[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
INVENTORY OF WETLAND RESOURCES AND EVALUATION OF WETLAND MANAGEMENT IN WESTERN WASHINGTON 7 -7-repare- - Prepared by Marc Eo Boule' Nancy Olmsted Tina Miller SHAPIRO AND ASSOCIATES, 1812 Smith Tower Seattle, Washington 91 INC o 8104 THIS R 'POIT WAS 1NAtCIEO GY A GRANT L~oROM TH WASChINGtONP StATEg O)E,ARPTNNtM O ECOLOG'P WITH N*No6 IKlrO. Te Nr1KONAL OCCANi *40 A;TNOSPHERIC AOMtNISTr�T.n. .ND AP.P. .I.T .Fl SCTO1' 306 7 THE COASTAL~ ZONEANAGE'MENT ACT OF 1972. June 1983 JOHN SPELLMAN DONALD W. MOOS Governor Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-11 a Olympia, Washington 98504 � (206) 459-600 August 2, 1983 Dear Reader: - ..- The Shoreline Management Act, begun as an initiative ot' the people of Wash- ington, became law in 1971o It found that shorelines, including wetlands, are among the most valuable and fragile of the state's natural resources. The Act directed state and local governments to develop programs for shoreline management and protection. The 1976 federal Coastal Zone Management Act contained similar directives and provided funds to coastal states to implement management programs. The attached report examines the success )f the Shoreline Act over the last dozen years in protecting wetland resources in the 15 counties that constitute Washington's coastal zone. This report i.- one part of an overall evaluation of the state's shoreline/coastal zone mar, gement program. Other aspects of the program evaluation are public perception, coastal access, and master program analysis. For additional information, contact Don Peterson, Super- visor, Shorelands Planning, at (206) A59-6282. Sincerely, William Obert Shorelands Planner WO: sa TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION Purpose Authority II. STUDY AREA III. METHODOLOGY 2 4 4 5 6 I 7 A. Inventory 7 B. Trends -_12- -: ..... - Pergam-Evalua-t-irO . --1 t 4 - - - - i.L---Other ADProaches.-_ ; ..-.-.----.- .IV RESULTS is A. Inventory 15 B. Trends 23 C, Program Evaluation 34 D. Other Approaches 49 V. RECOMMENDATIONS 53 . APPENDICES A - County Inventories B - Trends List of Figures Western Washington,'Location of Eight Study Areas Figure 1 25 List of Tables Table I Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 & 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Summary of Wetlands Inventories for County Coastal Zone Atlas Land Cover/Use Types Correlated to National Wetlands Inventory Maps Categories Total Acreage Covered by Inventory Summary of Wetlands Inventories for 15 Counties Vegetated Wetlands Inventoried Some Changes in Wetlands in Willapa Bay Estuary 1905-1974 Plan's, Ordinances, and Regulations Used to Control Development in Wetlands 10 11 17 19,2 0 22 33 37 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study was threefold: . To develop a comprehensive inventory of wetlands and determine the trends in wetlands development-during the last 100 years in western Washington; , to evaluate the effectiveness of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) in protecting the wetlands of western Washington; and � to identify improvements to SMA or other programs which might increase the effectiveness of wetlands protection efforts. Existing information in -the-:form:of-maps, reports,,and inventories-:were., used to prepare'the inventory nd analyze the trends-_in wetland losses. A- :....: questionnaire: an& interviews twith :local: shorel-ineplanners were-the pri nc- ....?-a - norain sou rce ~dT6~-la th&: ieT-~ei h&Management--Act.- The inventory covers approximately 46% of the 12,000,000 acres in the 15 coastal counties of western Washington. Almost 235,000 acres of wetland habitats were identified in that area, of which about 67,000 acres are vegetated wetlands (marshes and swamps); the remainder are open water, unvegetated shore, or aquatic bed habitats. About one-third of the vegetated wetlands of western Washington are estuarine marshes. Another one-third are forested and shrub swamps. Emergent estuarine wetlands tend to be much larger than palustrine emergent wetlands. There are a greater .number of palustrine wetlands, however. As a result, the total area of palustrine wetlands is much greater than estuarine wetlands in western Washington. The jurisdiction of both federal (Section 404) and state (SMA) regula- tions governing development activities in wetlands is determined by mean annual flows; thus, the size of the watershed supporting a wetland area often determines whether it is protected. Using runoff calculations, it is possible to estimate which wetlands would be regulated under which programs. In King County, for example, 500 distinct wetlands encompassing over 6,600 acres are not protected by either the SMA or Corps 404 jurisdiction. This comprises 76%-of the total palustrine wetlands in King County. If this trend holds for all counties, large areas of wetlands are presently unprotected. The trends analysis indicates several types of development activities have been responsible for decreases in wetlands in western Washington. The rich organic soils of palustrine and tidal freshwater wetlands made them prime areas for conversion to agricultural uses at the time of early set- tlement. In a few areas (notably, the Duwamish and Puyallup estuaries) the demand for industrial development led to conversion of estuarine wetlands to port facilities. The Puget Sound bays showed dramatic losses between 1900 and 1940. In the Snohomish Estuary, as much as 150 acres per year were con- verted to agricultural uses; in Commencement Bay, an average of 75 acres per year were filled. The trend of wetland loss has slowed substantially since 1940 in most areas; however, the wetlands of Commencement Bay and the 2 Duwamish Estuary have been virtually eliminated. The coastal bays, Willapa and Grays Harbor, showed more dramatic changes in wetlands since 1931 with little loss prior to that time. The coastal systems show both increases and losses of wetlands over time, as a result of dredging or filling activities and natural changes altering these areas. Many lake shore wetlands have been dredged or filled as part of residential development around the lakes. Interviews with over 30 shoreline planners indicated a general satis- faction with Shoreline Master Programs with respect to protection of coastal wetlands. Many of them, however, were interested in expanding the jurisdic- tion, recognizing that many wetlands were not protected. Other concerns which were raised included difficulties with the definition of "associated wetlands" and coordination problems with state and federal agencies. The planners offered numerous suggestions about improvements they would like in the shoreline management process. 3 I. INTRODUCTION The perception of wetland values has changed considerably in recent years. At the turn of the century, wetlands were termed "wastelands" and the Swamp Acts were passed by Congress to assist local jurisdictions in reclaiming these areas for productive-uses. Dredging and filling for port facilities and diking for agricultural purposes were the most common forms of reclamation. During the 1950's and 1960's, the physical and biological functions of wetlands began to be recognized. Wildlife habitat, floodwater storage and high biomass production were some of the first values to be identified. With this change in perception, wetland areas have become the center of numerous conflicts between economic development and habitat preservation ;.interests. Furthermore, the value of wetlands to these interests has changed as a- result of- the changing needs and values- of society. In -- . : .- esponset.:sa-e:cosuts of -In establisheaVb-y the federal, state--andlocal agencies to identify-Wnd con- sider the public interest and resolve conflicts between-the interest groups. The intent was to ensure responsible management, to encourage the beneficial use, protection, and development of natural resources, and to achieve a balance between wetland preservation and the need for economic development. The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was one of the first of these regulations to specifically identify wetlands as areas requiring special attention and protection. The guidelines for development of master programs under SMA (WAC 173-16) describe important wetland func- tions and recognize the fragile nature of these ecosystems. Many local jurisdictions gave special attention to wetlands while developing their Shoreline Master Programs. This attention was reflected in conservancy and natural environment designations and severe restriction of activities in wetland areas. Purpose It has now been over 10 years since SMA was enacted. In addition, a number of other federal, state, and local regulations have been established which may influence development activities in wetlands. In that time, implementation procedures have been developed and refined, regulatory per- sonnel have been trained, and in some cases legal issues have been contested and refined. The regulatory structure has resulted in a level of wetlands management and protection that did not previously exist. At the same time, conflicts regarding the role and interplay between federal, state, and local levels of government have resulted from the differing points of view held by each. Although the difficulties of the regulatory processes and the conflicts between agencies have frequently been discussed, there has been little analysis of the effectiveness and success of programs established to protect wetlands. Furthermore, little is known of wetland losses either before or since the establishment of these regulations. 