). The Bray-Curtis similarity coefficient was cal-
culated for all sampling sites and each method of collection. These coefficients
were then subjected to classification separateli by tide height. The resultant
dendrograms for the zero tide height samples are presented in Figures 4 to 7.

The similarities of the sites as determined from the 1.0 mm screen samples (Figure
4) indicates 3 groups or clusters of stations with internal similarities greater
than 55%. As seen in Figure 4, the 5 beaches are intermingled in these groups
and neither the sampling stations from Lincoln or West Point beaches stand apart.
The stations which are not tightly grouped (R22, L11, R3, and #16) had very few
animals and merely "chain" onto the group which had similar species present. The
significance of the 3 groups will be examined in the discussion.

The dendrogram for the 6-mm screen and surface samples (Figures 5 and 6) also
shows a high degree of similarity between certain sites, with the 6-mm scree6
sites grouping in much the same manner as the 1.0-m screen sites. A low number
of surface sample sites were analyzed because at the zero tide height many sites
had no surface animals (this was related to substrate and stability and will be
discussed later).

The distribution of the biomass of different species of infaunal bivalves at the
5 beaches was also subjected to cluster analysis (Figure 7). Groups I and Z
contain most of the same sites which clustered together in the 1.0 mm and 6 mm
screen sample dendrograms.

DISCUSSION

The physical-chemical data available to us do not indicate great or consistent
differences in the intertidal areas of the 5 beaches. Heavy metals concentrations
appear to be somewhat higher in some invertebrates and algae at West Point (Olsen,
1976), but we do not have any information on whether or not the concentrations
present should be expected to affect the growth, reproductio@, or survival of the
vast majority of the potential residents of the West Point beach. Due to the lack
of bioassy information on nearly all the species present, the species composition,
as well as the abundance of the more common species, must be compared between
beaches to see if the species and communities present are similar.

The species composition at the beaches adjacent to the sewage outfalls may con-
ceivably be affected by either toxic or growth stimulating components of the

188

C 14
10.0- C 7
w 13
w 21
RIB
7.5-

5.0-

2.5-

5 10 15 20 25 _3 0 5
Number of Individuals

Figure 3. Species-area curves for all invertebrates collected in the
1.0 mm screens at the 0 tide ehight fine-sand sites. C=Carkeek,
R=Richmond, and W=14est Point. The numbers represent specific
transects.

189

[
L7 . . ........
R 5

'3 10
7

L@7
c I
W2

R r
R 5
C1 W10
01 AIO
(D W19
A I
A9
LOI

R29
R25

R22

L11

W16

C7
R18
C14
C3
W13
W21

@O E3'0 '70 60- 5'0 @O 0
Percent Sirniiliarily
Figure 4. Dendrogram showing relationships between all 0 tide
height sites based on the 1.0 mm screen samples. A=Alki,
C=Carkeek, L=Lincoln, R=Richmond, and W=Wesi Point. The
numbers represent specific transects. Similar sites have
been designated as groups.

190

RIO

WIG

LII

C11

W19

L17
Cli A9

AIO

W10

R13

R 5

W21

R18

Q) W13

C14

R25
R22

R29
80 70 60 @0 40 300
Percent Similarity
Figure 5. Dendrogram showing relationships between all 0 tide height
sites based on the 6.0 mm screen sam'Dles. A=Alki, C=Carkeek,
L=Lincoln, R-Richmond, and W=West Point. The numbers repre-
sent specific transects. Similar sites have been designated
as groups.

191

L I
L11

R 13
R 15
W10

C11
wig

A10
L 17
A 9
A I

90 80 7b 60 0
N

Percent Similarity
Figure 6. Dendrogram showing relationships between all cobble 0 tide
height sites based on the surface invertebrates. A=Alki,
C=Carkeek, L=Lincoln, R=Richmond, and W=West Point. The
numbers represent specific transects.

W 13

R 18

C 3
0

C14

W21

rc) R25
R29

R22

R 15

AIO

R13

W19

LOI
:3 W10
0
L11

L17

C11

W 2

@O 8 7'0 @O @O 4'0 30 0
Percent Similarity
Figure 7. Dendrogram showing relationships between the 0 tide height
sites based on the infaunal bivalve biomass collected in the
6 mm screen samples. A=Alki, C=Carkee@, L=Lincoln, R=Richmond,
and W=West Point. The numbers represent specific transects.
Similar sites have been designated as groups.

193

wastewater. If the concentration of the effluent reaching the intertidal zone is
high enough to stress the fauna there, previous research indicates that some spe-
cies will be favored at the expense of others (Jones, 1973; Littler and I'lurray,
197Y; and Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, 1975). An examina-
tion of the species collected during this study indicates no exclusion of any
particular group of species from any one beach. West Point and Lincoln beaches
have the most species present. Several researchers have further shown that pol-
luted areas may be dominated by certain animal taxa (Stirn et al., 1973; Otte
and Levings, 1975; and Rosenberg, 1976). The relative abundance of various taxa
over the 5 study beaches (Table 1) indicates that no one taxa is present in a
disproportionate number at any beach.

For our quantitative analysis, the sampling stations were restricted to specific
tide heights (0, +0.9, and +1.8 m) to reduce variability between sites which is
related to natural intertidal zonation. We further restricted the comparisons to
sites or transects of similar substrata (sand or cobble with mixed sediments)
with the exception of the site-similarity analysis. When 10 similar cobble tran-
sects were compared (Table 2) only I species-poor transect (C7) differed signifi-
cantly from 3 homogeneous species-rich transects (L1, AID, and W10). This result
was not surprising because C7 is the only one of the 10 cobble transects consid-
ered with a homogeneous sand versus a cobble and mixed-sediment substrate at the
zero tide height sampling site. Due to the reduced number of niches in homogen-
eous sand habitats, we would expect less species at transect C7.

The rankings of the most abundant polychaetes collected in our 6 mm screens
(Table 3) includes only I species (Owenia fusiformis) which has been implicated
as a pollution tolerant species (Rosenberg, 1975). However, this species has
been reported to exist in very dense beds in clean waters off southern California
(Fager, 1964). Since we find 0. fusiformis in moderate numbers at beaches with
and without sewage outfalls, we do not feel it reflects a stressed environment on
our study beaches. The abundances of most of these species appear substrate re-
lated. Lumbrineris zonata occurs in large numbers only at Richmond beach for
unknown reasons.

Of the 6 numerous infaunal bivalves collected with the above polychaetes (Table 4),
Prototheca staminea occurred in low numbers at Carkeek and West Point beaches. We
feel this is probably related to substrate instability at the sampled locations
at these beaches. We have observed major substrate movement in some areas. P.
staminea have short siphons and may be subject to smothering in unstable areas.
Macoma inquinata, a small, flat clam with long siphons, is very dominant at Car-
keek and West Point and may be able to withstand substrate changes with P. stam-
inea can not tolerat-e. Furthermore, established beds of a similar Macoma, M.
nasuta, have been shown to outcompete Pratotheca staminea in fine sediment areas
by consuming the settling larvae of P. stcaninea (Hylleberg and Gallucci, 1975).

The overall clam biomass at each beach (Table 5) reflects the numbers of each
species at each beach and the maximum weight which each species may attain. For
example, a larger clam such as saxidomus giganteus contributes a greater portion
to the biomass at all beaches than it contributes to the numbers of bivalves pre-
sent. The average weight (and also size) of P. stcowinea was least at Alki beach,
as was the overall clam biomass, and may be due to intensive sport digging for
clams at Alki. West Point had the greatest biomass of Tresus capax (due to few
large individuals).

194

The ranks and abundances of the 1.0 mm screen polychaetes (Table 6) probably re-
flects substrate preference differences for the various species. Once again, too
little is know of the life histories and requirements of these species to relate
them to the presence or absence of stressful conditions, whether natural or man-
induced. Alki and Carkeek have the fewest organisms and this may be explained by
the generally sandy nature of these beaches at the zero tide level.

The surface animals (Table 7) are substrate limited. The majority of these species
hide on or under cobble or algae. A Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was
calculated in an attempt to correlate both the number of individuals and the number
of species with the size and abundance of cobble at each zero tide height station.

A significant (P <0.05) correlation exists between both the numbers of individuals
and the number of species with the size and abundance of cobble in an area. There-
fore, Alki and Carkeek, with fewer cobble at the 0 tide height, were expected to
have a smaller number of surface individuals than the other more cobble-strewn sam-
pling sites. These conclusions agree with those of Kohn and Leviten (1976) and
Menge and Sutherland (1976).

As very little is known of the tolerances of the species occurring on the 5 study
beaches, species rank comparisons between these beaches may or may not indicate
significant trends which reflect wastewater influence upon the intertidal zone.
Furthermore, although we chose sites which appeared similar, within7beach vari-
ability indicated there were significant physical, chemical or biological factors
affecting the organisms which we were not able to measure. For example, although
sediment grain size distribution is one of the most important factors controlling
infaunal species distributions, almost nothing is known of the preferred or tol-
erated sediment grain size distributions for most infaunal species. Keeping this
in mind, Tables 3-7 merely describe the distribution of the most abundant organisms
collected by various methods at each beach.

Although Tables 3-7 allow general comparisons of various species from the areas
sampled on each beach, a comparison which incorporates both the number of species
and number of individuals in an area is of more value in examining community struc-
ture. Species diversity values and classification techniques both utilize this
information.

Three species diversity values were calculated to overcome the limitations inher-
ent in each index. We found that there was greater variability in "similar" cobble
sites "within" each beach than there was between the beaches. In other words, for
mixed-sediment sites, no beach had diversity values which were consistently higher
or lower than other beaches, regardless of which species diversity index was
calculated.

Hurlbert (1971) species-area curves use the same information that species diversity
indices use, but overcome some of their limitations by reducing the actual number
of organisms being compared. For example, although different numbers of amphipods
were collected at each site in Figure 2, we may compare the expected number of spe-
cies obtained from a sample of 32 individuals at each beach. We therefore eliminate
the influence of Yarious sample sizes on species diversity.

195

The species-area curves for the amphipods (Figure 2) showed considerable "within-
beach" variability and indicate that no single beach had consistently higher or
lower "diversity" in a random sample of 32 individuals. The faunal diversity of
the fine-sand sites (Figure 3) are not significantly different from one another
(P <0.05) when reduced to the common sample size of 32 individuals per site. There-
fore, in the most comparable and homogeneous habitats at 3 beaches, we have no evi-
dence of the reduced species diversity which usually accompanies pollution related
stress.

Classification has been used to separate polluted from non-polluted areas by many
investigators (Littler and Murray, 1975; Stephenson et al., 1975; Buchanan and
Lightheart, 1973). In polluted or stressed situations, the sites under stress
usually cluster together due to unique faunal community. The classification of the
sites by similarity coefficients (Figure 4-7) in this study further supports the
conclusion that the faunal communities of the study beaches are very similar. The
dendrogram resulting from the 1.0 mm samples (Figure 4)contains 3 site-groups and
4 sites with very few species (which "chain" to group 2). Group 1 Fepresents sites
with a homogeneous sand substrate, very gentle slope and the smallest median grain
sizes. Group 2 represents all of the mixed-sediment sites and some sites with very
sparse cobble (R25 and R29). Group 3 represents steeply sloped sites with coarse
sand substrate and a low number of both species and individuals. It is interest-
ing to note that 5 of the sites from Group 1 were compared by the Hurlbert species
area curve (Figure 3) and were not significantly different from one another.

The station clusters resulting from the 6 mm screen classification (Figure 5) are
very similar to the clusters for the 1.0 mm samples. Groups 1 and 2 contain nearly
the same sites but group 3 has been divided in half (these sites contained few
large animals). Several other sites with very few species and individuals present
form meaningless groups or chain together. The results of these two classifica-
tions indicate that the cobble sites and the fine sand sites contain both large
and small individuals which prefer specific habitats. Faunal communities differ
much more between habitats than between beaches in this study. Within Group 2,
sites R13 and R15 are very similar to each other due to the presence of large num-
bers of the polychaete Lumbrineris zonata and the close proximity of these sites
to each other. There is no indication of all sites of similar habitat at only 1
beach clustering apart from similar habitats at the other beaches. Such as sepa-
ration of beaches would indicate a unique fauna. The surface animal classifica-
tion (Figure 6) also indicates that all of these sites have a fauna which is very
similar between beaches.

When the sites are clustered by biomass (Figure 7), Groups 1 and 2 again contain
the sand and mixed-sediment stations respectively, and no one beach appears dif-
ferent from the others within its habitat type. Group 3 consists of sites with
very few species and low biomass. The species most responsible for this group of
coarse-sand sites is Clinocardium nuttalZii.

CONCLUSION

The effects of wastewater on living organisms have usually been documented as hav-
ing either a growth stimulating or toxic effect. Either of these impacts could be
expected to alter the intertidal faunal community if the waste concentration were

196

great enough to affect the species present. The ac al concentration which
affects the fauna is probably specific for different species and different
circumstances.

When a community is severely stressed, the more sensitive species are usually
eliminated and the more tolerant species increase in numbers due to the unuti-
lized food and space which become available. We attempted to find existing
community differences between beaches by several methods: species lists, rel-
ative abundances of taxa, diversity indices, species-area curves, and site-
classification techniques. None of these methods indicate that the intertidal
macrofaunal communities at the study beaches were under measurably different
amounts of stress.

The few differences which were noted between beach epifaunal communities (e.g.,
surface animal abundance per areas studied on each beach) were positively
correlated with differences in the suitable habitat for these oroanisms on
each beach. The most abundant infaunal species generally occurr;d at all sites
although 2 sites on a particular beach often had qreatly different numbers of
some species. Since we assume that all the samp;@@ sites within a beach are
exposed to similar concentrations of effluent, we believe the differences in
the abundances of the infauna within any particular beach are probably due to
differences which are not related to wastewater induced stress. Whether com-
paring epifauna or infauna, the substrate (which generally reflects the sta-
bility and slope of an area) in the areas of comparison must be very similar
in order to draw meaningful conclusions.

Thi s study can show no measurable effects of wastewater impact on the inter-
tidal macrofauna. However, an impact may occur which is hidden by within-
beach variability or is only reflected in the more sensitive intertidal or
adult organisms. While we have no direct data on larval inverteby '- re-
cruitment to the 5 beaches, the overall community similarities between the
beaches probably reflects similar recruitment (there is no evidence of adult
migrations into the isolated cobble areas at the 5 beaches).

REFERENCES

I. Armstrong, J.W., C.P. Staude, R.M. Thom, and K.K. Chew. 1976. Habitats and
Relative Abundances of the Intertidal Macrofauna at Five Puget Sound Beaches
in the Seattle, Washington, Area. Syesis 9:277-290.

2. Bendiner, W.P. 1975. Dispersion of Effluent From the West Point Outfall.
Interim Report for the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.

3. Bray, J.R. and J.T. Curtis. 1957. An Ordination of the Upland Forest
Communities of Southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27:325-349.

4. Brillouin, L.' 1956. Science and Information Theory. Academic Press,
New York.

5. Buchanan, R.J. and B. Lightheart. 1973. Indicator Phytoplankton Communities:
A Cluster Analysis Approach. Syesis 6:1-10.
6. Clifford, H.T. and W. Stephenson. 1975. An Introduction to Numerical Clas-
sification. Academic Press, New York, 229 pp.

197

7. Ebbsemeyer, C.C. and JX Helseth. 1975. A Study of Current Properties and
Mixing Using Drogue Movements Observed During Summer and Winter in Central
Puget Sound, Washington. Final Report for the Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle.

8. Fager, E.W. 1964. Marine Sediments: Effects of a Tube Building Polychaete.
Science, New York. 143:356-359.

9. Filice, F.P. 1959. The Effect of Wastes on the Distribution of Bottom
Invertebrates in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Wasmann J. Biol. 17:1-17.

10. Green, C.S. 1975. A Comparison of Diversity Indices. 79-83. Southern
California Coastal.Water Research Project.. Annual Report, El Segundo, CA.

11. Hurlbert, S.H. 1971. The Non-Concept of Species Diversity: A Critfque and
Alternative Parameters. Ecol. 54(4):577-586.

12. Hylleberg, J. and V.F. Gallucci. 1975. Selectivity in Feeding by the
Deposit-Feeding Bivalve macoma nasuta. Mar. Biol. 32(2):167-178.

13. Jones, D.J. 1972. Variation in the Trophic Structure and Species Composition
of Some Invertebrate Communities in Polluted Kelp Forests in the North Sea.
Mar. Biol. 20:351-365.-
14. Kohn, A.J. and P.J. Leviten. 1976. Effect of Habitat Complexity on Population
Density and Species Richness in Tropical Intertidal Predatory Gastropod
Assemblages. Oecologia 15(3):199-210.

15. Littler, M.M. and S.N. Murray. 1975. The Primary Productivity of Marine
Macrophytes from a Rocky Intertidal Community. Marine Biol. 27:131-135.