4 The purpose of this report is threefold: o Determine the present extent of wetlands within the Washington coastal area and the historic trends in wetland losses. o Evaluate the effectiveness of SMA and other wetland protection programs. o Identify improvements to SMA or other programs which might increase the effectiveness of wetlands protection efforts. Authority This study was supported by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDE) with funds provided by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource ._Management (OCRML OCRM was_estabLished-by- the Coastal Zone--Management- Aet .- .. - �- ' - (CZMA) of 1972 to assist the: states in preparing and implementing programs -- - i�:--to regulate deveoezt.ac~tfvitiesin Athe CoastaI-Zone-ieAn.important aspect - - ,: : '!of ..f:mpTeme.an.el- =-:en- .- programs. This study is one of several being conducted by WDE to assess the results of over 10 years of regulation under the Shoreline Management Act. 5 II. STUDY AREA The 15 coastal counties of western Washington were selected as the study area for this project. The major reasons for selecting this area were: � These counties comprise Washington's coastal zone � Development pressure � Predominance of wetlands � Availability of data The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was enacted to assist states in regulating development activities in their coastal zone. Traditionally the coastal zone has been defined as the marine shoreline. Under SMA, however, ----7.....the-shorelines--of-most-rivers and lakes were included within the jurisdic-.. � _tion. Thus, virtually all the_countiesaof Washington have developed shore, 7-- : Droras-.7;Nonethe-less; the -em!phisis. of ~SMA as f'o-s_tered -by,OCM-L: -has beenon the coastat-ounties; It should sbenoted that-over 60%of- ..... Washington's population is located in the coastal counties. As a result, this is where development activities are concentrated. Preliminary evidence indicates that the majority of Washington's wet- lands are located in western Washington. The estuaries of Puget Sound and the Coast are recognized as major wetland areas. Numerous lakes also support nearshore wetland areas. Finally, the substantially greater rain- fall in western Washington suggests there is more water available to create wetlands. The existence of substantial information on wetlands in western Wash- ington is the final reason for limiting the study to this area. Numerous site-specific studies exist, WDE has completed an atlas of the coastal shoreline, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is conducting its National Wetland Inventory (NWI) in this area. Thus, there is a diverse collection of data on which to base an analysis of the presence and loss of wetlands. 6 111. METHODOLOGY A. INVENTORY Introduction The objective of this portion of the study is to provide a comprehen- sive and consistent inventory of wetlands habitats, and to deter-mine their extent and distribution in the 15 coastal counties. This involved consoli- dation of a number of different inventory documents into a single wetland data base.' Data on the wetlands of coastal Washington vary considerably with location; there is no single complete inventory of the region. Exist- ing studies vary in detail, complexity, area of coverage, accuracy, and other factors. The purpose of this inventory was to standardize the in- ____ ~~formation tD one cl-assification_system and to resolve the difficulties of overl appi nq -data and ga6psi between studies. - -- The objective was to develop a wetlands inventory useful to resource managers an-d local governments. To do this, it is important to choose measurable parameters from the data available, which provide the most valuable information. This allows comparison of one wetland to another and one area to another. The following factors were considered: Wetlands size, type, and distribution. This is information common to most inventories and is of greatest interest in providing a general overview of wetlands. It is necessary to determine if size is a criteria far'-.4dentifying a wetland as unique. Is anything larger than 10'acres or 100 acres unique? 'It is also important to determine which types-of wetlands are commnon and which types need more protec- tion (e.g., emergent vs. forest swamps). It is also important to ascertain where most of Washing-ton's wetlands are found. Are they concentrated in lowland areas or along coastlines? �Areal extent of wetlands. Numerous inventories give acreage figures making it necessary to determine which information is of greatest value in a regional inventory, without excessive duplication of existing information. �Watershed size. This is valuable information since is correlates with the annual flow of a stream. Mean annual flows determine the jurisdiction of both federal and state wetlands regulations. Overlaps and Gaps Many studies overlapped in coverage, especially between site specific studies and regional studies. If the figures were just combined and summed, there would be double counts and inflated numbers. Thus, in the case of overlap, it is important to determine which study to use and which to ignore. This inventory was limited to existing reports or mapping projects, leaving gaps in coverage. There are large areas where no wetland surveys have been completed. 7 Factors to Consider In determining what sources were the most accurate and comprehensive the important factors to consider were: .scale � accuracy - degree of field investigation � type of information - size, type, distribution � age of inventory In most studies wetlands were identified by aerial photograph inter- pretation. The amount of detail available is dependent on the scale (e.g., using 1:24,000 vs. 1:50,000 photos). Several studies field checked their data with following up on-site visits, increasing their accuracy. The more detailed the information in a report, the more valuable it was to this inventory. Studies where type an-d ize of:achwetlandrhadt_al-ready-been :-- calculated.were of greatest value,,--Older inventories:.will-be less accurate - ~~~-w 'bTl.hueirf1 -.--- '- e-____ ___ Data Manipulation This inventory was collected from the following sources: (1) Wetland inventory projects completed for specific locations. These had first priority, since they were generally completed at a large scale and have been extensively field checked (see Appendix A - County inventories for specific sites). (2) County wide inventoriet completed in King and Skagit counties. These inventories provided size, distribution and, in King County, watershed size of wetlands for a large area. (3) Washington Coastal Zone Atlas (CZA) - Department of Ecology. Information was available for 12 counties, where land use coverage extends from a point approximately 30 feet below mean sea level shoreward to the beach and inland for 2,000 feet. CZA data has been field checked and has a computerized summary of areal extent. (4) National Wetlands Inventory Maps (NWI) - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. NWI mapping is available for much of Puget Sound and other areas. There was very little field verification, however, and no wetland acreages were calculated. It should also be noted that the classification systems used to de- scribe wetland types may vary. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) developed an early classification as a part of Circular 39 (Shaw and Fredine, 1956), the first nationwide inventory of wetlands. In 1976 the U.S,. Geological Survey (USGS) developed a landcover classification system for use in aerial photograph interpretation (Anderson, et al, 1976). This was adapted by the Washington Department of Game (WDG) for the Snohomish Estuary (Burrell, 1978, the Coastal Zone Atlas, and other inventories). A similar adaption of the USGS system has been used by SHAPIRO in its numerous inventories. This study defined wetland types in accordance with the Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats of the United States 8 (Cowardin, et al., 1979). It is a hierarchical system with major categories for headings (e.g., estuarine, lacustrine, and palustrine) and extensive subheadings down to specific substrates and life forms. Wetlands are class- ified by plants (hydrophytes), soils (hydric soils), and frequency of flood- ing. This classification was developed as part of the National Wetlands Inventory. The NWI system was selected because it is becoming a nationwide standard and has the greatest land coverage. Data Presentation The numerous existing inventories offer a'wide range of information, and yet, still may lack important information. Furthermore, they do not provide comprehensive coverage for the area of interest to this study. The available information was consolidated to create a single comprehensive wetland inventory which is consistent for the 15 coastal counties. Not all the information df interest was available for every county. Each county was completedi, however-=to- the -extent possible given the available data.- - - -- -- - -r r.--r~ - - .