16. McErlean, A.J., C. Kerby and R.C. Swartz. 1972. Discussion of the Status of
Knowledge Concerning Sampling Variations, Physiological Tolerances and Possible
Change Criteria for Bay Organisms. Ches. Sci. 13. Suppl. 542-554.

17. Menge, B.A. and J.P. Sutherland. 1976. Species Diversity Gradients: Synthesis
of the Rolls of Predation, Competition and Temporal Heterogeneity. Amer.
Natur. 110(973):351-369.

18. Olsen, S.J. 1976. Baseline Study of Trace Heavy Metals in Biota of Puget
Sound. M.S. Thesis, University of Washington.

19. Otte, G. and C.D. Levings. 1975. Distributions of Macroinvertebrate Communities
on a Mud Flat Influenced by Sewage. Fraser River Estaury, British Columbia.
Department of the Environment. Fisheries and Marine Service. Research and
Development Directorate. Pacific Environment Inst. West Vancouver, B.C.
Tech. Rpt. $476.

20. Reish, D.J., T.J. Kauwling, and A.J. Nearns. 1975. Marine Estuarine Pollution.
Journ. Water Poll. Control. Fed. 47(6):1617-1635.

198

21. Rosenberg, R. 1975. Stressed Tropical Benthic Faunal Communities off
Miami, Florida. Ophelia 14:93-112.

22. Rosenberg, R. 1976. Benthic Faunal Dynamics During Succession Following
Pollution Abatement in a Swedish Estuary. OIKOS 27:414-427.

23. Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

24. Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of Diversity. Nature, Lond. 162:688.

25. Smartt, P.F.M., S.E. Meacock, and J.M. Lambert. 1976. Investigations into
the Properties of Quantitative Vegetational Data. II Further Data Type
Comparisons. J. Ecol. 64(l):41-78.

26. Smith, W. and J.F. Grassle. 1977. Sampling Properties of a Family of
Diversity Measures. Biometrika (in press).

27. Smith, R.W. and C.S. Green. 1976. Biological Communities Near Submarine
Outfall. J. Wat. Poll. Control. Fed. 48(8):1894-1912.

28. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 1975. Annual Report.
El Segundo, CA.

29. Stephenson, W., R.W. Smith, C.S. Green, T.S. Sarason, and D.A. Hotchkiss.
1975. Soft Bottom Benthos from an Area of Heavy Waste Discharge: Hierarchial
Classification of Data. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project.
TM226.

30. Stirn, J., A. Avcin, I. Kerzan, B.M. Marcotte, N. Meith-Avcin, B. Vriser, and
S. Vokovic. 1973. Selected Biological Methods for Assessment of Marine Pol-
lution. Suppliment to Progress in Water Technology, Marine Pollution and
Marine Waste Disposal. E.A. Pearson and E.D. Frangipane, ed. Proceedings
of the 2nd International Congress. San Romo.

199

IMPACT OF SEWAGE ON BENTHIC MARINE FLORA OF THE SEATTLE AREA:
PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Ronald M. Thom, John W. Armstrong, Craig P. Staude and Kenneth K. Chew
University of Washington

The condition of macro-algal communities has been used previously to both ualita-
tively (Dawson 1959, 1965; Widdowson 1971; Thom 1976), and quantitatively ?Boro-
witzka 1972; Littler and Murray 1975) assess the effects of pollution on marine
life. Because aquatic plants respond relatively quickly and with measurable mag-
nitude, studies on their growth have illustrated the effects of inorganic nutrient
enrichment (Widdowson 1971) and toxic inhibition (Boney 1971).

The community structure of benthic diatoms has also shown marked response to changes
in water quality in fresh water situations (Patrick 1949; Hohn 1959). This work
has not been extended to the marine intertidal, however.

As part of METRO's Interim Studies which were conducted primarily from June of 1974
through June of 1976, the macro- and micro-flora of-5 Seattle beaches were surveyed.
The purposes of this study were to: 1) provide baseline information on the algae
from the Seattle area; and 2) contrast the algal assemblages at beaches with sewage
outfalls with those at a control beach. This paper is a report on results of ap-
proximately 2 years of studies and experiments on the macroalgae and diatoms at the
5 beaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Macro-algae

Data on frequency and percentage cover of the epiflora and fauna was'gathered quarterly
for 2 years mostly from 0.25 mz quadrats that were permanently located at known
tidal levels along transects at each beach (Thom, et al. 1976). The 5 study areas
were: Richmond Beach, Carkeek Park beach, West Point beach, Alki beach, and
Lincoln Park beach (Figure 1).

Algal biomass was determined by scraping all visible algae from within replicate
0.25 m2 quadrats that were randomly placed along the transects at +0 ft., +3 ft.,
and +6 ft. above mean lower low water (MLLW) each season. The collected material
was then identified to species, dried for 24 hours at 90' C and weighed to the
nearest milligram.

200

Richmond

Carkeek

Q)
West
Point

cc LLJ
(D

.,::Al ki

Lincoln

0 4

Figure 1. The beaches surveyed. The dark band indicates the portion of the
beach that was sampled.

201

The crowth rate of tagged individuals of the low intertidal brown alga L=inaria
saccharina, was followed in the spring of 1975. A small hole was punched 10 cm
above the hold fast in the blade of similarly sized plants at Lincoln Park beach
(no sewage outfall) and West Point beach (largest sewage outfall). After 2 weeks,
holes were punched as above, and the distance between the previous hole and the
new hole was measured.

The growth and reproduction of the high intertidal brown alga Fucus gardneri was
monitored at West Point beach, and Alki beach. Fifty randomly selected plants
were collected from each study site each season during 1976. Data were taken on
the length of the longest branch and the number of reproductive branches on each
plant.

The density of the subtidal canopy forming brown alga Nereacystis Zeutkeana was
determined by counting the number of stipes that were within I meter on either
side of a 30 m long tape extended lengthwise through the middle of the forest.
Thus, a total area of approximately 60 m2 was sampled.

The average stipe length of the Nerecoystis population was determined at monthly
intervals from March through August of 1976. This was done by extending a tape
measure from the top of the holdfast to the top of the pneumatocyst of at least
27 randomly chosen plants.

Diatoms

The assemblages of diatoms that settled on Mylar plastic plates which were attach-
ed to cement blocks anchored at the MLLW mark and exposed for 1 month were studied
at West Point beach, Alki beach, and Lincoln Park beach. Random sections were
cut from each plate and immersed in concentrated HN03 for 5 days which resulied
in a sediment of cleared diatom frustules. Three permanent microscope mounts were
made from each sample. One hundred cells, encountered at random on each slide,
were identified to species and tallied. This resulted in a total of 300 cells
per sample. If a diatom could not be assigned a specific epithet after a review
of the literature, it was given a number, photographed and sketched.

Data Analysis
Intertidal 0.25 m2 quadrat macroalgae-invertebrate data and diatom count data were
analyzed using species diversity calculations and clustering. The information
measure of Shannon and Weaver (1949) (H') was used to estimate species diversity
at each site during each sampling period. The similarity of sites based on the
frequency of macroalgal species or the relative abundances of diatom species was
determined using the 'Czekanowski' coefficient of similarity (Bray and Curtis,
1957). The sites were then clustered using the group-average sorting regime' and
are displayed as a dendogram.

A one-way parametric analysis of variance was used to compare percentage cover
values, Nereocystis stipes lengths, and the measured Fucus parameters between
beaches. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney V test was used to compare the growth
rates of Larninaria between beaches.

202

RESULTS

Intertidal Macro-algae

The total number of species encountered at each beach differed (Table 1). Lincoll
Park had the most and Carkeek Park beach the least. Alki was second, West Point
third, and Richmond Beach was fourth.

Although species diversity varied seasonally, the relative position of each study
area remained fairly constant (Figure 2). Lincoln Park was always highest and
West Point beach was always lowest. However, at no time did diversity measured
by H' dip to a level considered low (i.e. below 1.5).
Clustering (Figure 3) of study areas based upon 0.25 m2 communities (both epi-
fauna and flora) revealed 3 groups. These groups, however, were not excessively
dissimilar. This is probably because the most frequently found species were sim-
ilar at the beaches during a season (Table 2). Samples tended to separate into
an October group, a July and January group, and an April group. October samples
were most dissimilar to the April samples. Additionally, Lincoln Park samples
tended to be most dissimilar to West Point samples within a season.

Average percentage algal cover from the fixed quadrats between +0 ft. and +6 ft.
generally peaked at the 5 beaches in July and October, and reached a low point in
January (Table 3). The same trend was evident with algal biomass (Table 4).
Although there were significant differences (P <0.05) between values from beaches
within a season, no consistent trend was noted.

The growth rate of L=inaria saccharina was significantly faster at West Point
beach as compared to plants.at Lincoln Park Beach (Table 5).

Although the mean length of Fucus plants at the 4 study sites during the year was
essentially the same, the daily averaged growth in length during the maximum grow-
ing period was up to twice as fast at West Point (120 MGD) as compared to Carkeek
Park (3 MGD) (Table 6). The percentage of branches with recepticles was also
highest at the West Point sites. Areas most similar in exposure (i.e. Carkeek and
West Point, north side) varied significantly (P <0.05) in the percentage reproduc-
tive, Additionally, the maximum level of reproduction was reached in different
months.

Subtidal Macro-algae.

Nereocystis stipes were more dense and grew significantly slower at West Point as
compared to Lincoln Park (Table 7, 8). The bed at Lincoln Park, however, supported
a greater biomass of this plant.

Biomass determinations indicated that brown algae dominate the understory community
at Lincoln Park where as green and red algae are by far most abundant in the West
Point kelp forest (Table 9).

203

Table 1. Number of species of macro-algae at each beach location.

Richmond Beach Carkeek Park West Point Alki Lincoln

Green 24 27 25 28 30

Brown 12 10 19 18 17
CD

Red 37 29 44 43 66

Total 73 66 88 89 113

3.0 -

...........
CM 2,01 1%, 1 ki
a r k e
Lincoin
Richmo@ld
Vvest P,,@

0
JULY OCTOBER JANUARY Ar R; L
--T-- 1
1975 1976

Figure 2. species diversity of 0.2 m2 community.

F--
LINCOLN OCT

LINCOLN JAN.

CIARKE'EK OCT.

RICHMOND OCT

ALKI 0,' T.

R!CHMOND JUL.--
F-WEST PT. JAN.

ALKI JAN.

CARKEEK JUL.

LINCOLN JUL.

ALKI OCT.

RICHMOND JUL.-

WEST PT JUL.

WEST PT. JAN.

WEST PT OCT.

RICHMOND APR.

ALKI APR.

LINCOLN APR.

CARKEEK APR.

L .. @@!EST FIT APR.
160 9,0 8c -70 60 G
Percent Similarity
Figure 3. Cluster of study sites based on 0.25 m2 samples.

206

Table 2. Rank of top three macro-algal species at each beach each season. Tied scores were
given equal ranks.

July Oct Jan April
RCWAL RCWAL RCWAL RCWAL

Ulva lactuca 11111 11121 3 23
Enteromorpha intestinalis 222 2 3 3 3
E. linza 33 3
diatoms 33 2 11211
Gigartina papillata 2 232 331 3 3
Fucus gardneri 3 3 2
Pterosiphonia bipinnata 2 2 33 11 3 2
Ulva expansa 3 3
U. fenestrata 3 1 123
Ralfsia pacifica 2 2 3 2
Iridaea heterocarpa 3 2
Hildenbrandia prototypus 2 3 2 3
Ulva sp. 12
Polysiphonia spp. 2
Antithamnionella glandulifera 3
Cryptosiphonia woodii 2
Spongomorpha spp. 2 1
Petalonia fascia 2 2
.Monostroma spp. 3
Rhodomela larix 3
Porphyra miniata 2

Table 3. Percentage algal cover by season.

1975 1976

JULY OCTOBER JANUARY APRIL

N 'i% S.E. -i-/ S.E. X% S.E X% S.E.

Richmond 26 20.2 6.58 30.5 8.86 0.4 0.15 16.6 7.02

Carkeek 36 49.7 7.84 28.4 8.29 4.2 2.28 18.3 5.50

West Point 28 27.8 7.48 5.7 1.46 1.1 0.81 14.6 7.36

Alki 40 40.4 8.84 34.8 7.22 6.3 2.19 25.5 6.66

Lincoln 36 27.8 8.48 11.9 2.47 3.2 0.97 21.2 5.18

Table 4. Macro-algal biomass by season (gm/.25m 2

1975 1976
JULY OCTOBER JANUARY APRIL
x S.E. 'i S.E. x S.E. x S.E.
Richmond 36 3.11 1.220 1.30 0.307 0.06 0.036 0.46 0.243
Carkeek 18 1.08 0.343 6.84 4.010 0.08 0.076 0.46 0.219
West Point 24 6.79 4.057 0.23 0.065 0.23 0.217 0.98 0.889
Alki 18 5.11 2.628 0.82 0.317 0.11 0.048 1.39 0.593
Lincoln 24 9.13 4.936 1.55 1.246 0.62 0.552 2.54 2.055

208

Table 5. The growth of Laminaria saccharina (L.) Lamouroux.

BEACH NUMBER OF
INDIVIDUALS TOTAL GROWTH STUDY PERIOD

rQ. x S.D. -icm/day
C)

West Point 12 26.6(cm) 7.8 1.8* May 26 to June 10

Lincoln Park 11 15.8 7.7 1.3 May 27 to June 9

Significant Pt-0.05.

Table 6. Growth and reproduction of Fucus gardneri at Carkeek, West Point, and Alki beaches.

K length growth Dercent
over over max. max. reproductive max. exposure sewage
N year S.E. season season over yr. S.E. month rank discharge
Carkeek 200 86.7mm 3.88 0. l8mm/dy April- 17.8% 1.41 Aug. 4(low) 3 MGD
Aug.
West Point
North 200 87.9 3.09 0.46 Aug.- 30.5 2.35 Oct. 3 120
Oct.
C:) West Point
South 200 85.5 3.81 0.25 April- 18.9 1.72 Oct. 1(high) 120
Aug.

Alki 200 82.2 3.31 0.28 April- 15.1 1.37 Jan. 2 8
Aug.

Table 7. Nereocystis stipe length, density, and standing crop. Standing crop is based upon
a regression of stipe length v.s. dry weight of whole plant.

LINCOLN WEST POINT

t test
x dry x dry length
2 2 2 2
N Length S.D. #/m wt/m N Length S.D. #/m wt/m (P< 0.05)

March 30 5cm - - - 30 5cm - -

May 27 82.0 38.31 0.9 4.36 40 34.4 22.81 3.3 6.34g 6.36*

June 37 212.0 232.66 - - 48 62.0 47.00 - - 4.35*

August 30 353.9 172.23 1.0 948.42 30 280.0 113.25 3.8 858.58 2.38*

Significant P< 0.05.

Table 8. Mean rate of Nereocystis stipe growth (cm/day).

March to May May to June June to Aueust Overall

Lincoln 1.7 4.2 2.0 2.4

West Point 0.6 1.0 2.8 1.8

212

Table 9. Top 5 * species in Nereocystis understory using biomass (1975-1976).
(G green alga, B = brown alga, R = red alga)

Inner Bed Mid Bed Outer Bed

LINCOLN WEST POINT LINCOLN WEST POINT LINCOLN WEST POINT

1. Laminaria Ulva Laminaria Iridaea Costaria Ulva
saccharins expansa saccharina. cordata costata expansa

2. Ulva Ulva Microcladia Gigartina Lamenaria Gigartina
expansa fenestrata borealis californica saccharins papillata

3. Ulvaria Iridaea Enteromorpha Ulva Desmarestia Iridaea
obscura cordata linza fenestrata lugulata cordata
var.firma

4. Ulva Gigartina Ulva Laminaria Gigartina Gigartina
fenestrata papillata lactuca saccharina californica californica

5. Prionitis Ulva Odonthalia Ulva Ulva Antithamnionella
lanceolata lactuca floccusa expansa expansa glandulifera

OVERALL
LINCOLN WEST POINT
1. (B) Laminaria saccharia Ulva expansa (G)

2. (G) Ulva expansa Iridaea cordata (R)

3. (B) Costaria costata Ulva fenestrata (G)

4. (B) Desmarestia liqulata Gigartina papillata (R)

5. (R) Gigartina californi,ca Gigartina californica (R)

In the most diverse samples, the top 5 spp. made up 91% of the biomass.

213

Diatoms

Diatom species diversity (Figure 4) differed both seasonally at each beach and be-
tween beaches each season. Lincoln Park samples contained the highest diversity
for 4 out of the 8 samplings and never dropped below 1.84. West Point samples
contained the highest diversity in 3 ouL of the 8 samplings with a minimum of 1.32.
Alki samples were highest only once with a minimum of 1.05.