~ r - - - - ------- _ - -. - = - 7- - 77' - 7-. '- -. - -~~~~~~~~~~~~a -V - Dntafh e-ory wer"seleceT7 to fulfill important management considerations. These data are: . Wetland Type . Total Area o Size Distribution � Watershed Size Table I illustrates how the data are presented. Appendix A is the completed inventory for 15 coastal counties. The reasons for including each data type are discussed below. Wetland type is based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classi- fication (Cowardin et al., 1979) developed for NWI,. As noted previously, this classification is becoming the standard for wetlands throughout the country. It is possible to convert other classification systems to the NW! classification. That conversion has already been developed for the Circular 39 and SHAPIRO classification systems. The CZA land cover/use types were converted to the NWI categories as shown in Table 2. The categories of size distribution suggested are based on wetland evaluation methodologies developed by King County and the Corps (Reppert, et al., 1979). In King County, one of several necessary criteria for an "out- standing" wetland is an areal extent greater than 10 acres. The Corps notes that wetlands greater thani 100 acres have a "high" water purification value. Thus, these two size categories are probably important in determining wet- land values. Watershed size is an important factor determining the mean annual flow of a stream. Mean annual flow is the factor determining jurisdiction under a variety of wetlands regulations. Using the simplified runoff calculation identified in Section 404 Regulations (33 CFR 323.2h), the Corps has deter- mined that in Western Washington a 2,000 acre watershed develops a mean annual flow of about 6 cfs. This is the maximum flow for the "headwaters" of a stream as defined in Corps regulations. Wetland fill activities in headwaters areas are covered under a nationwide permit and do not require an 9 I. Table I SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FOR Size Distri-bution (nI/acres) COUNT Y Watershed Size (acres) Wetland- Type Total Area I >100 I I .,,jnnn qnnn__Qnnn _.onnn <2001 0 2UUU-8UUU >8uuLJ (Acre s) <10 J.u- 1uu Estuari ne, Intertidal 2 Beach Substrate2 Emergent I Forested Subti dal Aquatic Bed Lacustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent h Palustrine Open Water Aquatic BedI Emergent Scrub/Shrub"I Forested Total n=number of wetlands~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I beach substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) flat, rocky shore, beach bar (Ha n0al~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I H.I 0 Wetlands Inventory) Table 2 COASTAL ZONE ATLAS LAND COVER/USE TYPES CORRELATED TO NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAPS CATEGORIES (Classification system is from Cowardin, et al., 1979) National Wetland Coastal Zone Atlas Inventory Wetland Legend Land Cover/Land Use ESTUARINE Intertidal flat beach substrate - 63 - ~-:-:-. --~b-ea'ch/bar :-:- :�' ?~--- -< -beach --substratet' 63 ~~~~~.__2____o-_e__ -.-_.__ IO~. ...-- .-becJ -h:bst'::a'teL- ,...6 :~ ......._--_ emergent salt marsh - 623 salt meadow - 625 brackish marsh - 626 scrub/shrub bog - 624 forested brackish swamp - 612 Subtidal aquatic bed seagrass - 627 kelp community - 628 other algal community - 629 PALUSTRINE Emergent inland freshwater marsh - 621 coastal freshwater marsh - 622 Forested freshwater swamp - 611 bog - 624 I individual Corps 404 permit. Fill activities in all other wetlands do require a 404 Permit. Using the same calculation, an 8,000 acre watershed would develop a mean annual flow of 20 cfs, the lower limit of jurisdiction under SMA. B. TRENDS Introduction The purpose of this task is to analyze the changes in wetlands in selected areas of the 15 coastal counties of Washington State. The extent of wetlands is altered by both natural and human imposed processes. Com- mencement Bay represents an area of massive alteration to the wetlands due to human intervention. On the other hand, much of the historical intertidal -reas may= change to marshland or-open water over-time depending on-the. �. -= ; natural changes -in hydrology of=-a-region. By-studyTh- hi�torical develop- -m~nsscgedgng ~k-iifl,L eatnaor idsr-_-activi: ties -nd-rreTatThg -them -i'th- the wetland-changes;--one can better-estimate . the impacts of further development in a region. In order to determine trends in wetland conversion, it is necessary to know the extent of wetlands not only in-the present, but also at several times in the past. Although these data are fairly comprehensive-for the present, they are extremely limited for the past. Historic data can be developed from interpretation of historic maps and aerial photographs; how- ever, these sources are limited and the process is extremely time-consuming. Furthermore, with the increasing concern about and knowledge of wetlands, many areas identified as wetlands today may not have even been recognized historically. [This'was noted in Skagit County (Raedeke et al., 1976) and the Snohomish Estuary (SHAPIRO/Driscoll, 1978). It can also be seen by comparing the results of the first U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland inventory (USFWS, 1954) with those of NWI.] Few analyses such as these have been conducted to date in the State of Washington. Bortleson, et al. (1980) determined the changes in wetland extent between the 19th century and the present for 11 Puget Sound deltas. That work did not identify trends, however, since no data were developed for interim years. A recent study of the geology of Commencement Bay (Hart- Crowser, 1981) presented a series of maps comparing the extent of wetlands in the Puyallup Estuary for 1880, 1924, 1949, and 1978. No areal extent or trend data were developed, however. The only published information on trends in wetland losses is that prepared for the Snohomish Estuary (SHAPIRO/ Driscoll, 1978). In an unpublished study, however, SHAPIRO (1982) developed preliminary trends of wetland losses in Lake Washington, Commencement Bay, and Grays Harbor. This work involved a review of existing literature and planimetry of historic maps and photographs. A substantial discussion of the trends in wetlands development was also prepared as part of this work. Data Analysis The changes in wetlands of western Washington were analyzed by com- paring the acreage of marsh on maps published in three years for the same location. 12 For Tacoiiia and Chehalis Regions. First, the acreage of marsh was measured on the 30 minute USGS topographic map dated in early 1900's. Second, the wetlands which showed up on the 30 minute map were measured on the 15 minute USGS maps (circa 1930's). The third step in the process was to calculate acreage of marsh from the 7.5 minute USGS quads (circa 1970's). In taking the measurements from the 15 and 7�5 minute maps, it was recog- nized that small (< one acre) wetland parcels may not have appeared on the 30 minute maps for one of two reasons--Cl) the marshes have been created since the early 1900's when the 30 minute map was published, or (2) the wetland may-have existed in 1900; however, the size of the wetland was sufficiently small so that it did not appear on the small scale 30 minute map. This second reason was assumed to be the case for tiny wetlands (< one acre); therefore, they were excluded from the trend analysis to prevent bias and unreal impression of overall increase in wetlands since 1900. Each of the marsh areas measured was compared on all three maps before using them as ~ --.acreage-fi-gures-fm--the,trend-rfalysi is--x-DseveraT-nStancesT:a-n- extensive: ....:mash area 'ppired on the:7.5: minute quad,.-which...had7 not appeared on the _ . --othermaps:I.-thsssLthe~acreage .wasi!assumed':'e-new.C jaed ; --- marsh and the number-V6s left in the-analy�I-S -_ For Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. Navigation charts for selected years since early 1900's were compared for both Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor estuaries and acreage a marsh were calculated for both locations. The intertidal and open water areas were also calculated for Grays Harbor in order to better determine the extent and cause of changes made in that estuary. Human activities such as dikings, filling, and dreding were determined. The maps were closely examined to determine the cause for the changes in wetlands. Marsh area lost due to diking was calculated for both bays. Other sources were consulted to confirm the time and extent of dreding, filling and dredge disposal activity in the estuaries0 A record of the type of activity and the wetland change was made where possible; some of the damages could not be accounted for and were included only in the marsh totals. Chehalis and Tacoma Region Three 30-minute maps of inland areas were chosen for analysis of wet- land trends since 1900. The NW quarter of the Chehalis Quad was compared with the Tenino 15 minute map and the four 7.5 minute quads: Maytown, East Olympia, Teninc SW, and Bucoda. NE quarter of Chehalis 30 minute map was compared with Yelm 15 minute map and the four 7.5 minute quads Weir Prairie, McKenna, Lake Lawrence, and Vail. SW 1/4 Tacoma 30 minute map was compared with the Tacoma South 15 minute map and the four 7.5 minute quads: Spanaway, Tacoma, South, Frederickson, and Puyallup. SE 1/4 Tacoma 30 minute map was compared with the Lake Tapps 15 minuute map and the four 7.5 minute quads: Sumner, Buckley, Orting, and Wilkeson. For the Tacoma region, a 1981 acreage figure was obtained by comparing the USGS 7.5 minute quads with the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps for the same quad. No NWI coverage was available for the Chehalis region. ! 