The clustering of samples revealed few easily defined groups owing to the fact
that the dissimilarity between samples was generally low (Figure 9). Samples from
the same beach, however, tended to group together. Group I and II (Figure 5)
might loosely represent samples with characteristically solitary, closely adhering
(e.g. Cocconeis spp) species which tended to dominate summer and winter samples
(Table 10). Group III (Figure 5) dominated by April samples, would indicate
samples, with an abundance of upright (e.g. Synedra) and tufted (e.g. NavicuZa
directa) forms.

DISCUSSION

The 5 beaches that were chosen for study, with the exception of Lincoln Park, are
adjacent to sewage outfalls which differ quite markedly in the volume of effluent
discharged. In addition the study areas are generally representative of the
habitat types, both in p@oportion and composition, found in central Puget Sound.
It has been documented in very localized situations elsewhere (e.g. Littler and
Murray 1975; Borowitzka, 1972) that the effect of sewage effluent on intertidal
communities decreases with increasing distance from the outfall. Hence, by
choosing beaches with varying potential exposure to effluent, we might note this
differential trend. Two problems, however, arise in the fact that by increasing
the area encompassed at the study site one also introduces a large increase in
variation that is difficult to reduce because the intensity of sampling of the
intertidal is severely limited by the tides and weather.

A second problem arises in that the intertidal communities in our area are sub-
jected to very dilute effluent (Bendiner, 1975). Therefore, the organisms are
more apt to reflect chronic low level effects. Algae, on the other hand, are use-
ful in this type of situation in that they are very sensitive to changes in the
environment (both chemical and phys7ical), they can be relatively easily sampled,
and most species tend to be annual in appearance which renders their growth sus-
ceptible to rather short-term influences of local environmental peculiarities.
Therefore, keeping in mind variability within a beach, some general conclusions
can be made concerning the effects of sewage on both the macroalgae and diatom
assemblages of the study sites.

There appears to be a slight reduction in number of species at West Point, Alki,
Richmond, and Carkeek beaches from that found at Lincoln Park (Table 1). Although
the amount of suitable (i.e. cobble or boulder) substrata might be limiting at the
first 3 sites (it is well known that there is intense competition for space in the
rocky intertidal, Connell, 1972), Alki has a greater proportion of rocky area
available for algal attachment than does Lincoln Park, making the difference in
number of species more meaningful.

214

GO %

2.0-

1.0

A 1 k i
Lincoln
We-,t Pt.

0 CT JAN APRIL JULY OCT JAN APRIL JULY
F- --T--
1974- 19 7 5 19 1;16

Figure 4. Diatom species diversity.

L I N CO L N JA N.'75 -

LINCOLN JAN.'76

ALKIJULY'75

LINCOLN OCT'75

LINCOLN JULY'76---

LINCOLN OCT '74

WEST PT. JAN.'75

WEST PT OCT'75

ALKI OCT '75

ALKI JULY'76

ALKI JAN.'75

L WEST PT OCT'74
-LINCOLN JULY - 75

WEST PT JULY'75 -

TT WEST PT JULY'76

WEST PT. JAN.'76

L WEST PT APR.'76

ALKI JAN.'76

LINCOLN APR'76

WEST PT APR'75

ALKI APR.'76

ALKIAPR'76

LINCOLN APR'75

ALKIOCT'74
160 @O @O @O @O 50 0
Percent Similarity
Figure 5. Cluster of study sites based on diatom flora.

216

Table 10. Top three species of diatoms each season.

WEST POINT ALKI LINCOLN PARK
1974 October Biddulphia aurita Rhabdonema arcuratum Synedra tabulata
Cocconeis californica Synedra tabulata Cocconeis costata
Rhabdonema arcuratum Navicula directa C. californica

1975 January Cocconeis costata Coconeis californica C. costata
C. californica C. costata C. califronica
C. stauroneiformis C. stauroneiformis Synedra tabulata

April Synedra tabulata Navicula directa Synedra tabulata
Navicula No. 50 Synedra tabulata Navicula No. 39
N. directa Navicula No. 10 Cocconeis costata

July Cocconeis californica Cocconeis scutellum Syndera tabulata
Achnanthes cocconeioides C. californica Navicula No. 39
A. groenlandica Navicula No. 8 Cocconeis costata
var. phinneyi forma
jaydei

October Cocconeis coStata Cocconeis scutellum C. californica
C. californica C. californica Achnanthes cocconeioides
C. scutelluT C. costata Nitzschia frustulum var. perminuta
f
C. stauronei o

1976 January C. californica Synedra tabulata Cocconeis costata
C. scutellum Rhabdonema arcuratum C. californica
C. costata Amphora No. 11 tie Synedra tabulata
Cocconeis costat.@
April Achnathes groenlandica Syndrea tabulata Synedra tabulata
var.phinneyi Biddulphia aurita Navicula No. 10
Navicula No. 10 tie Cocconeis scutellum Cocconeis costata
N. No. 39 @>

July Cocconeis californica C. californica C. californica
Achnanthes No. 4 C. scutellum C. scutellum
A. No. 23 C. costata C. stauroneiformis

Borowitzka (1972) used species diversity H') in showing the range of influence an
Australian sewage outfall had on intertidal algal communities. His values were
generally 1.5 or less around the outfall area. Our 0.25 m2 diversity values,
although always lowest at the beach near the outfall (which may again reflect sub-
starta availability) and, conversely, always highest at the beach with no outfall,
were never below 2.4. Thus, although species richness may be reduced at affected
beaches, the community diversity remains fairly high. O'Sullivan (1971) reported
that very low levels of sewage tended to raise faunal species diversity.

Clustering of stations based on the macro-epibiota has been successfully used to
separate algal communities in polluted conditions from those communities consid-
ered unaffected (Littler and Murray, 1975). A similar treatment of our data
(Figure 4) showed that communities were primarily affected by seasonal changes,
as might.be expected, and secondarily, although distinctly, spearated by differ-
ences between beaches. Lincoln Park samplings tended to be most dissimilar to
West Point. Hence, the composition (i.e. actual species involved) tended to be
most different between these beaches relative to the other 3 beaches.

Another factor that possibly could be affected by a pollutant is overall primary
production. There were differences between beaches in average algal percentage
cover and biomass (Table 2, 3), but these differences showed no consistent trends
based on effluent volume.

The growth rate of the large brown kelp Kgregaia Zaevigata was significantly in-
creased around sewage outfalls in southern California (Widdowson, 1972), At West
Point, the same result was obtained with the brown seaweed Loninaria saccharina,
which may indicate that increased inorganic nutrients (especially NH3, Collias
unpublished data) in this area are significantly affecting the growth of this and,
quite likely, other plants.

Several workers (e.g. Knight and Parke, 1950; Powell, 1957) have noted that in-
creased nutrients, especially in polluted areas,-affected the growth and repro-
duction of Fucus. Our studies indicate that the time and extent of formation of
receptacles and the vegetative growth were positively related to the amount of
sewage effluent (Table 6).

The situation was different with the subtidal kelp Nereocystis which grew signifi-
cantly slower at West Point (Table 7, 8). This paradox is at least partly explain-
ed by the fact that : 1) The plants were three times as dense at West Point and
as such were probably subjected to self-shading; and, 2) the visibility during
samplings was generally less than one third that at Lincoln Park (these spot ob-
servations are supported by secchi disc readings, METRO unpublished) such that
light was limiting plant growth. The ability of Hereocystis to grow in lower
light conditions (as indicated by its exclusively subtidal habit) than other brown
algal competitors might explain its ability to dominate at West Point. The shad-
ing effect of the dense canopy coupled with cloudy water are also possibly respon-
sible for the dominance of algae adapted for low light conditions at West Point
(Table 9). It remains undetermined at this time the source and nature of the
material causing the cloudiness.
The diversity of diatom assemblages has been shown repeatedly to be inversely
related to levels of pollution (Patrick, 1949; Hohn 1959). Diatom diversity

218

although varying seasonally at the beaches, generally remained high at Lincoln
Park while reaching low levels at Alki and West Point (Figure 6). Clustering of
samples produced seasonal groups first, then a general, although not completely
distinct, continuum of Lincoln Park to Alki to West Point samples within a season.
Examination of the raw counts indicated that the dominant species were similar be-
tween beaches (Table 10) but the relative abundances among these species differed
greatly between beaches.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there appears to be differences in the algal flora between beaches. These
differences are manifested in minor modifications of community structure. Commun-
ity structure is necessarily related to changes in the 'behavior' of species with-
in each study unit. Algal species are highly, yet differentially, sensitive to
environmental perturbations such as sewage pollution. Changes- in such activities
as growth, and the timing and success of reproduction will favor certain species
in competition with other species for resources such as space and light.

Although there are minor differences between the algae at the beaches, no drastic
effects, as witnessed by other workers, were noted in the studies to date. It
must be said, however, that chronic effects (e.g. adaption, Stockner and Anita,
1976) are much more difficult to assess, and may, in the long run, stress the
system such that large scale changes may become apparent. At this time it is im-
possible to estimate the amount of stress it would take to produce a large scale
-modification of the algal assemblage. Yet, our work indicates that the flora is
being stressed to a measurable degree based on what other workers have found in
more severe situations (e.g. increased algal growth rates, changes in phenology,
changes in community structure). This stress by out best estimate at this time,
is from sewage. We must reiterate, however, that our ability to quantify these
differences was hampered by the variability inherent in most types of community
analyses using conventional techniques. Further intense study is needed in what
appears to be critical areas.

REFERENCES

I. Bendiner, W.P. 1975. Dispersion of Effluent from the West Point Outfall.
METRO Interim Report, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.

2. Boney, A.D. 1971. Sub-lethal Effects of Mercury on Marine Algae. Mar.
Poll Bull. 2 (5): 59-75.

3. Borowitzka, M.A. 1972. Intertidal Algal Species Diversity and the Effect
of Pollution. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 23: 73-84.

4. Bray, J. and J. Curtis. 1957. An Ordination of the Upland Forest
Communities of Southern Wiscons. Ecological Monographs 27 (4): 325-249.

5. Connell, J.H. 1972. Community Interactions on Marine Rocky Intertidal
Shores. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 3: 169-192.

219

6. Dawson, E.Y. 1959. A Primary Report on the Benthic Marine Flora of Southern
California. Oceanographic Survey of the Continental Shelf Area of Southern
California. State Water Pollution Control Board #20:169-218.

7. Dawson, E.Y. 1965. Chapter 8 Intertidal Algae. An Oceanographic and Bio-
logical Survey of the Southern California Mainland Shelf. State Water Quality
Control Board, Pub. #27:220-231.

8. Hohn, M.H. 1959. The Use of Diatom Populations as a Measure of Water Quality
in Selected Areas of Galveston and Chocolate Bay, Texas. Inst. Mar. Sci.
(Texas) 6:206-212.

9. Knight, M. and M. Parke. 1950. A Biological Study of Fucus vesicuZosus L.
and Fucus serratus L. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. United Kingdom. 29:439-514

10. Littler, M.M. and S.N. Murray. 1975. Impact of Sewage on the Distribution,
Abundance and Community Structure of Rocky Intertidal Macro-organisms.
Marine Biology 30:277-291.

11. O'Sullivan, A.J. 1971. Ecological Effects of Sewage Discharge in the Marine
Environment. Proc. Roy. Soc. Land. B. 177:331-351.

12, Patrick, R. 1949. Proposed Biological Measure of Stream Conditions, Based
on a Survey of Conestoga Basin, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Proc. Acad.
Nat. Sci. Phil. 101:227-341.

13. Powell, H.T. 1957. Studies in the Genus Fucus L. II. Distribution and
Ecology of Forms of F@ucus distichous L. Emend. Powell in Britain and Ireland.
J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. United Kingdom. 36:663-693.

14. Shannon, E.H. and W. Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication.
Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana.

15. Thom, R.M. 1976. Changes inthe Flora of the Southern California Mainland
Intertidal. M.A. Thesis, California State University, Long Beach.

16. Thom, R.M., J.W. Armstrong, C.P. Staude, K.K. Chew, and R.E. Norris. 1976.
A Survey of the Attached Marine Flora at Five Beaches in the Seattle,
Washington Area. Syesis 9. (in press)

17. Widdowson, T.B. 1971. Changes in the Intertidal Algal Flora of the Los
Angeles Area Since the Survey by E. Yale Dawson in 1956-1959. Bull. So.
Calif. Adac. Sci. 70 (1):2-16.

18. Widdowson, T.B. 1972. Growth Rate in Egregia as a measure of Pollution.
Proc. Seventh International Seaweed Symposium. I. Nisizawa, ed. 268-272.

220

SOME BIOLOGICAL, LEGAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE
CULTURE OF THE RED ALGA iRiDAEA CORDATA ON NETS IN PUGET SOUND

Thomas F. Mumford, Jr.
Washington Department of Natural Resources

INTRODUCTION

In order to increase the diversity of the uses of the waters of Puget Sound, the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources has undertaken a program to
develop an economically feasible seaweed industry. The red alga, Iridaea cordata
(Rhodophyta, Gigartinales) has been chosen for several reasons as an organism with
which to begin. I. cordata, along with other members of this order, consist of
up to 60% dry weight of a colloidal polysaccharide carrageenan (Waaland, 1975).
Carrageenan is presently used in a variety of industrial, pharamceutical, and food
processes as a thickening, gelling, and suspending agent (Marine Colloids, 1973).
Related compounds from other algae, alginic acid and agar, are also wide7y used
in similar applications. Estimated Droduction of carrageenan in 1976 was 24,400,000
pounds with an average market price of $2.70/lb. for an estimated total market
value of $65.8 million (Moss, 1977). The traditional source has been Irish moss
(Chondrus crispus) harvested in the Canadian Maritime Provinces and the northeast
United States. The source is natural beds. The sources are being fully exploited
and processors have turned to other countries for additional sources. For example,
large amounts of iridaea are gathered by hand in Chile, dried on the beach, and
shipped to the U.S. Two new cblturing techniques have assured the continued sup-
ply of carrageenan-producing algae. The first is the culture of loose Chondrus
thalli in agitated tanks or ponds. This technique has been developed by the
National Research Council of Canada in conjunction with industry and is now being
scaled up to full production in Nova Scotia by Marine Colloids, Inc., and Genu,
Inc. (Deboer, 1977). The second technique involves the growth of Eucheuma Spp. in
the Philippines. Fragments of thalli are tied to the intertices of nets placed in
shallow reef flats and harvested by hand. Marine Colloids has sponsored the re-
search and the procedure has been very successful on a cottage industry basis
(Doty, 1973; Parker, 1974). By assuring a controlled supply, the culture tech-
niques have increased industrial demand. However, an assured domestic supply is
still desired (Moss, 1977). The type of carrageenan produced by Iridaea is dif-
ferent from that from other sources and has unique properties (Waaland, 1975;
McCandless, et aZ., 1975).

221

Studies have been conducted on the ecology of natural populations of iridaea
cordato in Washington (Hruby, 1974, 1975, 1976), British Columbia (Austin and
Adams, 1975), and California (Hansen and Doyle, 1976), the effects of harvesting
on natural populations (Fralick, 1971; Austin and Adams, 1975), the physical
parameters for optimal growth (Waaland, 1973, 1974), and the techniques for
growth on artificial substrate (Waaland, 1976).

@CULTURE METHODS AND RESULTS

In 1970-71, the Lummi Indian Tribal Council, in cooperation with DNR and Marine
Colloids, Inc., began a harvest of natural populations of Iridaea in Puget Sound
and the San Juan Islands. SCUBA diving apparatus and boats were obtained, divers
trained and a large drier and baler set up. Because of a very poor harvest the
first year, operations were suspended and later permanently discontinued. At
this time, DNR under the guidance of Dave Jamison and Fred Weinmann began to ex-
periment with growing iridaea on ropes. Initial attempts were successful in get-
ting small germlings to grow on rope, but rope outplanting was never successful.
Cliff Kemp took over the program and during the summer of 1974 placed nets
stretched on PVC plastic frames over a bed of Iridaea at San Juan Island. The
set of spores on the nets was good, and on August 7, 1975, Kemp harvested an
average of 4.92+ 0.42 kg dry matter/m2 from 4 of these nets. By October, 1975,
Kemp estimated 'fhe harvested areas had regrown to the origian] density and pre-
dicted a possible yearly yield of 60-80 metic tons/hectar (6-8 kg dry matter/m2).
In September he placed 1 m2 nets at Minnesota Reef, Barnes Island, Sinclair Is-
land, and Sucia Island to see if the set on the nets was repeatable. Kemp left
the program that fall, and I began work on February 1, 1976.
In April, 1976, the I m2 nets from Barnes and Sinclair Islands were removed and
taken to Minnesota Reef and San Juan Island. All these nets plus those from
Minnesota Reef were cut into 0.25 m2 pieces and restretched on PVC plastic pipe
frames. These frames and nets were placed at Minnesota Reef, San Juan Island,
Clam Bay near Manchester in central Puget Sound, and on Squaxin Reef, southern
Puget Sound. Measurements of increase in the wet weight of iridaea blade length
were made on monthly or biweekly bases. Harvesting was performed on some nets
in mid-June and others in mid-July, and all nets were harvested in mid-October.
Harvesting was performed by cutting off the blades with sisscrs about 10 cm
above the netting. The results here are only summarized. A more detailed
account will be given in another paper (Mumford, 1977).