3 C. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS AFFECTING WETLANDS In order to assess the effectiveness of SMA and the Shoreline Master Programs in regulating development in wetlands, interviews were conducted with about 30 shoreline planners from the 15 coastal counties. The inter- views were conducted as a four-step process: . Presentation of study to the Puget Sound Coastal Zone Planners Group � Description of the study and interview process to each participant individually . Distribution of questionnaires � Telephone interviews Soon after the project began, a presentation was made to the Puget -Sound Coastal Zone Planners Group to describe the purpose and approach of : the-stud-y- -lF-es-ep Setatio-n i-! dzd a-discuvston of the interview, process and presentation of:a draft questionnaire for-review and comment. -Revisions ::::wet e-a 6th7L" inhe:equzsf-neai/e :sest. ono m en ts-rteeivedn;e t - Following the development of the final questionnaire, each recipient was telephoned to describe the study and request assistance with the ques- tionnaire. Due to the length of the questionnaire, no request was made for written responses. Each respondent was requested to only make notes for responses; the consultant team would then conduct the interview by tele- phone. It was hoped this method would reduce the time required of the repondents and also allow the interview to concentrate on issues of importance to each jurisdiction. Questionnaires were mailed to each respondent immediately after the first telephone contact. The interviews lasted about one hour, although a .few actually required two hours to complete. All of the respondents were extremely open and supportive of the work. The discussion of results is a summary of the responses received. 0. OTHER APPROACHES TO WETLANDS PROTECTION Leaders of local conservation groups and botanical societies were contacted by phone to obtain information about programs which help to protect wetlands. Existing literature was consulted for the discussion of land acquisition, property tax schemes, mapping and inventory efforts, and tax incentive programs. 14 IV. RESULTS � A. WETLAND INVENTORY Wetland Type Descriptions There are numerous definitions of "wetlands" with no one ecologically sound and correct definition. The reason for this is the wide diversity of wetlands and the varied needs for defining them for evaluation and man- agement. For the purpose of this inventory, wetlands are defined from Cowardin, et al., 1979, as follows: "Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near --the---sirface-7oW-a-the -d soveredby-hallow water. For -b y ..- purposes of--thi s cl assi fication wetl ands must have one- or- ~~~~~~~mor~~ are--L-6 of- thbe _ f611 ow-i a -t h r -L.tt e-b ttte s. I Iat -I-e a~s tpe r- 2:i:.. .iodically-the-Tand supports7 rddmffih-ntlyhydrophyte; (2)- the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or- . covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year." I This inventory was completed at the highest level of the classification hierarchy, inventorying wetlands in broad systems and classes. The three major systems inventoried were estuarine, lacustrine, and palustrine. Riverine systems were not included because the area could not be accurately measured and the values would be misleading. In addition, very few riverine vegetated wetlands have been identified in the study area. (1) Estuarine: This system consists of deep water tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands which are strongly influenced by the ocean waters. The salinity of estuarine waters varies in response to freshwater land runoff, tides, evaporation, precipitation or wind. The estuarine system extends upstream ang landward to where ocean- derived salinity measures less than 0.5 /oo (parts--per-- thousand). Estuaries are highly productive ecosystems and support extremely diverse life forms. (2) Lacustrine: Permanent standing water systems, either fresh or salt water, which exceed 20 acres or, if under 20 acres, 6.6 feet depth at deepest topographic depression. The vegetation present depends on substrate and depth and consists of floating-leaved aquatics, submerged aquatics, and macroalgae. They are important for fish, waterfowl, shorebirds, aquatic mammals, and amphibians. (3) Palustrine: This system includes all persistent wetlands adjacent to lakes,,streams, bays, and estuaries with salinities of less than 0.5 /oo. They are typically called marshes, freshwater swamps, bogs, and ponds. They are vegetated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, and emergent mosses and lichens. These wetlands provide excellent nesting, feeding, and resting habitat for a variety of wildlife. 1 5 Each class describes the general appearance of the habitat in terms of either the dominant life form of the vegetation or the physiography and composition of the substrate. The classes used are described as follows: (1) Aquatic Bed - This habitat type is dominated by plants that grow principally on or below the surface of the water. These include kelp beds, seagrass beds, aquatic mosses, and other algal associations. (2) Emergent - These wetlands are dominated by emergent herbaceous angiosperms. Most species are perennial plants. Common plants of this habitat type include sedges, rushes, grasses, salt grasses, pickleweeds, and cattails. These wetlands are commonly called marshes, wet meadows, and sloughs. ... -. C3)SrUb- Sh1b-Thishabtt s=do~i-~ate-by ubs=t-mal 1, trees --..... .. - .. -=.. =--less than-20 feet tallj-- ;They=-may:=represent a _successional stage -:. : -P_1a_dih tcufo-r Ps -t-e e i and y-call ed shrub - ___ ............swam p or-bg. .ComMoi-pTant -species are- wi-llows7- alder, red.... osier dogwood, and spiraea. (4) Forested - These are forests which are saturated or inundated sometime during the year. The tree species commonly found include alder, willow, black cottonwood and Sitka spruce. The-woody vegetation is usually very dense and greater than 20 feet tall. If vegetation cover is less than 30% of the substrate, the physiography and composition of the substrate are the principal characteristics used to describe the habitat. These are described below: - (1) Open water - This habitat type includes a wide variety.ff water bodies (i.e., streams, lakes, bays) where the bottom character- istics are unknown. Phytoplankton is the primary producerof the open water habitat. (2) Flat - This substrate is usually mud, although silt/sand or cobble/gravel may be intermixed. They are irregularly shaped, nearly level unconsolidated sediments sheltered from strong currents and wave action. This habitat is highly productive for benthic invertebrates. (3) Rocky shore - The bottom is 75% of more bedrock, stones, or boulders. Rocky shore habitats are exposed to continuous erosion by wind and waves, but are usually stable enough for sessile or sedentary invertebrates and some attached algae. (4) Beach bar - This substrate consists of unvegetated and sloping land forms determined by waves and currents. It is composed mostly of unconsolidated sands and/or cobble/gravel and is located in the intertidal zone. The terms Flat, Rocky Shore, and Beach Bar have been reclassified with the term unconsolidated shore in the current NWI classification system. 1 6 Table 3 TOTAL ACREAGE COVERED BY INVENTORY Total County Area (Acres) Percent of County Covered ,Approximate Area Covered by Inventory (Acres) Count y CZA Othe r NWI Clallam 31,400 1,121,600 3% Grays Harbor 111,000 63,400 1,222,300 14% Island 135,400 74,000 135,400 100% Jefferson 291,000 50,000 1,300 1,555,300 30% King ---1,5$00: '-5s900- -.-640,000 1,363,800 4- -47% Kitsap - 251,000 66,500 - 251.-'30 0-- O ~------- -:~:- -_Masqn-- :~L.E.. s~:?t1~OQ =Z~._:~-':~~ :-~:~'- --"~-'. 0:~" -? ....-._...~:7- ........-4: - Pacific - --52,000 - - -95,400 --.5817200 --.25- Pierce* 458,000 52,700 1,072,600 48% San Juan 90,000 67,900 114,800 100% Skagit 52,800 1,l10,100 1,110,100 100% Snohomish* 392,000 26,700 159,000 1,342,800 43% Thurston* 114,000 29,800 456,900 31% Wahkiakum* 3,700 116,800 3% Whatcom* 308,000 26,600 25% TOTAL S 2,314,90 0 540,000 2,796,700 12,421,60 0 45% Total inventoried acres = 5,651,100 This is an estimate with some overlapping between NWI and CZA coverage. *Additional NWI map coverage has been completed for these counties-; however, it was not available at the time of this report. 