Of the 3 net materials tried by Kemp, white #60 cord Type 66 seine nylon twine,
orange 0.25" polypropylene line, and "Vexar" plastic mesh (Dupont, Inc.),
Iridaea set and grew well on nylon and polypropylene material but did not grow
.on "Vexar" mesh. The "Vexar" supported a lush growth of various kelp species
(Lcvninaria saccharina, PZeurophycus gardneri, and AZaria marginata) by the spring
of 1976.

The harvest yields from the 3" stretched mesh nylon netting was not significantly
different from the 6" stretched mesh polypropylene netting. This would indicate
that although the 3" mesh would give higher plant density, crowding of the plants
reduced growth significantly. Experi.ments are now underway to determine the
optimum mesh size for yield. The importance of this wil-1 also be discussed in
the economics section following.

222

Harvest
5 Harvest
C.\j
E
LO
c\1 4 -
b Figure 1. Wet w@ight of Iridaea cordata/
0.2 m -Tu-ring the summer,
5 netting
NJ 1976. Nets located at Minnesota
PQ
Reef, San Juan Island. Netting
material is 3" mesh nylon.
3 (0 Net 2A! A ----- Net 2B)
0

0)2-
,,,,Harvest

01
A
1976

Harvest yields from Minnesota Reef (645.3 + 78.8 g/0.25m2; N=7) were not signif-
icantly different from those from Manchester (510.3 + 77.8 9/0.25m2; N=4). Be-
cause the percent cover on the Squaxin Reef nets was not 100%, direct comparison
to the above figures is not possible, but yield was about one half of the others.

Comparison of the 1976 harvest yields from nets 2 years old (set fall, 1974;
677.2+ 76.2 2/0.25m2; N=8) with those nets I year old (set fall, 1975; 44.4+
10.4 @/O.25m ; N=4) showed no significant difference, although the somewhat-higher
yields may indicate some further setting in the second year.

Yields from nets harvested on June 12 and October 18 were not significantly dif-
ferent from nets harvested July 18 and October 18, although by July 28 some
senescence and biomass loss had occurred.

Figure 1 shows the standing crop on 2 nets made from the same net initially. Har-
vest was made at 2 different times. Note that neither the July 28 or October 18
harve@sts were at optimal times as some biomass loss had occurred in both instances.

Growth rates for all nets is shown in Figure 2. The rate is calculated by the
formula:
R (g salt-free dry matter day- I m-2
(W 2 -W1) (4)(0.15)

At
Where: W1= total wet weight of 0.25m 2 nets and frames at beginning
of period
W2= total wet weight of 0.25m 2 nets and frames at end
of period

6t= time period in days

Salt-free dry weight is 15% of wet weight (Waaland, 1975)

The peak growth occurred from mid-May to mid-August in 1976, only a 3 month period.
Because of the placement of the nets in too shallow water, sunburn damage occurred
during the low, daytime tides on hot sunny days in July. By mid-August, senescence
had begun andblade loss was rapid. Most blades were gone by mid-October. After
harvest in October, no regrowth occurred, leaving only the holdfast and bladelets
to overwinter.
Harvests from all nets in 1976 gave a projected yield of 2.253 + O.2A g/m 2 (N=13).
Nets from Minnesota Reef gave a projected yield of 3.383 + 0.203 g/m2 (N=4). This
last figure is down drastically from the 1975 harvest of fhe same nets in the same
location, indicating that there may be large annual variations in yield due to
climatic variations.

Several observations may be made from these data. Site requirements for net place-
ment will probably be limited only by having adequate water movement, either as a

224

30 -
E Figure 2. Average growth rates of
Iridaea cordata for summer,
1976 for all nets at Minne-
sota Reef, Manchester, and
7(O'U 20 Squaxin Reef.

Ln
@:J:wx-
10.

....... ,,/Harvest
7 .7
0

..........

..........
..........
..........
76
LO
0) 20L M J J A S 0 N D
1976

result of tidal currents or wave motion. There seems to be nothing lacking in
lower Puget Sound for proper growth of Iridaea except suitable substrate.

Those nets not completely set with -fridaeo initially never become'set at a later
time on those "bare" areas. Ulva and monostroma quickly foul these clear areas.
Nets observed in March 1977 show no increase in cover of rridaea over 1 year ago.
On the other hand, those nets with a good, 100% cover of Iridaea show no loss
over I year or have any fouling with other organisms. The perennating holdfast
effectively prevents colonization by other organisms during the winter when only
the holdfast and bladelets are present.

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Only a preliminary economic analysis has been undertaken, in some instances merely
outlining the system and the pieces of information needed. Costs of a research-
scale operation in no way reflect what production costs may be and a cost overrun
of five times what is considered the break-even point for production may be within
the bounds of feasibility.

Variable production costs will include net materials, net suspension systems,
seeding, maintenance and labor costs, energy for drying and baling and shipping
if no local processor is available. Netting costs will be of great importance
and research is underway to determine what the optimum yield: area cost ratio is.
Nylon nets 2.5 years old are still in good shape with an excellent crop of iridaea,
so amortization of costs may be possible over at least 3 years. As netting is
bought by the pound, there is great variation in area costs for different mesh
size and twine diameter.

Fixed costs would include seeding facilities, harvesting machines, drying and
baling apparatus, boats, trucks, docks, etc. Some salaries would also be in this
category. No attempt has been made to estimate these costs and amortization
schedules.
As a very rough estimate, assume a possible yield of 5 kg dried -Tridaealm 2 and-an
F.O.B. price of $500/metric ton in Maine. This gives a gross income of $2.50/m2. 2
Transportation costs are about $120/metric ton (truck to Maine; $0.12/kg = $0.60/m
and nettin costs could be as high as $1.2o/m2 amortized for 3 years for a cost
of $0.40/m@. This reduces income to $1.50/m2 from which all other costs and
profits must come.

The economy of scale will have to be considered in whether this type of industrial
enterprise can be undertaken with a small amount of capital and be run as a labor-
intensive cottage industry, or whether it will be dominated by large corporations
on a capital-intensive scheme. This, of course will be determined by economic,
regulatory, and social factors that may well be quite different from what they
are now, so any predictions would be mere conjecture.

The future market for carrageenan seems to be assured because of the stable sup-
ply offered by other culture systems. A yearly expansion of 10-15% is seen (Moss,
1977) with traditional markets in the food and industrial sectors. New markets
may open through research aimed at developing carrageenan as an agar substitute in
the medical field, and as a water-based lubricant if petroleum-based lubricants
become prohibitively expensive.

226

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

All research, pilot, and industrial scale aquaculture projects must be done in
accordance with the environmental and social guidelines set forth by local, state,
and federal governments. Rather than deal with the actual procedure involved in
getting a permit to place a structure in Puget Sound, this discussion will deal
in the general considerations.

Biological research often requires great flexibility and quick action. While
much planning can be done ahead of time, on-the-spot changes and plans and struc-
tures are often necessary. However, the length of time required to get a permit
through the existing channels with the Corps of Engineers for the placement of
every structure or modification of existing structure makes this sort of research
difficult if not impossible. What is needed is a shortening or simplifying of
the permit procedure or a blanket permit for a certain range of structures within
a specified area for temporary research purposes. The spirit in which these safe-
guards of the environment were made are excellent and continue to be needed now
more than ever. A project involving well-planned, permanent installations does
not face quite the same difficulties as a research project. In these cases,
sufficient lead time can and must be planned.

In keeping with the concept of multiple use of the water column the net structures
have been designed for placement within one half meter of the bottom just below
the water surface at extreme low water. No structures will be visible from the
surface so boating and other surface activities will only be minimally disturbed.
Possible enhancement of the fish populations around net structures is possible
and may provide increased recreational use of some areas. Monitoring changes in
the infauna below nets will also take place.

SUMMARY

The culture of Itidaea on nets still has many biological aspects that must be in-
vestigated before a large-scale commercial operation is feasible. A method for
artificial seeding of nets must be perfected. This will allow even, dense sets
of a particular strain or type of seaweed. Disease and herbivory will have to be
studied and controlled. Growth rates under varying current and light intensities
will have to be determined to allow selection of net sites. Harvesting strategies
must be devised, and a harvesting machine designed and perfected. The possibility
of providing seed stock for tank culture (Waaland, 1976) is under investigation,
as well as increasing carrageenan content through nitrogen starvation on plants
in tanks after harvesting. When the biological part of the system is better
defined, then the legal, economic and social aspects will be more easily approached.

The development of techniques for the growth of Iridaea on nets will hopefully be
transferable to other algae. Future sources of foodstuffs, agar, pharamaceuticals
and large-scale biomass that can be converted to methane and other hydrocarbons
may all come from seaweeds grown on artifical substrata.

The sheltered waters of Puget Sound are a unique resource and offer a site for
aquaculture development unparalleled on the west coast of the U.S. Protection
from storm and wave damage allows the placement of light-weight, inexpensive
structures. Water quality and nutrient levels are high and tidal action assures

227

good water movement needed for good algal growth. How aquaculture fits into the
socio-economic matrix of the people of Washington will be one of the most fascin-
ating developments in our near future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Carl Boswell, Tom Gillick, Doug Magoon, Don Melvin, and
Fred Winningham for their assistance on the field work. Dr. D. Willows has ex-
tended the use of the University of Washington Friday Harbor Laboratories, for
which I am most grateful. Dr. J. Hansen has provided many stimulating discussions
on this project. Funding for this work has been from the Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Land Management, and starting January 1, 1977, in part by
a grant from the University of Washington Sea Grant Program of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce (R/A-12).

REFERENCES

Austin, A., and R. Adams. 1975. Red Algal Resource Studies in Canadian Pacific
Waters. Carrageenophyte inventory and experimental/cultivation phase 1974/
1975. Vol. 1: Text, Vol II, Appendices. Report submitted to the Federal
Minister of Fisheries, and the Provincial Minister of Recreation and
Conservation, British Columbia.

Deboer, J.A. 1977. Potential Yields from a Waste Recycling-Seaweed Mariculture
System. The Marine Plant Biomass of the Pacific Northwest Coast: A Poten-
tial Economic Resource. A symposium, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, March 2-5,
1977 (in press).

Doty, M.S. 1973. Farming the Red Seaweed, Eucheuma, for Carrageenans.
Micronesia 9:59-73

Fralick, J.E. 1971. The Effect of Harvesting Iridaea on a Subtidal Marine Plant
Community in Northern Washington. Masters Thesis, Western Washington State
College.

Hansen, J.E., and W.T. Doyle. 1976. Ecology and Natural History of Iridaea
cordata (Gigartinaceae): Population Structure. Phycologia 12:273-278.

Hruby, T. 1974. A Study of Several Factors Influencing the Growth and Distribu-
tion of Iridaea cordata (Turner) Bory in Coastal Waters of Washington State.
Master Thesis, University of Washington.

Hruby, T. 1975. Seasonal Changes in Two Algal Populations from the Coastal Waters
of Washington State. J. Ecol. 63:881-890

Hruby, T. 1976. Observations of Algal Zonation Resulting from Competition.
Estuarine and Coastal Mar. Sci. 4:231-233

228

McCandless, E.L., J.S. Craigie, and J.E. Hansen. 1975. Carrageenans of
Gametangial and Tetrasporangial Stages of Iridaea cordata (Gigartinaceae)
Can. J. Bot. 53:2315-2318.

Marine Colloids, Inc. 1973. Annual Report for 1972.

Moss, J.R. 1977. Elements of a Seaweed Industry. The Marine Plant Biomass of
the Pacific Northwest Coast: A Potential Economic Resource. A symposium,
Gleneden Beach, Oregon, March 2-5, 1977 (in press).

Mumford, T.F. 1977. Growth of Pacific Northwest Marine Algae on Artificial
Substrata: Potential and Practice. The Marine Plant Biomass of the Pacific
Northwest Coast: A Potential Economic Resource. A symposium, Gleneden
Beach, Oregon, March 2-5, 1977 (in press).

Parker, H.S. 1974. The Culture of the Red.Algal genus Eucheuma in the
Philippines. Aquaculture 3:435-439.

Waaland, J.R. 1973. Experimental Studies on the Marine Algae Iridaea and
Gigartina. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 11:71-80.

1974. Aquaculture Potential of iridaea and Gigartina in Pacific Northwest-
ern waters. Seaweed Farming in Puget Sound, proceedings of a seminar,
October 1974, Poulsbo, Washington; Washington State University, Pullman.

1975. Differences in Carrageenan in Gametophytes and Tetrasporophytes of
Red Algae. Phytochemistry. 14:1349-1362.

1976. Colonization and Growth of Populations of iridaea and Giga2,tina on
Artificial Substrates. Proc. Intl. Seaweed Smp. (in press).

229

RISK MANAGEMENT IN PUGET SOUND

Joseph T Pizzo
Oceanographic Institute of Washington

RECOGNITION OF THE PROBLEM

The preservation of our environment has been the object of increasing concern by
industry, the public, and the government. The possibility of oil and other haz-
ardous materials spills during transport, transfer, and production operations
clearly represents a potential danger to the natural resources in Puget Sound.
The ecological impacts, however, represent only a part of the total impact. Al-
though the public has become increasingly-aware of ecological considerations,
there is an intense interest in the positive and negative impacts to the human
population and properties.

The risk of an undesirable event is continually growing, due to the increased
activity to fulfill societal needs and demands. The problem is further compound-
ed by a consideration of the socio-economic requirements, the legal implications
and the political involvement of society. The potential adverse impacts on both
social and natural systems and how they can be mitigated offers one of the most
demanding challenges to decision makers in our industrial, scientific, and
political sectors.

These potentially increasing dangers to persons, property and the environment
require prompt and effective actions placing more emphasis on prevention rather
than on clean-up, restoration and litigation. To justify the risk to society by
pollution it is generally stated that the need for the product by society out-
weighs the risks involv6d to the population at large or to the immediate environ-
ment. It is probably assumed that there is enough resilience in the ecosystems
to restabilize or refurbish any imbalances that occur. In any case, we must
realize that there is a cost tradeoff that must be balanced against the benefits
that society gains from the enterprise. The question to ask society is what
level of risk is it willing to accept, along with its consequential results, to
obtain the necessities and some,amenities of daily living.

230

ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF RISK

What is an acceptable level of risk? There are many agencies that are continually
promoting safety programs to reduce accidents, yet people are still willing to
take chances as accident statistics show (Table 1). Methodologies for computing
acceptable risk levels, based on historical accident records have been developed
(Ref. 1 and 2). One of the implications of these studies is that people generally
will accept a level of risk for vol4ntary activities (skiing, flying @moking,
driving a car) which is higher, 10- , than the level of natural mort;l1ty, 10-6.
For involuntary activities (such as work-related risk or natural disasters), they
demand a much lower level, around 10-7 or 10-8 (Figure 1). A factor not discuss-
ed, however, is the difference in involuntary nature of risk,for a person who may
choose to avoid living in an area which is susceptible to earthquake, floods, or
hurricanes; as opposed to the person who considers himself relatively free from
"involuntary risk" yet may be exposed to a massive release of hazardous material.

These studies point out that there is a greater public tolerance of minor disas-
ters, such as automobile accidents or individual drownings, than of accidents
involving the simultaneous loss of many lives, as in the TITANIC or major air-
line disasters. Although a risk analyst may be able to "prove" that this type
of emotional reaction is not rational, the emotion-factor does exist and influ-
ences public acceptance of how regulatory agencies do their jobs. The magnitude
of this factor was made readily apparent in 1969 and 1970 when the Army shipped
obsolete poison gas stockpiles through cities to a disposal point. The ecolog-
ical equivalent was demonstrated in the TORREY CANYON, the METULA, and possibly
in the ARGO MERCHANT.

Determination of acceptable risk levels may require sampling of opinion from any
public and private sectors, to obtain a consensus for development of criteria
for the decision making process. Acceptable risk levels must be-treated as rel-
ative values and approximations. These evaluations can give the decision maker
the ability to evaluate change and provide a basis for comparison of magnitude
involved. Using these approaches we may be able to establish an acceptable risk
level for oil spillage and have some way of making comparisons of estimating the
costs to the individual and to the community.

RISK ELEMENTS AND LOSS FACTORS

Consideration of the losses from an undesired event must include: risks to the
community at large (i.e., the human population at risk, the properties at risk,
the systems at risk, and the environment at risk).

Tanker Traffic and Accidents

In 1974, 516 oil tankers (both crude and product) entered the Puget Sound region.
Most of these went to Seattle, Anacortes, and Cherry Point-Ferndale. There were
slightly more than 3,000 inbound non-self propelled oil tank vessels (barges);
one-third of these went to Seattle.

On the average during 1974, about 50,000 barrels of crude and 150,000 barrels of
refined products were being transferred on Puget Sound waters every day. This

231

Table I SOME U.S. ACCIDENT DEATH STATISTICS (Ref. 1)
1967, 1968

Probability of Death
Accident Total Deaths per Person per Year
1967 1968 1967 1968
Motor Vehicle 53,100 55,200 2.7 x 10 -4 2.8 x 10- 4
Falls 19,800 19,9DO 1.0 X lo- 4 1.0 x lo- 4
Fires, burns 7,700 7,500 3.9 x 10-5 3.8 x lo- 5
Drowning 6,800 7,400 3.4 x 10- 5 3.7 x 10- 5
Firearms 2,800 2,600 1.4 x 10-5 1.3 x 10- 5
Poisoning 2,400 2,400 1.2 x 10- 5 1.2 x lo- 5
Cataclysm 155 129 8x lo- 7 6x lo- 7
Lightning 110 162 6x 10- 7 8X 10- 7

Figure 1 A Benefit-Risk Pattern (Ref. 1)

Class
Of
Risk

Excessive
Disease Mortality Rate
10*2
High
CL 10'3 _
UNACCEPTABLE
10-4 _ ACCEPTABLE Moderate
CL 10' 5 _
Natural Hazards Mortality Rate Low
10'6
10'7 Negligible
10'B
.E

ACCEPTABLE

10 10 2 103 164 10 5 106

Benefits lArbitrary Unitsl

232

means that about 45 tankers, averaging from 15,000-30,000 deadweight tons (dwt),
used Puget Sound ports each month. By comparision during 1976, about 213,000
barrels of crude and 174,000 barrels of refined products were being transferred
on Puget Sound waters every day. The substantial increase in marine transporta-
tion of crude is due to the curtailment of Canadian crude via pipeline. This has
resulted in an increase of crude tanker traffic to the refineries, which will
increase even more-after the Canadian supply is cut off entirely on April 1, 1977
(Ref. 3 and 4).

APPLICATION OF RISK METHODOLOGIES

Risk methodologies have been applied successfully in the past several decades to
complex systems problems in the aerospace, chemical, and nuclear industries. In
the past 5 years these same methodologies have been transferred to the marine
industry. OIW demonstrated this in their 1972 report Risk Analysis of the Oil
Trangort In this report a risk analysis, which is basic
for he ption System (Ref. 5).
sk Assessment Management Program (RAMP) outlined in this paper, was
developed for Washington State. OIW's 1975 report Offshore Petroleum Transfer
Systems for Washington State (Ref. 6) provided risk assessment forecasts of tank-
er casualties and spillage. A strong correlation between the number of casual-
ties and the number of vessel trips for 7 major U.S. ports (including Puget
Sound) was developed (Figure 2) and utilized in forecasting potential number of
tanker accidents in Washington waters to the year 2000. A 1976 report by the
Federal Energy Administration states that a similar correlation has been obtain-
ed between the number of spills and the number of tanker trips. Used properly,
the-results of this type of risk assessment would provide important information
on potential accidents and spillage. To accomplish this decision makers need
additional information on the probable impacts of such spillage, on people, pro-
perty and the environment. From this data preventive actions can be taken. A
total systems approach is therefore considered necessary to review adequately the
hazards of navigational activities to society. The Risk Assessment Management
Program is an approach to this problem.

THE RISK ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (RAMP) AN APPROACH

This paper outlines a Risk Assessment Management Program (RAMP) involving mit-
igating measures and control actions to reduce the risk of hazardous material
pollution in Washington State. The risk methodologies are applicable to all
hazardous materials. Since the current national headlines, public concern, and
discussions have centered around oil pollution, we will illustrate RAMP in terms
of the hazards associated with oil spills from tankers. RAMP includes inter-
disciplinary studies of probabilistic risk analyses, the behavior of spilled oil
on water and land, resources-at-risk, socio-economic effects, and cost/benefit
analyses of development options, and mitigating measures and control actions.

The objective of undertaking RAMP is to aid in the decision process by effective-
ly reviewing the benefits of expanded petroleum activities in contrast with the
costs of controlling and/or correcting hazardous operations that may-have detri-
mental impacts on the environment. The results of this cost/benefit analysis
should be meaningful to decision makers. The basic format for RAMP is outlined
in Figure 3.

233

Figure 2

30 DEL

20
10 P9 C.1 @HE
'LA

2 4 6 10 1@ 14
Adiusted Trips (1969-1972) X101

(PS Puget Sound, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Wash. coast; CI Cook inlet;
LA = Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego; CHES = Chesapeake Bay; SF
San Francisco & Bay; DEL = Delaware Bay; NY = New York, New Haven,
Bridgeport, Port Jefferson; H = Gulf Coast, including Houston)

234
@4LA I

Step 1. Scenario Development

The scenarios that follow assume a level of continuity and stability.

In Washington State, the geographical focus of petroleum activities has been in
Greater Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. (Potential activities on the
outer continental shelf off the coast of Washington (Ref. 4), and those on the
Columbia River and possibly British Columbia waters do add another dimension to
the problem.) Limiting our projections to Greater Puget Sound and the Strait of
Juan de Fuca we have the following basic scenarios:

Traditional market only--refineries in Western Washington serve Washington,
Oregon and Idaho with product.

Transshipment to other markets--facilities in Western Washington serve
additional markets beyond the traditional-market area with crude and/or
product.

Independent deepwater berths--terminals at each of the refineries, inde-
pendently owned and operated, handling crude and product.

Common-use crude oil terminal--a single crude,oil terminal in Washington,
used by all crude oil tankers utilizing Washington waters to supply
refineries, whether in or out of state.

These scenarios reflect the broad development issues now before the public. The
state has struggled with these variations for many years without establishing an
oil transportation policy. The situation is so fluid that the ultimate outcome
is quite uncertain.

Variations of each of these basic elements as well as combinations of them are
reasonable. In a dynamic, iterative program such as RAMP, other scenarios can
be developed and investigated in terms of their consequential effects.

Step 2. Basic System Definitions

This step defines the system to be analyzed during transport, transfer and pro-
duction phases of operations. There are numerous subsystems to be considered if
the transfer and production phases are included. Restricting the system to the
transport phase, however, reduces considerably the number of subsystems to be
considered. Typical subsystems are:

Tankers

Barges
Onshore Pipeline
Submarine Pipelines
Vessel Traffic System

235

Figure 3 Risk Assessment Management Program (RAMP)

(STEP 10)

(STEP 5)
(STEP
PROB 111TY OF
QCCURREME FINDINGS
(STEP M
ACCIDENTS REVISIONS
SPILLS
9AMOUNT
nEFINITION (STEP 4) 0FREOUENCY (STEP 7) NO
(STEP 3) LAUSF-EFEECT COST/HBUIT (STEP 8)
DETERMINATIONS ANAI Yq I S
DELUM_
RFQlIlRF- HARDWARE SYSTEMS 9 RISK ASSESSMENT IS RISK
EC )LOGICAL 0 COST OF PREVEN- ACCEPTABLE?
0 SOCIAL (STEP 6) TION AND CONTROL
(STEP 2) 0 LEGAL - 0 BENEFITS
CONSEQUFNCE OF
OCrl]RRFNrF YES

0 LOCATION (STEP
0 ECOLOGICAL
0 SOCIAL FINDINGS
0 PROPERTIES
RECOMMENDATIONS
RU
RUMIM
EAC S

Step 3. Data Requirements

The logical analysis of any system requires an unbiased data base. Difficulties
arise in determining the validity, the availability, and the adequacy of the
data base. The data base for this program would contain:
System elements
Environmental Factors

Socio-economic Factors
Pathways and Traffic
Safety Requirements
Cost Factors
Federal and State Regulations
Historical Casualty and Pollution Incident Data
Inherent Nature of Hazardous Material

Step 4. Cause/Effect Determination

There are several mechanisms for establishing the relationships between system
elements, cause/effect relationships, environmental impacts, and preventative
or corrective measures.

For example in a Gross Hazards Analysis (GHA) format, failure rates of structural
elements could be considered in the context of the age of vessels, hours of opera-
tion, etc. The objective of this approach is to systematically scrutinize opera-
tions involving hazardous materials while minimizing the budgetary factors of
time and cost.

The format of a Cause/Effect Step Matrix approach can be used to identify such
relationships as:
Facility Component Usage Affecting Activities--Causal Factors
Activities--Causal Factors Affecting Potential Environmental Changes
Potential Environmental Changes Affecting Threatened Environmental Resources
Threatened Environmental Resources and Mitigating Measures and Cost Factors

Network construction depends on dividing the problem in relatable units, that is,
causes, conditions, effects, mitigating measures and cost factors. A stepped
matrix enables a continous portrayal of the use-to-cause-to-condition relation-
ship. The linear attachment of condition to consequent condition to effect to
mitigating measures to costs permits the development of a multiple response net-
work. The framework should be an information source for a comparative evaluation
of both qualitative and quantitative impacts and costs.

Other techniques that are applicable are Failure Mode and Effect Analysis and
Fault Tree Analysis.

237

Step 5. Probability of Occurrence

The primary objective of this step is to determine the frequency and severity 1
potential polluting incidents. Similar analyses can be constructed for oil
transfer and production operations, submarine pipelines, lightering operations
shipment by tank barge, and related industrial developments such as refineries
and tank farms. For purposes of illustration, casualties and spills associate(
with transport operations will be considered.

Utilizing historical data on the number of casualties and the mean number of
casualties per unit of exposure, the probability of the number of casualties ci
be described as a negative binomial density function. This is based on the
statistical theory of accidents, and assumes that the number of casualties is
based on a Poisson process and that the unit of exposure is itself a random
variable with a gamma distribution. This model, in the context of accident
theory, is called the hypothesis of accident proneness.

It was shown in the OPTS study that the number of casualties is directly pro-
portional to the number of vessel trips. Thus, it is possible to accurately
forecast the number of casualties by considering the number of contemplated
vessel trips as the exposure variable. The forecasts will vary from port to
port because of variations in traffic density, port geometry, types of vessel
traffic systems, environmental factors, etc.

The number of casualties leading to spills then can be calculated from histori I
data. Further, the percent occurrence of vessel casualties can be determined I
type of casualty (collisions, groundings, rammings, and other), and by region
(coastal, entrance, and harbor).

An analysis also can be made of accident reduction factors for different types
vessel tracking systems. This includes preventative measures such as bridge-t(
bridge communications, traffic separation routes, vessel movement reporting
systems, and radar.

Step 6. Consequence of Occurrence

Determining the consequential effects on the environment from a pollution incic
is challenging. The variety and range of events resulting from a pollution in-
cident present a formidable array of parameters to examine (Table 2). The maj(
forces that come into play are: the location of the pollution incident; the ir
herent nature of the hazardous substance; the quantity of material; the dynamic
of the environment at the time of the incident; and the success of the clean-uf
effort.

The potential resources-at-risk include people, property, and the environment t
may be affected. To gain a perspective of the possible consequences, Bayesian
Analysis could be used to assess the relative impacts of hypothetical pollutior
incidents under varying environmental conditions. The Delphi Method is also a
useful tool in assessing complex systems. This subjective approach relies on
expert opinion and provides an experiential measure of the consequential effect
on the environment.

238

Table 2

Shoreline Characteristics Aquatic Ecology
T@ pe of Shore Environment Species
Rock5 Mobile
Sandy Relatively Fixed
Estuary Significaril Populations
Size Commercial
Use (Shoreline & Adjacent Wateri) Sport
Commercial Stability
Industrial Diversity
Parks & Recreational Food Chain
Residential Endangered Species
Special Area, Life-History
Scientific Research Areas Habitat Requirements
Wildlife Pieser,e, Breeding Patterris
.'sligration Patterris

Material
Oceanography Type
Flushing Action Crude (Ala,lk.ri@Nliddlc E-0
Wave Height (H,) Product
Current Patterns Quantity Igallons)
Tidal Cycles < too
Subsurface < 1 .000
Prevailing Winds <10@000
Temperature Profile < 100.000
SaJinit@ 'Density <1.000,000
Visibility >1.000,000
Navigational Obstructions Spreading Characteristics
Duratiow Persistence
Evaporation
Weathering
Toxicity
Terrestrial Ecology
Species Clean-Up Efficiency
Significant Populations Oceanographic Conditions
Stability Meteorological Conditions
Diversity Response Time
Food Chain Recovery Ability
Endangered Species Cost/MateriaL'Equipment Availabi@lity
Life-History
Habitat Requirements Aesthetics
Breeding Patterns Odor
Migration Patterns Sight

239

An alternative method of determining ecological impacts is to construct models
which can describe environmental changes. This is a very arduous developmental
program involving state-of-the-art modeling and extensive baseline data collection
(Figure 3).

Step 7. Cost/Benefit Analysis

To facilitate evaluation it is useful to measure the costs and benefits which
would result from each decision. A methodology is necessary to estimate costs to
affected industries, people and property.

The discharge of a pollutant into the environment can produce extensive economic
losses to the public and associated industries. Clean-up operations divert money
and manpower resources from other productive activities. Biological effects de-
stroy valuable fish and wildlife resources. Other losses are direct physical
property damage and indirect loss of the use of recreational facilities including
aesthetic effects. Furthermore, possible litigation costs must be included and
the original costs of installation and upkeep of the facility must be considered.

There are numerous parameters that contribute to the actual losses from a pollu-
tion incident, including such complex factors as location, weather and time of
year. Some of these cost estimates are outlined in Table 3. On the other hand
preventative measures as vessel design changes (double hulls), cargo size limita-
tions, compartmentalization, additional navigational and communication equipment
may introduce a prohibitive financial cost to industry outweighing the benefits.
A set of general criteria that can Oe applied to the risk assessment process could
be developed. These criteria should facilitate the grading of options, strategies,
and alternatives and the determination of their viability in a regional or local
context. One must be careful not to introduce biases by weighing alternatives
that favor one result over another. Questions must be answered such as:

What is the goal in mind, in terms of facility utilization in the
long term and short term time span

What is a tolerant level of pollution

What price/task level is the local community willing to accept

The actual costs require sophisticated economic analyses and detailed modeling of
the environmental effects to estimate the losses. One method of evaluating alter-
natives is cost-benefit analysis. The results of this analysis can be expressed
as the ratio of the cost of implementing the action to the savings resulting from
a particular course of action. If this information is not available, a worst-case
analysis can be constructed.

Step 8. Decision for Alternative Action

At this point a decision is needed to determine if it is necessary or desirable to
either improve the system or refine the analysis. If the risk assessement is un-
acceptable, and time and funds are still available, then the decision is obvious.
If.the risk assessment is acceptable, and time and funds still are available, then
a decision must be made as to whether or not a more refined analysis would be

240

Table 3

COST ANALYSIS

CLEAN-UP COST LITIGATION INDUSTRIAL AND
RESTORATION COSTS FACTORS COSTS RECREATIONAL LOSSES FACILITY COSTS

BEACHES (PUBLIC s LOCATION * FINES s AoUACULTURE 0 PRIMARY FACILITY
AND PRIVATE) DISTANCE FROM SHORE MATERIALs REQUIRED
9 OCEANOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS 0 COURT FEES o RECREATION
MARINAS WIND/WAVES/CURRENT FISHING INSTALLATION COSTS
TIME OF OCCURRENCE o DAMAGE/REPLACEMENT SWIMMING E.G. BREARWATER
VESSEL(S)/ 0 SPREADING/DIFFUSION/ COSTS CAMPING OPERATION COSTS
COMMODITY EXPLOSION/FIRE RESORTS E.G. DOWNTIME
SPILLAGE/LEAKAGE o TIME LoSS/WORK MAINTENANCE COSTS
PORT 9 TYPE OF COMMODITY RECREATION STOPPAGE I INDUSTRY
AND nUANTITY FISHING 0 SECONDARY FACILITIES
OIL 0 INSURANCE SHELLFISH AND OPERATIONS
LNG AnUACULTURE
CHEMICAL DREDGING COSTS
QUANTITY TRANSPORT COSTS
WASTE WATER DISPOSAL
0 PROPERTIES OF COMMODITY a TYPES OF FACILITIES
TOXICITY (PLANTs/FiSH/
ANIMALS/HUMAN$ STORAGE
VISCOSITY REFINERY
SOLUBILITY OrFSHORE DRILLING
EVAPORATION/WEATHERING PIPELINE
ExPLOSIVE/FLAMMABLE PEGASIFICATION
PERSISTENCY TANKERS
THERMAL EFFECTS MDNOBUOYS
(NUCLEAR PLANTS) FIXED PIERS
RESPONSE TIME
o AVAILABLE CLEAN UP
RESOURCES (MATERIALS
AND PERSONS)

worthwhile. If time and funds have been expended, then the analysis of the system
must stop, and the findings and recommendations for further research are summariz-
ed. The decision to proceed with a follow-on program is then determined by the
funding agency.