17 Inventory Results This section will discuss the areal extent of wetlands in 15 coastal counties. The wetland inventory covered about 45% of the total area of these counties (see Table 3). Island, King, Kitsap, San Juan, and Skagit County inventories have complete county coverage. The following counties have excellent coastal coverage and less than 30% inland coverage: Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Mason, Pacific, Thurston, and Whatcom. Appendix A indicates the portion of each county covered by this inventory. Figure A-1, Appendix, indicates the extent of existing NWI coverage, and NWI coverage included in this inventory by 7.5 minute quads. Not all completed mapping was available at the time of this report. Approximately 246,000 acres of wetlands were identified in this inven- try~ (see Table 4). This represents the total wetland area in western Washington as determined from the numerous available sources-... ... tories, are most comprehensive and detailed for the tidal shorelines of counties around Puget Sound and the inland waters; here the National Wetland Inventory (NWI), Coastal Zone Atlas and local shoreline inventories provide considerable overlapping coverage. For non-tidal wetlands, NWI and inven- tories of King and'Skagit Counties provide the most comprehensive-data. Table 4 is the sum total of a-l the individual county summaries. [Note that the size distribution acreage figures do not always equal the total acreage for each wetland type (see Table 4 and county summaries). This is due to the limitations of available data. The area of individual palustrine and lacustrine wetlands was measured directly and recorded by size class for each NWI quad. These figures were then summed to obtain the total area. Estuarine wetlands area, however, was obtained from the Coastal Zone Atlas (CZA) computer summaries that do not indicate wetland size.] See Appendix A for individual county inventories. Table 5 is a summary of all estuarine, lacustrine, and palustrine wetlands by county. There are about 166,000 acres of estuarine type wetlands in the study area. This is 70% of the total wetlands identified. Unvegetated beach substrate and subtidal aquatic beds account for 86% of this estuarine total. A total of about 17,500 acres of lacustrine wetlands were inventoried. This represents 8% of the total inventory; over 96% of this area is open water habitat. The approximately 51,200 acres of palustrine wetlands represent 22% of the total. A majority (85%) of the palustrine type are vegetated wetlands (emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested). Estuarine wetlands are found in every county along the shoreline. Pacific and Grays Harbor County account for 42% of the acreage, because these areas are huge enclosed bays highly influenced by the ocean. Puget Sound estuaries are formed from riverine delta systems, with the larger rivers producing the large estuaries (e.g., Snohomish River--13,855 acres of estuarine wetlands in Snohomish County). Other areas with a large distribu-, tion of estuarine habitat are counties with irregular coastlines, producing many small bays and inlets. Island, San Juan, and Kitsap Counties are examples of these. 18 iI i p ij:: 11 r'l Table 4 115 COUBNTIES . GI Watershed Size (acres) SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES F9 o a r e (acres )! Wetland Type Estuarine, Intertidal Beach Substrate* Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Subtidal Aquatic Bed Unconsolidated Lacustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Unconsolidated Palustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Unconsolidated Total Area Size Distribution (Acres)- 1l- 1UU >1u0 U Ij 200UUU ZUUU00-8000 >800UU U I !.:: j, [ , .".. ii . I i: t .t i, I ,',,l ., ' I !' ~ i ! !,4. I ; i, . i! .~l .I' ti6nalt 'Wetlands Inventory) (;iii I )i:, 16 . j'-1 il 12,82 0 528 5942 80,52 9 23,74 3 67 3,03 8 70,39 9 12 85 4 37 16 3421 29 -0 16,67 8 351 145 275 23 4 _O" 4339 347 145 275 _a w. 2102 115 454 6508 1716 9158 1850 5908 108 4 47 -- shore, beach bar (Nal I 671 8 722 17,61 2 15,75 6 10,29 8 77 3049 268 6356 3866 187 0 30 Total: 246,420 Sources: See individual counties *beach substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) = flat, rocky Table 5 SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FOR 15 COUNTIES Pal ustri ne (Acres) Total Wetlands (Acres) Estuarin e (Acres) Lacustrin e (Acres) Count y Clallam 4,667 0 207 4,874 Grays Harbor 31,702 439 2,831 34,972 Island 15,607 86 2,026 17,719 Jefferson 9,541 411 '1,851 11,803 King 5,856 1,716 11,685 19,257 Kitsap 13,614 1,154 2,971 17,739 .. _ Mason- . - 6-, 392.. :: :-i -_ .t;75 --- -1-,30 ;. 90. 97 : --: . =Paci. ~_" ~.'fi-: f -1Q8f= - .1:8,10_. =.. I08- - 0-' .-747 ---:40,915 _A- - _EH _; i e p j 77 C;-7 -'6777 a 6 Z --- --- - - -i--5--- ---- .....-- .-. San Juan 6;65S- 12 807 ---7 574 Skagit 12,080 6,343 4,776 23,199 Snohomish 13,855 141 6,116 20,112 Thurston 4,077 1,236 1,191 6,504 Wahkiakum 3,730 0 0 3,730 Whatcom 5,407 1,773 7,568 .14,748 246,420 177,788 17,449 51,183 20 Lacustrine wetlands are essentially open water lakes, with a minimal amount of vegetated wetlands adjacent to them. Most lakes are over 20 acres in size. Counties with the highest lacustrine figures reflect the counties with the most complete inland coverage instead of the counties with the most lakes. Skagit with 6,343 acres and Pierce with 2,903 acres are counties with large-size lakes and reservoirs, and enough inland coverage to have them inventoried. Palustrine wetlands are distributed next to lakes, ponds, streams, bays, and estuaries. It is important to note that county totals are more representative of how complete the inventory coverage is in that county than the total amount of palustrine wetlands. For example, King County has the largest amount of palustrine wetlands, 11,685 acres, collected from a recent county-wide field checked inventory. ...........,- Factors to consider which determine the-di-stribution-of palustrine wet-. _ lands is the' physica(ltograph -mo`fts- ACoun-ties- with.-Jo-ts-.of --paluIstr-.ine-.wet-lanads-.tend.,--o'.ha.ve--_large areas. of- ela-- - -~~~~~a ow e evikFfAt~ Ii~ 1ig-out is odeampioef this. Large lakes such as Lake Washington in King County. have extensive areas of palustrine wetlands associated with them. Vegetated Wetlands Inventoried Emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested types are considered vegetated wetlands. Table 6 presents a summary of type and size distribution of these wetlands. Very little lacustrine vegetated wetlands exist because only non-persistent plants are classified. The amount of emergent vegetation is similar in estuarine and palustrine wetlands. What is important to acknow- ledge is the differences in size distribution. Most estuarine wetlands (75%) are over 100 acres in size, while palustrine wetlands are usually either under 10 acres (43%) or between 10 and 100,acres (45%). A total of 635 acres of estuarine scrub/shrub or forested vegetation types were inventoried while palustrine scrub/shrub and forested wetlands account for 52,108 acres. Only 12% of these palustrine wetlands are above 100 acres in size, with a majority falling in the 10 to 100 acres (62% to 67%) size. Wetland Regulations It is important to determine what percentage of wetlands, and what types, are protected by jurisdiction either by U.S. Corps-of Engineers 404 permit or the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). All estuarine wetlands are under both SMA and Corps 404 permit jurisdiction. Lacustrihe wetlands -containing lakes larger than 20 acres are protected by the SMA. Watershed size is a factor used to determine if palustrine wetlands and lacustrine waters under 20 acres are under jurisdiction by the following criteria: A 2,000 acre watershed produces a mean annual flow of about 5 cfs-- Corps 404 permit minimum. o An 8,000 acre watershed produces a mean annual flow of aboazt 20 cfs-- SMA minimum. 2 1 Table 6 VEGETATED WETLANDS INVENTORIED Total Area (Acres) Size <10 Distributio n 10-100 (Acres) >100 Emergen t Estuarine Palustrin e 22,483 17,612 85 4 (5% ) 6,35 6 (43% ) 3,42 1 (20% ) 6,50 8 (45% ) 12,82 0 (75% ) 1,71 6 (12% ) --- acustri ne -.:-. 145 : . ... 45 Scrub/Shrub Estuarine Palustrin e 6 7 15,75 6 37 (56% ) 3,86 6 (26% ) 29 (44% ) 9,158 - (62% ) -0- 1,85 0 (12% ) Foreste d 56 8 10,29 8 1 6 (6% ) 1,87 0 (21% ) Estuarine Palustrin e TOTAL (acres) - 0- 5,90 8 (67% ) 52 8 (94% ) 1,08 4 (12% ) 66,92 9 12,99 9 25,16 9 17,99 8 Total acres of wetlards inventories: 246,42 0 Vegetated wetlands represent 27% of the wetlands inventoried 22 Analysis was limited to data from King County. Palustrine vegetated wetlands were found in the following watershed sizes: . 8 wetlands (318 acres) are under SMA jurisdiction * 30 wetlands (1,818 acres) are under Corps 404 jurisdiction o500 wetlands (6,655 acres) are not under the jurisdiction of SMA or Section 404 Seventy-six percent (76%) of the palustrine vegetated wetlands acreage in King County are unprotected by SMA and Section 404. If this is the trend for all 15 counties, large amounts of wetlands are under no jurisdiction. Information on watershed size for additional counties is needed to document this. Introduction The classic and often repeated view of the Pacific Northwest is moun- tainous, steep terrain densely covered by evergreen forests of fir, hemlock, and cedar--all of this clothed bv gray skies and incessa-nt r-ainfall. WIiTe the view is essentially accurate for western Washington, it should be noted that east of the Cascade'Mountains, the northwest is more often charac- terized by sagebrush and grasslands; cold, dry winters and hot, dry summers. Ocean and stream resources (fisheries) and timber have historically been the economic base of the Pa;:ific Northwest. In addition, the maritime climate supports farming and dai'y activities, which have contributed to the economy since the state was formed in 1889. Historically, the major indus- try has been logging and lumbering. Puget Sound is a natural harbor to which shipping and trade, both domestic and foreign, became important in the mid-nineteenth century. Prior to the completion of the railroad, access to western Washington was difficult except by sea. Early trade existed between San_Francisco and Puget