Step 9. Findings and Proposed System Revision

This step identifies the findings of a given iteration and, based on the findings,
proposes revisions which should, or could, improve the system.

Step 10. Risk Reduction and Control
I
The Risk Reduction\\and Control phase constitutes the action phase of the program.
During this phase,'prevention and control measures are developed to achieve a sat-
isfactory risk assessment. If necessary there will be further iterations of the
program to test these alternative measures.

The degree of elimination or control of hazards results from a tradeoff between
the application of improvements for removal or control of a hazard and the prac-
ticality of assuming the risk. The assumption of risk is, in most cases, a
decision that must be made at the top management level, since some risks could be
sufficiently large to place many parties in jeopardy. Good management projections
concerning hazards and risks must be available for effective reduction of risk.

The decisions to reduce a known risk level may be implemented in many ways,
including:
Improved subsystems; equipment, testing, operations and maintenance;

Diversion of hazardous materials to other modes or systems;

Improved emergency response;

Improved accident/incident and system behavior data acquisition
and distribution;

Improved systems controls, regulations and enforcement actions;

Selection of alternative location(s) for system and operations (where
possible) to minimize environmental risks;

Reducing personnel work loads (i.e., fatigure, physical/mental strains
on certain jobs)

Step 11. Findings and Recommendations

Step 11 would provide:

An identification of the causes and effects of hazards and
hazardous conditions;

A discussion of prevention and control alternatives;

242

A hazard classification to provide a qualitative measure of significance
for the potential effect of each identified hazardous condition;

A logical procedure to assess the risks involved under various conditions.
The risk assessment can be made for either the present or future. This
provides a formal decision-making tool which takes into account all of
the important parameters in the system;

A cost/benefit assessment comparing the effects of reducing risks with
the purpose and utilization of the system.

In summary, a Risk Assessment Management Program can ideally be put into operation
whenever a new technology is introduced, extended or modified. RAMP can provide
decision makers with sufficient information to explore hypothetical situations,
and to adequately assess cost/benefit tradeoff relationships. This information
can assist in anticipating and evaluating the impacts of technological developments
on all sectors of society.

REFERENCES

1. Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October
1975.

2. Starr, C. 1971. "Benefit-Cost Studies in Socio-Technical Systems" Conference
on Hazard Evaluation and Risk Analysis, National Academy of Sciences.

3. Oceanographic Institute of Washington. 1976. Oil in Washington: Applicability
of Models to Marine Environmental Management Questions and Ecological Impacts.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
4. Oceanographic Institute of Washington. 1977. Summary and Analys%of.r1nvAirn-
d Of @h , r,
mental Information of the Oregon and Washington Coastal Zone an @as.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

5. Oceanographic Institute of Washington. 1972. Risk Analysis of the Oil Trans-
portation System. Oceanographic Commission of Washington.

6. Oceanographic Institute of Washington. 1975. Offshore Petroleum Transfer
Systems for Washington State. Oceanographic Commission of Washington.

243

ARE RESEARCH EFFORTS
ANSWERING JMV-Tel I
QUESTIONS?

"T-4 '4@4`-

PROCEEDINGS
March 23-25, 1977
A Washington Sea Grant Publication
AV

University of Washington - Seattle

PUGET SOUND RESEARCH- MAKING RESULTS AVAILABLE

Howard S. Harris
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The session this morning will address two topics:

1. Are present research efforts redundant?

2. Is research really supplying the answers to management questions?

I will restrict my introductory remarks to the second topic, for several reasons.
I have the feeling that current research is not redundant and, for that matter,
some redundancy is not necessarily bad. Some aspects of Puget Sound have been
studied for many years but emphasis has changed as new problems are identified:
we are now looking at the effects of synthetic organics, for example, a relatively
new topic.

Finally, while we may have only scratched the surface in some topical areas, a
long period of research may be required to produce usable results in new areas.
Meanwhile, decisions are being made about the uses of the Sound. While recogniz-
ing the need for additional research, I see an equal need to make our present
knowledge available as a basis for more informed management decisions. I see the
need for making our present research results more readily available.

Le@t's look at the question "Is research really supplying the answers to manage-
ment questions?" This supposes that the questions facing managers and planners
are, in fact, being translated into the kinds of questions typically posed in a
research project. I suspect the true situation is somewhat different. Questions
are not being posed to the scientists by the managers. Rather the scientists are
defining research as they see the need and proceeding on the assumption that the
results will be applicable to the management of the,Sound. This may or may not
be a good assumption.

At this point I must distinguish between various "managers." I am using the word
to mean those whose actions may affect several of,the multiple uses of the Sound,
those that operate in a multidisciplinary or multi-resource context. They may be
at the state or federal level but equally likely at the county or local level of
government. Those concerned with Shorelines Management or Coastal Zone Management

245

are an example. I am not talking about managers of specific resources, such as
the fishery. Managers of specific resources are usually quite aware of,research
in their area and the implications for their particular resource. Frequently
they have access to a scientific or technical staff, a luxury not always available
at the local level.

In addressing myself to the informational needs of managers, I am not overlooking
the needs of others that participate in the management of public resources--the
public, individually and collectively, commercial interests, special interest
groups, elected officials.

Let's suppose that a question or a decision arises from the proposed siting of a
facility near the shoreline. How are we as researchers making available informa-
tion on the marine aspects of the Sound in such a way as to improve the collective
judgment on the siting of the facility? A decision will be reached using the
information at hand. But time may be short, the implications for the resources
of the Sound obscure, and no expert readily available. It is not surprising that
shoreside considerations appear to dominate the decision process--political,
economic, social considerations--for each has its advocates and the consequences
of the decision are considered. How canequal weight be given to marine
considerations?

This problem has bothered our staff from the inception of the MESA Project. About
a year ago we discussed the problem with the Oceanographic Institute of Washing-
ton. They undertook an investigation which led to a report to us entitled "Oil
in Washington: Applicability of Models to Marine Environmental Management Ques-
tions and Ecological Impacts." One part of this work is of interest here, the
part that identified questions facing managers and planners in state and local
government. The Oceanographic Institute used 3 sources of information: Litera-
ture Review, the results of past and current work of the Institute, and, most
important here, personal interviews with 23 state and local government officals.

Their report contains a list of 480 management questions, less than 40% of which
can be categorized as environmental, and not all of those were marine environmental.

It is apparent that the marine environmental management questions were not per-
ceived by these government officials as being the most critical ones raised by
the oil transportation issue. The main concerns of the majority were socio-
economic in nature, centering around land use and the economic dependence or
independence of their jurisdiction or activities on oil activities. "Quality of
Life" appeared to top the list.

The principal marine questions either concerned the impacts of spillage on re-
sources which have commercial and recreational use and importance or revolve
around the central issue of acceptability of risk of damage from such spillage.
However, the questions were expressed in layman's language rather than that of
the scientist, expressed as the synthesis of a large body of knowledge rather
at the level of detail addressed by most research.

While the ON study addressed the specific issue of oil.and Puget Sound, I expect
that the results would not have been greatly different for many other issues--
wastewater disposal, for example.

246

What can be done, beyond recognizing the problem? I start with the assumption
that a great deal is known about the Sound--not all to be sure--but enough to
provide some basis for rational management decisions. If this is true, then we
must make a greater effort to place this information in the hands of those
concerned with the management of the Sound.

I'd like to describe one contribution that the MESA Project intends to make. As
many of you know, the Project is supporting additional research in certain areas
where information is needed and is presently inadequate. But during the course
of this research, we are mounting an effort to synthesize and disseminate presently
available information.

We have approached the University of Washington Sea Grant Program for assistance
in formulating a strategy. We posed 3 questions.

1. Is there a need for a publAcation or series of publications that relate the
state of knowledge about the Puget Sound environment?

2. If such a need exists, what information should be included and how should
the information be presented?

3. What kind of effort would be required to produce the publication or series
of publications?

To address these questions, Sea Grant reviewed a similar project resulting in a
series of monographs on the New York Bight, surveyed potential users around the
Sound, and, with the help of an 18-member advisory board, developed a plan for
a Puget Sound publication series.

The report from Sea Grant concludes that there is a need for a series of publica-
tions, consisting largely of descriptive writing but including some maps and
illustrations, written at a level about equivalent to "Scientific American." A
total of 14 volumes or topics was suggested, topics such as water properties,
circt-lation, geology, shoreline processes, plankton,intertidal biota, fish, bord-
erin(, estuaries and marshlands, mammals and waterfowl, recreation, commercial
fish-ng, demographic patterns, and institutional considerations. Each volume
might run from 30 to 50 pages.

We are now working out the final details of the publication series and it is likely
that it will be underway in a few months. Two to 3 years will be required to
complete publication of the series.

In conclusion, our project is making an effort to bridge the gap between the re-
searchers and the managers. Others here are also concerned with this problem.
Collectively we may approach a solution.

I would like to suggest the following philosophy regarding research on the Sound.
I suggest that research is not completed until results are available in a format
useful to managers and planners, elected officials and the public. In some circles,
this is called technology transfer.

247

There must be a continuing dialog between researchers and managers to develop a
definition of what research is needed, how the results of that research will be
worked up, and on what schedule.

We cannot consider our research completed until the results have been made
readily available.

248

!ANAGEMENT CONCERNS IN PUGET SOUND RESEARCH

lilliam A. Johnson
4ashington Department of Natural Resources

1'his is a rare opportunity to express our views on the use of Puget Sound. I
iope we make the most of it. Bert L. Cole gave the keynote address on Wednesday.
ie identified some of the Department of Natural Resources responsibilities but
to reiterate, the Department is the proprietor of most lands owned by the state
)f Washington, comprising a total of 5 million acres. One million acres is
agricultural land, 2 million acres are forest land and 2 million acres are aquatic
lands.

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PROPRIETOR OF THE LAND

The agriculture and forest lands are managed to maximize the economic return, or
the most dollars to the trusts, such as common schools, university and State
Forest Board lands, etc. The aquatic lands which include the bed of all navig-
able waters, tide lands, shore lands and the state harbor areas, are managed to
maximize the greatest long-term public benefit. This basic difference in purpose
of economic return on trust land and public benefit on aquatic land is required
by the legislature, and as you can imagine provides management an entirely dif-
ferent array of objectives to choose from in adopting land use allocations
and programs.

Organization Scope

One additional difference is that Department of Natural Resources serves a pro-
prietary function and is not regulatory. As the proprietor the Department man-
ages 1,300 miles of tidelands, 6,700 acres of constitutionally established harbor
areas and 2,000,000 acres of beds of navigable waters. To produce the most bene-
fit from these marine lands it is necessary to manage for a multitude of purposes.
Multiple purpose is a management concept that recognizes the primary use but also
provides for compatible secondary uses to maximize the benefit of piTesent and
future generations.

249

Goal s

These concepts of management must be in harmony with the best interests of the
public. We look upon this as a public trust which must:

1. Provide more opportunities for public use of public land

2. Provide greater return of food for cultivating and harvesting
the sea

3. Enhance the state's position as a shipping center

4. Protect biological productivity and natural systems of near-shore
environment

5. Compensate the Public for the withdrawal of lands by private activities
which reduce options available to the public.

Objectives

Public trust concepts are further broken down into operating programs. The
Department management programs can be broken down into these categories.

1. Pub4ic use,in which we have programs in oyster spat collection, beach
marking for boaters, beach walking, beach combing and general enjoyment,
deepwater habitat improvement, shellfish improvement.

2. Aquaculture,the culture of marine organisms in semi-protected waters of
Puget Sound, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. Most common activity is in
clams, oysters, seaweed and salmon. Over 5 million pounds of geoducks
were harvested in 1976 on state land.

3. Commercial use. Approximately 110,000 acres of state owned tideland and
beds of navigable waters are leased. Commercial leases are in harbor
areas for piers, wharves and aides to navigation, water dependent
industry, shellfish removal, booming and rafting and mineral removal.

4. Environmental, educationaZ and scientific reserves. Aquatic land reserves
have been set aside for areas of identified ecological, educational and
scientific importance. Other areas have been identified and set aside as
unique marine areas.

5. Limited use. Certain state owned tidelands are for one of several reasons,
unsuited for public use beach development and the interests of the abut-
ting upland residents are recognized with regard to their utilizing state
owned tidelands for private enjoyment--such as shellfish growing, residen-
tial dock or swim floats.

6. Anchorage area. As manager of bedlands of Puget Sound, the Department of
Natural Resources must allocate aquatic areas to meet demands for moorage.
Small boat harbors will require space along the shores to meet the boater

250

demands. These facilities must be properly located so as not to eliminate
our remaining natural beaches, yet be provided in an area that can with-
stand new traffic and use patterns.

Role of Proprietor

The mechanism by which the Department exerts its control of land use is the lease,
use easement, permits and deeds. The Department's management plan and the use
agreements regulate land use activities over time and space as well as provide an
income return to the public, plus other benefits such as good environment in which
to live. Each lease request must be carefully evaluated for proper siting and
water dependency requirements. For example, commercial use requirements should,
for the most part, be concentrated in areas of first class tide lands and harbor
areas.

With this identification of the role that the Department of Natural Resources plays
in the total management of Puget Sound, I have focused on involvement that we play.
It is the involvement of the proprietor of the land. The uses that Puget Sound
is subjected to are the immediate concern of the land owner. The effect that the
users have on the water and on the land determines the benefits that the people of
this state receive from their land. It is the avowed management objective of the
legislature of this state plus the Board of Natural Resources, that we maximize
these public benefits.

There are many demands placed on Puget Sound; there are demands made on the same
area,-resulting in conflicts. It is these conflicts that require and demand that
the proprietor has good basic information, whether in the way of a management plan,
inventory, or cause and effect information regarding uses so that the manager can
correctly assess and then harmonize these uses. The day when an individual can
block off or set aside a segment of the Sound for personal consumption, whether to
preserve his view or because some adverse impact may occur and based on personal
concerns, object to all other users, is past. We simply must get all the benefits
out of this natural resource that we can, while minimizing the adverse effects on
the environment. We need good data so the manager knows what will be the resultant
action when the decision is to proceed.

Somehow we must all address outselves to the true multiple use concept. This is
like having our cake and eating it too. We must proceed carefully so as to main-
tain credibility with all benefactors but our objective must be to accommodate
the multitude of demands for public use, aquaculture, commerce, etc., to maximize
the public benefit for all the people while minimizing the adverse impact on our
environment. And certainly a part of the answer is effective research and
responsive management.

RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS

Let us now look at the scientist researcher and his relationship with management.
A frequently heard question voiced by natural resource management these days is
"Do our research efforts really answer the questions asked?" In other wordsdol-
lar for dollar, are we, or is the taxpayer, getting what we are paying for? In
order to answer this question as adequately as we possibly can, we must take into
account some of the following research considerations.

251

Is Research Relevant

Are the questions asked by management relevant to the current problems facing
them? It is possible that both management, and the researcher as well, have fail-
ed to do their homework,in other words, obtaining background information to de-
termine the needs for improved management techniques--for example, literature
reviews, field surveys, and the like. These preliminary efforts, as previously
mentioned, would indicate whether a particular question has or has not been ad-
dressed in the past. In addition, if the questions regarding potential research
are not relevant, there is the lack of challenge and/or incentive to the researcher
that must also be considered. As a result, there could be the possiblility of
minimal effort developing and a high turnover rate of qualified personnel to
carry on the work.

Looking at it another way, shouldn't the researcher remain ahead of present day
problems and needs: at least a portion of his work load should be devoted to this
area, to provide incentive. Does management always know exactly what the
problems are or will be?

Priorities

Priority establishment, pertaining to research needs, may also be lacking. Here
management personnel may not be emphasizing or communicating to the researcher or
research unit the most important goals and/or objectives it wishes to carry out.
This would be necessary from a scientist's point of view, in order to prepare
adequate experimental designs and work plans, to implement the research effort.

Procedures

The researchers handling of the following situation may also be a determining fac-
tor in providing the necessary answers to management inquiries. The responsible
scientist must assure management that:

1. A good preliminary background study has been made

2. Correct experimental designs have been developed, given that management
has defined problem and'to what accuracy the answers must be known

3. Adequate work plans have been drawn up

4. Approved and/or accepted methods are being implemented

5. Follow-up procedures have been provided for and carried out.

The researcher is-also responsible for the collection of sound, adequate data. If
this is not the case, then an ever-widening credibility gap will be the inevitable
result with questions remaining unanswered and money wasted.

Completion Data and Distribution

Lack of a pre-determined completion date for any research project may also be a
factor in not providing needed answers to questions instigated by management.
Again, if a designated date of completion has never been set, incentive and

252

challenge for the scientist may be lacking. Realistic determination of completion
date is critical and project leadership is essential. Closely aligned with set-
ting a project completion date is the availability of an effective mechanism to
distribute and communicate the results of research, accomplished to the parties
concerned. Without a workable mechanism (or system)--such as publishing or report-
ing procedures--investment in research is, and always will be, too expensive.

Management Responsibilities in Research

Of increasing concern is whether management is aware of its responsibilities and
willingness to provide the much needed leadership and guidance to channel effec-.
tive two-way communication. The following are just a few thoughts to consider
pertaining to this area:

1. Do management and research facility efforts reflect adherence to sound
management and scientific principles? If so, are the short-and long-term
environmental considerations for the welfare of natural resources well
understood by both parties?

2. The possibility exists that management does not always provide enough
detail as to their objectives, therefore research will not be complete--
in other words, approximations are the result--again, complete answers
may not be possible.

3. Of great importance is need for increased awareness by management that
the questions asked should not reflect the needs of management only
. . the needs of field personnel must also be considered, otherwise
the input may be in such a form as to be useless to those who will
ultimately use the results of research--the field personnel.'

4. Many scientific questions are also very complicated in nature and require
the coordinated effort of several individuals to share the total respon-
sibility for completed research. If handled properly, the probability of
the questions being adequately answered are increased.

5. Responsive, considered feedback from management is essential in building
confidence. Good dialogue is a must.

When studying natural biology there may not be real answers to some of the ques-
tions asked by management; best estimates, or approximations, may have to suffice.

APPLIED RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY

We need to turn to a basic philosophy that will result in the greatest return on
the applied research dollar.

Continuous

To begin with, the system should be modeled--a systems approach. This will re-
quire the close cooperation of an inter-disciplinary team and a leader who is
familiar with the concept. Then the parameter can be clearly delimited, and the
sensitive interrelationships determined. This will enable priority decisions to
be more easily made.

253

A steady, ongoing program, in the long run will produce more information at a re-
duced cost. A uniform, interdisciplinary team approach, organized for the long haul
has the greatest productivity in not only specific information but fall-out types
of information commonly result and come as a bonus. This is difficult to accom-
plish, however, and individual egos may need to be suppressed. All benefits resulting
from planning and management go to the program having continuity.

Continuous Support

Whereas any program having longevity or continuity obviously must have continuous
support, my point here is a level, uniform rate of support, not an up and down,
hot and cold program, but one funded fairly uniformly so a uniform level of activity
can be established and basic information secured. An example is the Department of
Fisheries in studying razor clams and because their program was an ongoing one,
they found razor clams do not move as they had thought, but remained in the same
general area.

Crash Programs

Crash programs do not recognize all of the problems and oftentimes result in a
clear definition of the problem rather than the solution. An adequate program
does need proper funding--uniformity again. Crash programs result in short-term
goals, short-term personnel and generally poor quality and resource i.nformation.

Fundamental

You are all aware that generally the primary barrier to a research project is the
dollar cost and the time required to conduct research. Research projects are gen-
erally associated with a particular site, which is undesirable because study must
be repeated again and again answering the same questions repeatedly. Research
must be conducted on fundamental subjects that can be extrapolated into broad
areas of similar nature. Dredge spoil disposal studies for exam 'Dle, can be extrap-
olated to other proposed sites instead of making complete study on each new site.
This consumes the time and money resources available as mentioned above. Any re-
luctance to accept information from previous studies must be countered by the
scientific community. The scientific community and management must foster and
support fundamental research attitudes. Local government decision makers must be
convinced that Previously attained.information adequately answers local roncerns.

The present regulatory system favors the process of individual project research.
Local government, in attempting to be responsive to concerned citizens, encourages
specific project research that may have limited real value, and due to costs and
time, discourage proponents by eroding away their resources. The learnimg institu-
tions and regulatory agencies often do not discourage this. We must all work to-
gether in this,effort to responsibly answer questions raised by concerned citizens.
Our natural tendency is to appear responsible and proceed with a new study which
we already can predict the results, to quiet the opposition. Ongoing projects
must be reviewed for cause and effect to check earlier predictions, and records
must be kept for future reference. Research must be by class of activity rather
than specific projects, and we must develop a concept of indicators so we can be
predictive rather than reactive. This may be hard to sell.

254

APPLIED RESEARCH NEEDS

Let us review some needs that we have in aquaculture.

Continue and extend basic aquacuZture research. Additional forms of aquaculture
such as oyster farming have been conducted for many years and the techniques of
culture have been quite well perfected for each area where culture has been tra-
ditionally carried on. However, there are many possible improvements which are
needed to improve the economics or achieve maximum survival and quality of product.
These might include increasing survival of oyster seed after planting by fifty
percent or more, controlling or eradicating oyster drills. Obtaining a domestic
supply of oyster seed which would provide for present and all future needs of the
industry. Some of these answers have to be aquired by intensive research while
others might better be accomplished by demonstration activities. Clams and mussels
in the Pacific Northwest have really not, up to this point, been cultured in the
true sense of the word except by one operator on Whidbey Island. On most existing
clam farms harvest is predominately of a natural crop with the farmer expending
most of his effort to prevent losses from natural causes and develop rotational
harvesting schemes. Some farmers are perfecting techniques for clam bed habitat
im'provement; however, a great deal of work would be necessary to establish a re-
liable source of high quality clam seed for both industry and private beach owners.
Considerable evaluation is also desirable to determine those techniques of habitat
improvement that would achieve the greatest enhancement for the most economical
cost. Mussel culture, for practical purposes,must be developed from the beginning,
but can utilize techniques perfected in Europe as well as results of small scale
research currently being carried out in this part of the country. Culture of
crustaceans such as crabs, crawfish and Puget Sound shrimp appear to be technically
feasible but so far have not reached the stage where economic feasibility can even
be evaluated. Their cycle requiring 3 to 4 years before maturity is reached, makes
cultural activities somewhat unfeasible at the present time. However, as world
demand increases for quality sea food products, culture of one or more of these
species may be expected to become technically and economically feasible. The basic
research at the present time on the topics mentioned above should be continuous,
on a study, rather than a crash basis, so that as the time for full-fledged cul-
tural development comes near, enough basic work has been completed so that a pilot-
scale commercial activity can be initiated with confidence.
Resource Inventory

The nature of shellfish resources, both intertidally and subtidally, is fairly well
known. However, there is need for a great deal more inventory work on the inter-
tidal publically owned tidal lands for those species currently having or anticipated
to have high demand. There has been inventory work on the subtidal populations of
clams and geoducks during the past 6 years but while these inventories have fairly
well been located the principal beds, there is much work needed to quantitatively
measure the abundance of the most valuable species in the area from low tide to
60 feet. Inventorying should be prioritized by blocks appropriately situated as to
geogranhic location and depth. In other words at this time a much more comprehen-
sive quantitative survey of geoduck populations in and addition to existing leased
areas would be valuable while an inventory of geoduck stocks lying between 60 and
150 feet should be deferred until just before we can anticipate the need to initate
harvest on these deep water stocks. Inventorying does not mean the covering of
every foot of ground subtidally, but to establish and consistently sample grid

255

patterns that allow reasonable accurate estimations of abundance and for those
species which burrow into the ground, samples to include size and age and sub-
surface substrate conditions. Survey reports should also include other significant
features such as weather and tidal currents as measures of availability or harvest-
ing feasibility. Stock assessment is essential for long-term project success as
well as safeguarding the even flow of the resource to industry and the consumer
public.

There is a need to establish a data bank that would incorporate an electronic data
processing system that would record significant information as mentioned earlier
and which could be retrieved when needed. Much information has been gathered over
the past 6 to 10 years for specific purposes. What is needed is a uniform system
to first gather information comprehensively and then place the data in a computer
system to be retrieved again when needed,thereby extending the usefulness of in-
formation gathered. A classic example that we have today is with horse clams.
You know it wasn't long ago that they were a resource to toss aside so the valu-
able clams could be picked. Not so today. Conditions have changed and if we had
the ability, based on past survey data, to retrieve information such as locations,
water depth, water conditions, etc., our position would certainly be more
advantageous.

Protection of Shellfish Environment

Successful maintenance of viable shellfish populations is highly dependent upon
suitable water quality. The most sensitive phase of life of any of the shellfish
species tends to be during the time of egg fertilization and larval development.
Optimum reseeding requires highly favorable conditions. Marginal reseeding can
frequently take place when conditions are within the tolerance range but not ideal.
However, when excessive industrial pollution or when the presence of excessive
amounts of nutrient material occurs, the water may become toxic. There is a direct
result or a secondary result due to plankton blooms. In these instances, repro-
duction may very well be affected. And if chronic, it could result in serious
degradation of formerly healthy beds.

Another significant problem is where the habitat itself is totally eliminated such
as the unmitigated destruction of a particular habitat by, for example the build-
ing of a marina. Mitigative procedures, such as building a new clam bed in another
area, cannot be expected to completely replace the,loss, but could at least serve
to reduce its impact.

There are still instances where the habitat of the shellfish population is'not
seriously affected but the presence of sewage pollution will preclude the utiliz-
ation or marketing of the stocks of shellfish which are filter feeders unless cor-
rective measures can be taken. The productivity of a particular area may have to
be written off for many years until cleanup of the sewage problems allows marketing
of the species again.

In addition we have allocated areas to shellfish production that are currently not
cultivated and these areas must be protected from degradation through sewage and
industrial outfalls. The Aquatic Land Manager must be very sensitive to develop-
ment on the upland or shore lands that will affect these future aquacultural areas.

256

Population Dynamics

Population dynamics is the scientific study of fertilization, reproduction, growth
and maturity to learn enough of population to predict a harvest pattern. Best
example of this is our geoduck resource where it has been determined reasonably
well what kind of a standing crop there is. We have determined some of the re-
quirements under which spawning and larval development take place but we have not
been able to accurately determine the rate of natural reseeding and although we are
gathering knowledge, we are still somewhat uncertain as to the actual age of matu-
rity of full grown adult animals. Said another way, we are still uncertain of the
age at which growth rate slows down and the effect of population density on mean
annual growth. However, even knowing that we do not have all the information we
3till believe it is logical and we are obligated to attempt to develop harvest
nanagement plans for a sustained yield harvest. Therefore, certain conservative
assumptions have to be made on rates of reseeding and growth to harvestable size.
-xperience will demonstrate how valid these assumptions are; therefore, the manage-
nent plan that we establish at this time will be modified in 3 to 5 to 8 years de-
)ending on the measurement and actual evaluation of results. One must bear in mind
;he possibility that in certain areas significant reproduction may not occur more
;han once in 20 years.

lanagement Plans

'he ingredients were mentioned before under population dynamics. The only remain-
ng concept that needs to be stressed is that a manager cannot wait until all the
nformation is available before some steps are taken to develop or implement a
ianagement plan or for that matter, a limited entry system. Considerable judge-
ient has to enter into the decision and then enough follow-up work done so that
he adequacy of the plan can be assessed, and where inaccuracies are demonstrated,
djustments must be made to take this into account.

ritical Research Needed

ne of the very important areas is for additional research to be done so that there
in be a reasonably accurate assessment of the conditions leading to or-the actual
:currence of time and intensity of spawning and subsequent settlement of the larvae.
t may actually be that the development of a prediction system such as has been
)ne with Pacific oysters will enable aquaculturists to take timely and appropriate
teps to maximum utilzation of the seed stock.

iother area has to do with the assessment of the habitat and if, for example, it
; found that a pest or predator is causing significant damage to the animals, cor-
,ctive stepsshould be taken either if ecpnomically feasible of if the condition is
serious that corrective steps must be taken regardless of cost.

at I am saying is that the use of Puget Sound will increase, no doubt about that.
ere will definitely be impacts from these uses. Our goal in management will be
structure this use to minimize negative impacts. The uses must be conditional
provide for as many activities as possible. We can manage to maximize public
nefit thru multiple use. The simple way out is to manage for a single use, which

257

surely would not tax our capabilities. The real test is to squeeze in more activ-
ities. Multiple use--recognizing a primary use while conditioning secondary uses--
will result in getting more out of this land. The ultimate alternatives would be
to restrict all uses or to have no regulation. Society must be in between these
two extreme alternatives. We face some hard decisions and a tremendous selling
job but we simply must find a way within the regulatory system within which we
must operate, to satisfy concerned citizens, minimize negative environmental
impacts while increasing the uses of Puget Sound.

Accepted applied research is the answer.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank Cedric Lindsay and Ron Westley of the State of Washington, Depart-
ment of Fisheries for their worthwhile assistance and in preparing technical
material on fishery. Department of Natural Resources assistance from Ralph
Beswick, Doug Magoon, Tom Mumford, Jr., and John M. Wirsing is acknowledged and
greatly appreciated.

258

INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

D. Rodney Mack
Washington Department of Ecology

In preparing a shoreline or coastal zone management program, traditional planning
dogma would have one go through a process of the formulation of goals/objectives,
inventory, analysis and plan development and implementation. While there are sev-
eral variations of this basic process.. invariably there is provision for early and
extensive data gathering and analysis, upon which information the planning program
is subsequently based. By and large, the Washington program abbreviated this pro-
cess and proceeded directly into the planning and management phase with an
admittedly cursory data base.

The reasons for this are several: local governments were faced with unrealisti-
cally short deadlines for developing their programs; local expertise in data
gathering and analysis, other than land use data, was largely non-existent; tech-
nical expertise from state and federal agencies and the academic community to
assist local government was generally lacking; and the immediate implementation
of the regulatory aspect of the program (i.e., the substantial development permit
process) caused workload problems that distracted from the less urgent data
gathering efforts.

Local shoreline programs and the information upon which they are based have, with-
out exception, emphasized the land side of the land/water interface. The reasons
are fairly apparent: (1) that's where the action is in terms of,development pro-
posals and day-to-day decision making; (2) the technical aspects of the programs
were invariably developed by local planning departments having expertise in land
use planning; and (3) in this state, with the exception of work done by the State
Department of Natural Resources, very little has been done in developing and im-
plementing planning and management concepts for areas lying seaward of the ordinary
high water mark. In the overall scheme of things, however, I feel that the cir-
cumvention of an extensive information gathering phase at the beginning of the
program has not hurt the program and has probably in fact been beneficial.

I say this after reflecting upon our experience to date and in observing the par-
allel efforts taking place in other coastal states as they develop their respec-
tive coastal zone management programs. Too often, I think, the implementation of

259

management programs is unduly delayed and a certain impetus is lost when the pre-
dominate focus is on developing an increasingly comprehensive and sophisticated
information base. Too often, the implementation of the controversial regulatory
aspect of a management Program is continually deferred until "more and better data
are available," a process we all know can be endless.

I think that in this state we were fortunate, and the authors of the Shoreline
Management Act demonstrated great insight, in that the shoreline permit system was
made effective on the date the Act became effective. It recognized in the Act
that decisions on proposed developments had to be made in the face of less than
perfect information, although it was also recognized that the quality of decisions
would improve as local programs progressed through inventories and regulation pro-
mulgation toward completion and adoption. To a great extent, therefore, the final
local master programs address those issues and contain criterion in response to
real projects that were reviewed and the real decisions that were required during
program preparation.

In contrast, I fear that many coastal states, particularly those not having the
clear broad mandate of our Shoreline Act, will encounter substantial difficulties
in moving from a planning and information phase to an implementory/regulatory
phase.

As indicated previously, the data collection phase of local shoreline master pro-
grarns tended to be, in most jurisdictions, less than optimal'. By law, local gov-
ernment wa@s charged with conducting a comprehensive shoreline inventory to include
but not be limited to ". - . the general ownership patterns of the lands located
therein in terms of public and private ownership, a survey of the general natural
characteristics thereof, present uses conducted therein and initial projected uses
thereof." With the acknowledged deficiencies in the area of "survey of the gen-
eral natural characteristics," the DeDartment has directed significant time and
monies through the coastal zone management program to improve that aspect of the
information base.

That effort, and other related data activities such as our Baseline Program, will
be focussed in our forthcoming Coastal Zone Atlas. The Atlas project has grown
out of an increasingly emphatic demand from planners and decision makers at all
levels of governments and developers in the private sector for a uniform, aq-curate
and sufficiently detailed data base upon which to make decisions and initiate ac-
tivities. The Atlas, being designed and prepared by Drs. John Sherman and Carl
Youngmann in the Department of Geography, University of Washington, will ultimately
include data previously collected but never presented in a mapped format, as well
as data now being collected which has never been available previously. The two
most significant aspects of the Atlas, however, are that it will emphasize infor-
mation that has been subjected to some degree of interpretation (as opoosed to
single geographically distributed data) and that it will present that information
at a map scale sufficiently large (1:24,000) to allow site analysis. The first of
these warrants some elaboration.