Sound; lumber was shipped to San Francisco in exchange for various industrial and domestic goods to supply the growing population of Washing- ton. Although fishing was important to the people of the state,- the primary bargaining resource was Washingt,n's lumber and wood products. Several factors contributed to the development of western Washington as a major shipping and trade center. The sailing distance to the Orient and Russia is less than from any other port on the Pacific coast; completion of the rail- road to western Washington established Seattle and Tacoma as gateways to the Orient. By 1921, more than 50% of all commerce from the Pacific coast passed through Washington, and the Port of Seattle had the largest commercial pier in the world (Meeker, 1921). The major manufacturing industries during the pre-World War ti an-d wari years were lumber and wood products, food processing, especially canning of fish and produce, and the airplane and associated products. With the growth 2 3 of the airplane industry, the region became increasingly dependent on mili- tary spending. The economy boomed during wartime and waned when military aircraft were not needed. Meanwhile, the forest products industry became more diversified; pulp and paper, finished wood products and wood research expanded the economic base. The trend in the past two decades has been toward development of "foot- loose" industries related in some fashion to the booming aircraft industry, specifically Boeing Company. Such industries include airplane and missile production, electronics, central offices, aluminum, steel and machinery. Recreation and the production of recreation products has also become impor- tant to the economy. Western Washington has been selected as the area for this study both for its consistency of regulatory activity at federal and state level, and . its diversityTof-wetland types and development pressures. -Throughout: thte_..... ::-__:'_:-__: st_dy-area-- the 7same-'regulations are- implemented at the federat:l and state.:_:.- - - -. -. :y-:-1eel~ an-,zf ~h~enos -V rt1;-jW&- m -pesonal-ftls - a-resbs-l L implementing them. Differences in regulation and personal ities exist primarily at the local level. In contrast, there are significant differences in wetland systems and the development pressures associated with them. (Figure 1 depicts the regions of western Washington and identifies the study areas.) The north- west corner of Washington is a maze of islands and interconnecting fjord- like waterways. The entire area is often referred to as the Puget Sound region. Tidal wetlands are limited to river mouths where extensive inter- tidal lands and substantial freshwater runoff combine to characterize the ecosystem (Boule', 1981). (Although only the southern portion of the area can be accurately called Puget Sound, the term will be used here for pur- poses of simplicity.) Along the Washington coast, the Pacific Ocean dominates the wetlands, although freshwater runoff is still a major component. Here, tidal wetlands are found in large embayments with extensive intertidal flats. Although freshwater runoff is substantial here also, the wetlands are much more saline than those of the Puget Sound area. Non-tidal inland wetlands are also common in the region. Many are forested or shrub swamps in saturated (not inundated) soils and often are unrecognized as wetland habitats by untrained observers. Perhaps the most well known of inland wetlands, however, are those found on the shores of the innumerable lakes of western Washington. Often these are small embayments or narrow Shoreline areas dominated by cattails, tules, or water lilies. Just as the types of wetland ecosystems vary in the region, the devel- opment pressures also vary. In much of the Puget Sound region, early de- velopment of estuarine wetlands was oriented toward creating agricultural lands. The rich peaty soils were often the only flat ground available for tilling. In addition, wetlands lacked the rocks and clay of adjacent upland areas. Furthermore, their close proximity to waterways, the major travel corridors of the time, made them prime areas for development. Early con- struction of dikes and drainage ditches created vast acreages of farml-and 24 e N SNOHOMISH ESTUARY j'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~I F ,, c~,U~~ AtlEveret A "/ * - - . -~~~eaI :LAKIFWASHINGfeN COMMENCEMEN;T SAY 4oqu iam 'UR sg TACOMUA SOUTHPit eAberdeen ( GRAY.S HARBOR, UII~=YELM TENINO AY Chehalis SAY PACIFIC I LEWIS A- __ -- SCALE MILES 0 10 20 30 4080 Figure l. Western Washington. Location of the eight study areas. - ---. j. I > ESTUARY W ILLAPA ESTUAF I 25 from the marshes and swamps of the numerous estuaries. In much of the Puget Sound region, this agricultural activity ccntinues today. In a few areas, early industrial and port development precluded major agricultural activities. In Seattle and Tacoma, river mouth areas were dredged to provide navigation channels and filled to create locations for wharves, warehouses and industries. In these areas, early agriculture was established farther upriver, but still close to the urban centers which spawned the industrial activities. Along the coast, the timber industry dominated early economic activi- ties and still does today. Cutting, milling, and shipping lumber are the major industries. Neither agriculture nor urban development are as impor- tant. The export of lumber requires navigation channels. In these shallow bays regular dredging is necessary to maintain the channels. Historically, .....dredge material was disposed of i n-any-place that was "out--of--the way..' ..... -;--- - - ~-Often. this.was :nearby;-intertidal-flats-or marshes ,unv.egetated and vegetated t....:-:......'.......... .eq'Hi~6n'_tV: /a- :ces -,'-toft fact1ti s'..huS:_creatin -ore:-;.-*v-:-- flatland for portexpa-si,on.-- In recent years- -howeve-r- the-- dredging pro- jects of the Corps of Engineers have been oriented toward upland or deep water disposal. In contrast to tidal wetlands, lakeshore wetlands of western Washington have been developed almost exclusively for residential purposes.. Initially, these were summer homes, but with urban growth, many of the lakes have been incorporated into nearby cities. As this happens, summer home development expands to lakes further from urban centers. Residential development may include: bulkhead construction and filling to establish a yard; clearing and minor filling with sand to create a beach; minor dredging for boat access; or simply continual mowing to create a lawn. In each case thL al- terations may be minor, but the cumulative effect is elimination of wetlands along most, if not all, of the lake shore. In each of the wetlands systems described, the economic and physical factors leading to development of the wetlands are very different, both in goal and scale. Many of the individual factors are not unique to western Washington. The combination of factors is unique, however, and should be considered in any comparison of wetland development on a nation-wide basis. Important factors include: . Relative youth of settlement in the Pacific Northwest; oRugged terrain which limited overland travel and available agricul- tural land; oEarly dominance of fishing and timber industries; . Boom conditions created by the Alaska gold rush, proximity to Pacific Rim countries, and railroal terminals, and associated demand for port facilities; and . Economic dependence on the aerospace industry since World War II and rapid population growth over the last two decades. 26 Site-Specific Studies Snohomish Estuary The Snohomish is the third largest river entering the Puget Sound region (behind the Fraser River in British Columbia and the Skagit River). The estuary is located about 35 miles north of Seattle (see Figure 1) and consists of four anastomosing channels (or sloughs) separating six major islands. The City of Everett, at the river's mouth, is the northern limit of western Washington's major urban area, which includes Seattle, Tacoma, and Olympia to the south. The 10,000 acre estuarine system is a classic example of the agricul- ture-dominated scenario discussed in the previous section. Earliest settle- ment began around 1880 with diking of small portions of wetland on several 4sTands D--Ouring -the-next -60-years, diking activities slowly converted most- ' i g:of five-islands, almost 9,000 acres of wetland, into farmland_:-. As4is - :. .apparent -from _fgure B-, -a:iost-:alweti ndconversi pri_or_to: World: Wa?J-=: T~':6-eat--f~ud-o grtcu- tural- expansion; essentialTy--do filTling occurred during this period. Prior to the war, the mills and port facilities at Everett were limited mostly to upland areas where piers could be extended out to deep water. Industrial and port expansion began just before the war and continues to the present time. Much of this expansion has entailed the filling of intertidal flats and marshes to provide the space required by modern manufacturing and shipping facilities. Furthermore, as a result-of the development of large scale earth-moving machinery, fill became much-more cost effective than piers and piling as a means of constructing near-shore foundations. Figure B-i shows the wetland loss associated with this slow but steady expansion of industrial activity since 1940. Although the area involved is much smaller than that used previously for agriculture, two aspects of the industrial development of wetlands have major impacts. First, filling is a much more permanent elimination of wetland habitat; diking impacts can be readily reversed by breaching the dike. Second, the result of industrial develop- ment was the filling of some of the last wetlands of the estuary. Since about 1965, there has been a slow, steady filling of wetlands onr one island in the estuary with urban waste. The site was closed about 1979 after almost 200 acres had been filled. This was the major fill activity- within the estuary at that time. During the same period, most industria-T- activities and the associated fills occurred on the shores of Port Gardner, not in the estuary. Most of these fills were in unvegetated flats, although a few vegetated wetland areas were also filled. These fills totaled approx- imately 60 acres between 1970 and 1980. Other than the solid waste disposal site, wetland fill activities within the estuary between 1970 and 1980 were generally small in scale, scattered, and infrequent. Less than 70 acres of vegetated wetlands within the estuary were filled during the decade; two woodwaste and dredge material disposal sites account for almost 50 acres. One other interesting phenomenon is apparent in Figure B-i. Wetland area actually increased in the Snohomish estuary between 1947 and 1970. This was caused by several dikes being breached during floods and not being repaired. As a result, agricultural lands reverted to wetland habitats. 2 7 This suggests that agricultural use of the land at that time was not suffi- ciently productive, economically, to Justify repairing the dikes. This occurred at the same time that industrial activities were beginning to fill other wetland areas. As is apparent, most of the wetland losses in the Snohomish area can be attributed to early agricultural development in the region. The tidal freshwater conditions of the region's estuaries meant that there were no concentrations of salt in the soils; thus, diking and draining converted wetlands to farmlands. At the time, of course, there were no regulations to limit development of wetland areas. Furthermore, there was a strong ethic throughout the country to control and develop the land. Clearly, the con- version of wetland (wastelands) to productive agricultural lands fulfilled that ethic. _ii~ wtl4iid~ithe: SW5irt Re~6~t~tcoaOi. ''' nu-ts uadraang_1 a ar_____ sEafttered'--pa'UWTfii emergent- arshe-'i~�~i oted-"Wi'h'the" Pfyal'lup River, Muck Creek, and Spanaway Lake. In 1900 there were 2,760 acres; in 1944, 1,050 acres; and by 1956, only 838 acres remained of the original 2,760. According to the NWI inventory, 784 acres of marsh remained in this region. The above changes are reflected in Figure 8-2, Tacoma South. Urbanization and diking of agricultural land appears to be the primary reason-for wetland loss. Seventy percent of the loss occurred between 1900 and 1950. Since then the changes have been small and related to development in outlying areas. The NWI maps show 192 acres of new wetland which did not appear on the 1956 quad. The presence of these new wetlands cannot be explained conclusively from the maps alone, but they may be a result of hydrological changes following construction or suburban development, or they may simply have been missed in 1956. The SE quarter of Tacoma or Lake Tapps region (Figure 8-3) had only 373 acres of wetland in 1900, excluding the open water of Lake-Tapps. The White, Puyallup, and Carbon Rivers enclose the major wetlands of the region, including Morgan Lake, Orting Lake, and Rhode Lake. No wetlands were indicated in the SE quarter of the 1900 Tacoma quad; however, numerous sizable wetlands appeared in this same place on the later maps indicating that they were either omitted in the earlier mapping or newly created, perhaps by road construction diking. Commencement Bay The estuary at the mouth of the Puyallup River provides an example of early industrial development in Puget Sound region tidal wetlands. The Port of Tacoma on Commencement Bay, like the Port of Seattle 30 miles to the north, developed as a commercial center soon after settlement began. The deep waters of the bay immediately adjacent to broad expanses of tidal unvegetated flats and vegetated wetlands represented prime conditions for port facilities. Pierce County, including the City of Tacoma, had a population of about 3,300 in 1880. The transcontinental railroad was completed to Tacoma in 1887; by 1890 the county population was over 50,000. Completion of the 28 railroad to Tacoma was a major impetus for the growth of the Port of Tacoma. Lumber, coke and fish were major commodities for export. Construction of a copper smelter on the shore of Commencement Bay in the early 20th Century was a precursor of the numerous chemical processing plants present at the Port today. By World War I, Tacoma was a major industrial community in western Washington with a substantial port facility. Waterways were dredged through the flats and marshes and the dredged material discharged onto adjacent wetland areas, creating both protected moorages and abundant flat upland areas from vegetated and unvegetated wetlands. Dredge and fill activities began at the river mouth and expanded upriver as more facilities were developed. Figure B-4 shows the continual conversion of unvegetated flats and vegetated wetlands to port facilities from 1880 to the present. Of about 1,700 acres of intertidal flats in 1880, 1,500 had been dredged or filled by 1920. Between 1880 and 1940, about 1,900 acres of vegetated-wetlands_were -filed.- By-1980r--only-16-acres-o-ff-- -.. wetlands existed in the estuary (Shapiro and Associates, 1981b); 95 acres of i22tesewereisbateddejressions infill maei_ hchwr maintained by up' u-r and-ru-nff i --d'ra_es -'we-e-uve-g"t&td- 'f. Ony-t ofs theorifgIfa-- - ; 1900 acres of marsh in the estuary remain today. Lake Washington Forming the eastern boundary of the city of Seattle, the 35-square mile Lake Washington is the largest lake in the state. Urban development, pri- marily residential, completely surrounds the lake, with only a few enclaves of park or undeveloped land remaining. The recent history of urban develop- ment around the lake parallels that of many lakes in western Washington.- Early settlement of the lake began with homesteads and small farms all along the shore. Often marshes and swamps were converted to orchards or other agriculture (Hockett, 1976). Coal mining in areas to the south and east in the 1870's led to hopes for factories and industrial activities around the lake. Before this could occur, the era of coal--fired boilers -ended, and with it the dreams for industrial development. Establishment of regular ferry service across the lake by 1913 was th Tfmpetus for urbaniza- tion of the east shore. Approximately 2,300 acres of wetlands are depicted on a 1902 map of the lake. In 1916 the lake was lowered approximately 8 feet as part of a major public works project, which connected the lake to Puget Sound via the Chit- tenden Locks. A 1936 map indicates there were about-1,400 acres of wetlands around the lake, concentrated in about 10 major areas (Ellman and Schuett- Hames, 1978). Since 1936, about 500 acres have been filled, primarily for urban residential or.commercial activities. Figure B-5 shows the decline in wetlands around the lake since 1916. It should be noted that while early development of wetland areas on the lake involved complete use of the land, recent developments have been more limited. Since implementation of the Shoreline Management Act, most devel- opment activities have included permanent dedication of a portion of the wetlands for preservation of the habitats. 29 Chehal is Being the outwash plain of the Vashon glacier, much of the Chehalis quad topography is comprised of prairie lowlands, lakes, and river corridors surrounded by low hills. This portion of Thurston County has traditionally been used for agricultural purposes, large tracts are set aside for growing crops or pasturing livestock. More recently,,new residential areas and the growth of the town centers have had more effect on the wetland habitats. The Tenino quad contained 4,480 acres of wetland in 1900, 2,300 acres in' 1944 and 2085 in 1956 (see Figure B-6). The Yelm'quad showed a similar trend with 2,680 acres measured in 1900 and a low of 1,093 acres in 1956 (see Figure B-7). The losses in some cases were due to placement of fill during road construction, other areas have been eliminated by residential development, and still others seem to have been altered by natural changes ____in the high water table of the outwash plain. No NWI coverage was available t6inasur th&9&lval-ufe. owetl-ands. -in the area. -i7These maps. have-been- --ordered, from. the.U.iS,..