The critical test of all information proposed to be included in the Atlas is its
utility in management. For that reason, the Atlas will not contain information
typically found in similar atlases, such as for example the spatial distribution
of various fish and shellfish. That information, while of general interest to the
layman and the practitioner, does not furnish any particular guidance in answering

260

questions about specific proposals. What is needed in management is the additional,
step of professional analysis and judgement of that simple distribution of data to
point out critical areas and a sense of priority or significance of that species
in that area.

We have specified that the Atlas is to be a multi-color, printed product, since
that format is generally felt to be the most comprehensible format available for
both professional and lay persons. We have also attempted to expand the potential
utility of the Atlas information (and the ability to update that information) by
the use of an intermediate digitizing process. With the data thus stored, it will
be possible to display, correlate and analyze various combinations of data (in a
McHargian fashion) and assign various subjectively--determined/weights to the data
to achieve development suitability maps.

One of the major pieces of information to be included in the Atlas is what we term
an inventory of coastal drift sectors. We define a drift sector as a segment of
beach or shoreline within which uninterrupted sediment drift or transport takes
place and which contains within its boundaries all sources of that sediment, both
erosional and depositional. The significance of the data, from a management stand-
point, is the ability to identify critical areas which either contribute to the
sediment flow or are otherwise subject to accretion or erosion. This will,allow
the encouragement of development in areas which will cause minimal disruption of
the natural coastal dynamics system.

A second major study, being conducted by the State Department of Natural Resources,
is a survey of coastal slope stability. Such information has obvious implications
in guiding development away from the most hazardous areas and in providing infor-
mation for taking corrective engineering actions in stabilizing sites for develop-
ment. The Department of Natural Resources is also expanding and expediting their
mapping of basic geological information.

The Washington Department of Game is under contract with the Department of Ecology
to inventory and describe the upland and intertidal habitats in the coastal zone.
Habitat types are classified by soil type, slope, land use, and animals which in-
habit each habitat. The information, when completed, will help significantly to
fill the void mentioned previously related to the natural characteristic aspect of
the local shoreline inventories.

A study of major significance is being conducted for the Department by Mathematical
Sciences Northwest which will describe and map critical areas in Washington's ma-
rine waters. The nature of the study is illustrative of the basic Atlas philosophy
to present information which has been subjected to analysis and judgement. The
critical area study will define and map specific populations which, because of
unique oceanographic conditions, provide the major sources of recruitment for ad-
jacent populations. The second criteria for definition of critical areas are
breeding, nesting, feeding and resting areas, as well as nursery areas.

In addition to these Atlas projects, we have retained the firm of Corff and Shapiro
to develop guidelines for the management of those areas lying seaward of the inter-
tidal area. The study will include an extensive legal analysis of various legisla-
tion pertaining to the marine area as well as'an identification of the various
authorities and responsibilities of the federal, state, and local levels of

261

government. The balance of the study will be devoted to identifying and analyzing
potential uses that may occur in the marine water area, by habitat, and intial
work will be done in recommending guidelines and performance standards which would
apply to those potential uses. Ultimately, it would be desirable that the infor-
mation derived from this and subsequent studies would be used to enhance local
shoreline master programs and would form a consistent body of policy which state
and federal agencies might utilize in analyzing proposals in the marine water area.

In summary, more and better information will not, per se, lead to better decision
making in our coastal zone. Decisions have been and will continue to be made on
the basis of political tradeoffs, on the basis of past precedents and in favor of
the individual rather than the resource. In addition to data quality and quantity,
we need to acknowledge that decision makers rarely have the capability of using
basic data in their deliberations and we therefore need to direct increasing
emphasis on presenting information to the decision maker in a more immediately
usable format.

262

SYMPOSIUM
PARTICIPANTS

V
V
04W
vk@

dim&

PROCEEDINGS
March 23-25, 1977
A Washington Sea Grant Publication
University of Washington - Seattle

Merle Adlum R. Bergstrom
P.O. Box 1209 Rebco Marine
Seattle, WA 98111 1660 Harbor S.W.
Seattle, WA 98116
Rick Albright
Washington Dept. of Game
509 Fairview N.
Seattle, WA 98109 William B. Beyers
Department of Geography
University of Washington OP-10
John W. Armstrong Seattle, WA 98195
College of Fisheries
University of Washington WH-10
Seattle, WA 98195 Steve Bingham
Brown & Caldwell
600 First
Steven H. Aubert Seattle, WA 98104
METRO
410 V. Harrison
Seattle, WA 98104 Lawrence E. Birke
Northwest Pulp & Paper Assn.
555 116th N.E.
Grant Bailey Bellevue, WA 98104
URS Company
4th & Vine Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98121 Lewis J. Bledsoe
NORFISH Center for Quan. Science
3737 15th N.E. #204 HR-20
Clifford A. Barnes Seattle, WA 98105
Dept. of Oceanography
University of Washington WB-10
Seattle, WA 98195 Paul R. Bonin
Pacific Science Center
200 2nd N.
Brian Bebee Seattle, WA 98109
METRO
410 W. Harrison
Seattle, WA 98101 Ralph S. Boomer
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
2625 Parkmont Pl.
William Bendiner Bldg. B3
Applied Physics Lab Olympia, WA 98502
University of Washington HN-10
Seattle, WA 98195

264

Mark Boule Janet Condon
Corff & Shapiro METRO
812 Smith Tower 410 W. Harrison
Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98119

David C. Brubaker Richard Conway
University of Washington IES Business Administration
19925 130th N.E. University of Washington bs-10
Woodinville, WA 98072 Seattle, WA 98195

William A. Bush Michael A. Craig
Wash. State Parks & Recreation Comm. Crowley Environmental Services
P.O. Box 1128 2763 13th S.W.
Olympia, WA 98504 Seattle, WA 98126

Jeffery R. Cadell Joseph M. Cummins
353 N.W. 88th EPA - ReQion X
Seattle, WA 98177 Box 283 -
Manchester, WA 98353

Kenneth K. Chew
College of Fisheries Ray Dalseg
University of Washington WH-10 METRO
Seattle, WA 98195 600 First
Seattle, WA 98104

Karen Clark
METRO Eric Davidson
600 First Thurston Regional Planning Council
Seattle, WA 98104 Courthouse Annex
Olympia, WA 98501

Bert L. Cole
Public Lands Bldg. H. Tom Davis
Olympia, WA 98504 Montgomery Engineers
1301 Vista
Eugene E. Collias Boise, ID 83705
Department of Oceanography
University of Washington WB-10 William A. Dawson
Seattle, WA 98195 Wash. Wildlife Study Council
2029 E. Miller
Seattle, WA 98112

265

Dennis Derickson P.T. Dyer
Snohomish County Planning Dept. Institute for Environmental Studies
Court House University of Washington FM-12
Everett, WA. 98201 Seattle, WA 98125

Chris Dlugokenski Curtis C. Ebbesmeyer
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Evans-Hamilton Inc.
2625 Parkmont Bldg. A 6306 21st N.E.
Olympia, WA 98502 Seattle, WA 98115

Ralph Domenowske Griffith Evans USN(Ret.)
METRO 4005 S.W. Massachusetts
600 First Seattle, WA 98144
Sea,tte, WA 98104

Glen Farris
Andrew L, Driscoll METRO
N.W. Environmental Consultants 410 W. Harrison
219 Madison S. Seattle, WA 98119
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

Richard S. Fleming
Donald Dubois Institute for Environmental Studies
Environmental Protection Agency University of Washington FM-12
1200 6th Seattle, WA 98195
Seattle, WA 98101

Richard H. Fleming
Richard D. Duncan Dept. of Oceanography
Commercial Oyster Hatchery University of Washington WB-10
7736 Yeomalt Pl. N.E. Seattle, WA 98195
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

Rella E. Foley
Alyn C. Duxbury METRO
Dept. of Oceanography & Div. of Marine Res. 17805 210 N.E.
University of Washington WB-10 Woodinville, WA 98072
Seattle, 14A 98195

Michael B. Fraser
Claire Dyckman MRM - OSU
Huxley College 645 S.E. Viewmont
.Unesco Env'l Transactions Project Corvallis, OR 97330
603 38th
Seattle, WA 98122

266

Bruce Frost Cherie Harnden
Dept. of Oceanography Summit School
University of Washington WB-10 10944 23rd N.E.
Seattle, WA 98195 Seattle, WA 98125

Lucille Fuller Howard Harris
Institute of Governmental Res. MESA Puget Sound Project
University of Washington JM-10 7600 Sand Pt. Way N.E.
Seattle, WA 98195 Seattle, WA 98115

Rich Fullner Gary Harshman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Oceanographic Institute of Wash.
P.O. Box C-3755 Seattle Dist. 312 First N.
Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98109

Robert H. Gedney William L. Haushild
7540 N.E. Hidden Cove Rd. U.S. Geological Survey
Bainbridge, Island, WA 98110 1 Washington Plaza
Tacoma, WA 98402

William B. Gillespie
King Co. Public Works Jon Helseth
Rm. 976 King Co. Adm. Bldg. Evans-Hamilton Inc.
Seattle, WA 98104 6306 21st N.E.
Seattle, WA 98115

Charles L Gott
SEA USE P@ogram Douglas A. Hilderbrand
1101 Seattle Tower METRO
'Seattle, VIA 98101 600 First
Seattle, WA 98104

Liz Greenhagen
P.O. Box 1089 K. Holm
Ocean Shores, WA 98569 METRO
600 First
Seattle, WA 98104
Dan Haggerty
City of Seattle
806 Municipal Bldg. Cynthia Jaeger
Seattle, WA 98104 METRO
410 W. Harrison
Seattle, WA 98119

267

Lt. David C. Jarrett Gary Kucinski
NOAA Corps Port of Tacoma
1801 Fairview E. P.O. Box 1837
Seattle, WA 98102 Tacoma, WA 98401

Robert Jeffrey L. Kulzer
Skagit Wildlife Lab. METRO
Dept. of Game 600 First
1100 E. College Way Seattle, WA 98104
Mt. Vernon, WA 98273

Hap Leon
Thomas L. Johnson Pacific Rim Planners Inc.
Oceanographic Inst. of W.ashington 5606 14th N.W.
312 First N. Seattle, WA 98107
Seattle, WA 98109

Patricia Levison
William A. Johnson Summit School
Div. of Marine Land Management 3818 Linden N.
Dept. of Natural Resources Seattle, WA 98103
Olympia, WA 98504

Bill Liechty
Bill Karp Water Su 'poly & Waste Section
College of Fisheries DSHS MS 4-1
University of Washington WH-10 Olympia, WA 98504
Seattle, WA 98195

John H. Lincoln
Gerry W. Kelly Dept. of Oceanography
Weyerhaeuser University of Washington WB-10
5401 W. Mercer Way Seattle, WA 98195
Mercer Island, WA 98040

Edward R. Long
Gary L. Kline MESA Puget Sound Project
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service NOAA
2625 Parkmount Lane Bldg. B-3 3711 15th N.E.
Olympia, WA 98502 Seattle, WA 98105

Ronald Kopenski Maureen Loomis
MESA Puget Sound Project 856 S. Central #9
NOAA Kent, WA 98031
3711 15th N.E.
Seattle, WA 98105

268

Phillip Loomis Robert Matsuda
856 S. Central #9 METRO
Kent, WA 98031 410 W. Harrison
Seattle, WA 98119

Ed Lukjanowicz
NAVFAC Terry McCann
Bldg. 5B 2nd Floor City of Tacoma Planning Dept.
Seattle, WA 98115 Rm. 335 County-City Bldg.
Tacoma. WA 98402

P.S. Machno
METRO John C. McConnell
600 First Washington Dept, of Ecology
Seattle, WA 98104 4350 150th N.E.
Redmond, WA 98052

Rodney Mack
Washington Dept. of Ecology Richard F. McGinnis
Olympia, WA 98504 Dept. of Biology
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, WA 98447
Doug Magoon
Div. of Marine Land Mgmt.
Dept. of Natural Resources Cam McIntosh
Olympia, WA 98504 Oceanographic Inst. of Washington
312 First N.
Seattle, WA 98109
Brian W. Mar
University of Washington FX-10
Seattle, WA 98195 Mariam L. Meacham
Jefferson Co. Shoreline Comm.
P.O. Box 92
Ann Mat-tin Hadlock, WA 98339
Dept. of Comm. Dev.
306 Cherry
Seattle, WA 98104 Katie Mills
City of Tacoma Planning Dept.
Rm. 335 CountY7City Bldg.
R.D. Martin Tacoma, WA 98402
Urban Planning
University of Washington JO-40
Seattle, WA 98195 Gary R. Minton
URS Company
4th & Vine Bldg.
Steve Martin Seattle, WA 98121
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, WA 98124
269

Robert J. Morrice Carol Ovens
METRO Division of Marine Resources
410 W. Harrison University of Washington HG-30
Seattle, WA 98119 Seattle, WA 98195

Jim Mullan Richard Page
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service METRO
2625 Parkmont Bldg. A 600 First
Olympia, WA 98502 Seattle, 14A 98104

Thomas F. Mumford, Jr. Spyros Pavlou
Dept, of Natural Resources Dept. of Oceanography
Olympia, WA 985014 University of Washington WB-10
Seattle, WA 98195

Lawrence C. Murdock
Oceanographic Inst. of Washington Larry L. Peterson
312 First N. METRO
Seattle, WA 98109 600 First
Seattle, WA 98104

Stanley R. Murphy
Division of Marine Resources Joseph T. Pizzo
University of Washington HG-30 Oceanographic Inst. of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195 312 First N.
Seattle, WA 98109

Ahmad Nevissi
Fisheries Center Robert Rath
University of Washington WH-10 Oceanographic Inst. of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195 312 First N.
Seattle, WA 98109

Annette Olson
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Raymond Reilly
Rm. 990 Federal Bldg. MESA Puget Sound Project
Seattle, WA 98174 NOAA
3711 15th N.E.
Seattle, WA 98105
John Osborn
EPA
1200 Sixth Jeff Rice
Seattle, WA 98101 URS Company
4th & Vine Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98121

270

T.G. Rice Betsy Shedd
METRO Summit School
13555 Roosevelt Way N. 202 13th E.
Seattle, WA 98133 Seattle, WA 98112

Katie Robertson David H. Shinn
856 S, Central.#9 City of Seattle
Kent, WA 98031 310 Arctic Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98104

Admiral James S. Russell
7734 Walnut S.W. Ruth Shnider
Tacoma, IIA 98498 URS Company
4th & Vine Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98121
Florence Sands
Pacific Science Center
200 2nd N. Kent Short
Seattle, WA 98109 National Weather Service
1700 Westlake N. Rm. 728
Stanley S. Saxton Seattle, WA 98109
METRO
600 First Chris Smith
Seattle, WA 98104 Shorelines Hearings Board
#1 South Sound Center
William R, Schell Lacey, WA 98504
College of Fisheries
University of Washington WH-10 Mike Smith
Seattle., WA 98195 City of Tacoma
Rm. 335 County-City Bldg.
Saskia Schott Tacoma, WA 98402
Inst. for Marine Studies
University of Washington HA-35 R.N. Steele
Seattle, 'AA 98195 Pacific Coast Oyster Growers Assn.
239 Chuckanut
Jack Serwold Blanchard, WA 98232
Shoreline Community College
16101 Greenwood Carol Stephenson
Seattle, WA 98133 N.W. Pulp and Paper
555 116th N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004

271

Susan Sugai James A. Vaupel
Laboratory Radiation Ecology Olympia School District
University of Washington WH-10 Capital High School
Seattle, WA 98195 2707 Conger
Olympia, WA 98502

Robert G. Swartz
PIETRO Marvin Vialle
410 W. Harrison Washington Dept. of Ecology
Seattle, WA 98119 Olympia, WA 98504

Bruce Thelen Ronald E. Westley
NOAA Washington Dept. of Fisheries
1801 Fairview E. Box 600 Pt. Whitney Rd.
Seattle, WA 98102 Brinnon, WA 98320

Ron Thom Cecil M. Whitmore
College of Fisheries METRO
University of Washington WH-10 600 First
Seattle, WA 98195 Seattle, WA 98104

Nancy Thomas Cecil Wingert
Washington Environmental Council College of Fisheries
107 S. Main University of Washington WH-10
Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98195

Thornton Thomas Roger Wolcott
Trust for Public Land U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 216 2625 Parkmont Bldg. A
Bellevue, WA 98009 Olympia, WA 98502

Richard D. Tomlinson John R. Yearsley
METRO EPA Region X
410 W. Harrison 1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98119 Seattle, WA 98101

Richard W. Tyler Jon Young
University of Washington Oceanographic Inst. of Washington
6215 N.E. 153rd 312 First N.
Bothell, WA 98011 Seattle, WA 98109

Geor e Yount
2162? 92nd W.
Edmonds, 14A 98020

272

6668 14106 2408