-Fish:,and .Wildl-ife.Service and thecurnwead Grays Harbor One of two large embaymen;s on the Washington coast, this area has a history of wetland development very different from that just described for the estuaries of the Puget Sound region. Grays Harbor has never been a major urban center. It is, however, the economic center of a major timber harvesting area. Since its first settlement, it has existed almost exclu- sively as a logging and lumber export area. The Chehalis River forms two main channels through Grays Harbor and sections the estuary into the north and south bays. The North Bay is fed by Hoquiam River, Grass Creek, Chenois Creek, Humptulips River, John and Campbell Sloughs, Point Brown, and Ocean Shores Spit form the western boundary of the North Bay. South Bay is the main body of water in the southern half of the estuary. It is fed by Johns River, Elk River, and Beardslee Slough, Point Chehalis and Westport are located on the southern spit forming the western boundary of South Bay. Lumber export requires modern accessible port facilities to remain a viable industry.. In Grays Harbor, almost continual dredging is required to maintain the north and south Chehalis navigation channel through the shallow bay. The dredging activities have required the discharge of immense quanti- ties of material. In early years this was deposited close to the channel; later confined "spoil areas" were constructed on nearby tidal flats or marshes. Today, most of the material is disposed of an upland sites or in deep water offshore. Numerous changes, both natural and human, have occurred in the Grays Harbor Estuary since 1900 (Figure B-8). The greatest area of marsh existed in the estuary around 1960 having increased from 3,580 in 1916 to 4,690 by that time. This increase reflected a major conversion of upland to marsh- land on the Ocean Shores peninsula between 1916 and 1960. Another signi- ficant gain between 1931 and 1960 was the conversion of intertidal mudflat to marsh by dredge disposal west of the Hoquiam River and northeast of 30 Bowerman Field (Corps of Engineers, 1975). Upland, marsh, and intertidal areas were all used for dredged material disposal prior to 1960; therefore, the change in marsh area reflects a conversion of intertidal to marsh as well as some loss of marsh to form upland habitat. Some losses in the extent of wetlands can be identified. Approximately 500 acres of flats were converted to uplands prior to 1916. Between 1916 and 1942, all dredged material was deposited in deep water within the harbor. Between 1940 and 1975, about 3,800 acres of intertidal area were used for dredge material disposal. The Corps reverted to deep water or upland disposal in about 1976. Although there have been no wetland losses due to dredged material disposal since 1976, approximately 500 acres of fill are proposed as part of the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan. About 90 acres of this is vegetated wetlands, the remainder is intertidal flats. e .etween 1960-and-196-7--approximate1yO-900acye-s-=ol?swa-mphabitat was eliminated due to filling or. diking_ Most of this change-can be attributed :::, :~.:=:=::~~-.=.=-to the; construction: ate- hea? arLck a:tAp-� :, - - '-::ate. y-40 aee Tof- mairs:- were-converted--to upl and -of-'the Oce7an-Sh re spit presumably by diking and filling between 1967 and 1973. This major loss was offset by a conversion of 640 acres intertidal flat to marsh near Point Brown (440 acres) and north of Bowerman Airport (200 acres). -The most recent (1981) navigation chart shows approximately 2,200 acres of wetland remaining in the Grays Harbor Estuary. Several areas of marsh have dimin- ished or been eliminated while others have been created to equal a net loss of 1,560 acres of marsh since 1967. The large marsh (265 acres) on the east side of the Ocean Shores spit was reduced to 185 acres by 1981. Several of the small brackish marshes along Beardslee Slough off of South Bay were eliminated apparently because of diking or road construction. Other changes occurred in :two major dredged material disposal sites along the North Channel: Point New and Bowerman Field. The net effect was a loss of 160 acres of satt marsh between 1973 and 1981. Approximately 175 acres of marsh were created in several intertidal areas near Point Brown southeast of Westport and in the Whitcomb Flats. ALthough numerous human activities have greatly altered the shorelines of Grays Harbor, the overall change in inter- tidal flats has been negligible as has the change in open water (Figure 8-8). Total acreage of the estuary was increased by about 700 acres since 1900 because of the jetty construction which placed the boundary of the mouth of the harbor about 3,000 yards west of the earlier locations (Figure B-8). The values represented on the graph for open water and total estuary acreage are estimates based on measurements of the major channels and water- ways of the harbor. They are placed in the figure to show the comparative changes in intertidal and marsh areas in relation to the total estuary over time and they should not be used as inventory values. The long history of dredged material disposal has created several large tracts of upland suitable for development of port facilities. It also ap- pears to have contributed to an attitude that filling wetlands with dredged material to create upland sites for port development is a reasonable and acceptable approach. In recent years, the conflict between the economic and environmental concerns relating to this attitude has become a major contro- versy in the region. The Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan is an attempt to reconcile those differences. 3 1 Willapa Bay This large embayment is located at the mouth of the Willapa River on the coast of Pacific County. Extending over 20 miles south of the mouth, the bay is fed by the Palix, Nasetle, and Nemah River systems as well. The west boundary of the bay is the North Beach Peninsula, a long spit where the towns of Ocean Park, Oysterville, Oceanside, Long Beach are located. Long Island is a large land mass in the center of Willapa Bay now preserved as the Willapa National Wildlife Rrefuge and containing the Diamond Point Research Natural Area. Over 50% of the bays are wetland habitats: intertidal mudflats, salt marshes, brackish marshes, and freshwater marshes (Table B-2). Early settlers of the Willapa Estuary found the tideland grasses to provide good spring and summer pasturage. Low dikes were erected by hand to hold off the summer high tides and to protect farm buildings. Higher dikes .were-.uul,LruuLJu by some-I-and-owners-but-the dikfng-district-provided-the _ .. -. . basis for high dikes in most areas. -The diking districts.were granted-the ............ ri d eht� an Ctrw htriverse-water.-courses;ior; streams - ........wtThn--he--bounrdaries- of-the-dtstrict;,the--rfght- to- acquire the state's-- .. rights to wetlands and tidelands within the district boundaries; and the right to contract work and to issue bonds to cover costs of construction and acquisition of land. Five diking districts were formed along the borders of Willapa Bay between 1912 and 1920. The major efforts of these diking dis- tricts was to create and protect agricultural land; some 3,500 acres of wetland was diked to form pasture. Roads constructed around the permimeter of the bay effectively blocked off wetland from tidal exchange during the early part of the century. The early use of the estuary was generally as a transportation system and many of the towns and industries were extended over the bay on pilings. As industry and population increased, some wetlands were filled to provide more area and to provide support for structures previously on pilings. Shotwell (1977) reports that approximately 650 acres of wetlands were filled and used for urban and-industrial facilities. Much of the fill material was dredged from the tributaries of Willapa Bay. Other dredging was done to clear and deepen major navigation channels within the bay. The general trend of wetlands according to the NOAA navigation charts is a slight increase between 1905 and 1933 then a gradual decline until the present time (Figure B-10). The overall loss of wetlands was about 2,770 acres or about 36% of the original marsh area. Like Grays Harbor, much of the net loss of marshland can be attributed to human activities of diking, dredge material or fill disposal or urban development. Table 7 illustrates some of the changes within the estuary and the approximate year of the acti- vity. Diking has been a major influence since the establishment of five diking districts to promote agricultural development in Pacific County (Shotwell, 1977). The bulk of the lost wetland is the portion that has been converted to diked pastureland. Roads, towns, and industries have all been constructed within the wetlands of Willapa Bay, both intertidal flats and salt marshes. Pilings, fill, and dredged material were all used to stabi- lize the ground for construction at these sites. 32 Table 7 SOME CHANGES IN WETLANDS IN WILLAPA BAY ESTUARY 1905-1974 1905 1912 1933 1955 1974 Total Marsh Area 7,780 7,720 7,760 5,990 5,QZU Net Conversions Marsh to Intertidal .. .... (-)l,594 423 Marsh to Upland -- 59 -- 1,326 206 Marsh toPill-_ 20 -.. - 510- -- -Marsh t --Dikei-==. . /=�--2 .;;. r- : .~;'L.=L,: -:.,47�: 285- Summary and Comparison of Similar Wetland Regions Prior to 1944, a substantial amount of wetlands were eliminated in the Tacoma and Chehalis regions. An average of 52 acres per year'was lost from the Tenino area (Figure B-6) while 36 acres per year were eliminated in the Yelm area (Figure B-7). The rate of loss was much lower (only 4 acres per year) in the Lake Tapps quad from 1900 to 1968 (Figure B=3). Between 1944 and 1953, the rate of loss averaged 33 acres per year in both Tenino and Yelm quads while the Tacoma South area lost a mean of 22 acres per year (Figures B-2, B-3, B-7, B-8). Since 1953, the trend of massive wetlands destruction has slowed to less than 4 acres per year in Tacoma South while Lake Tapps has averaged less than one acre loss per year since 1968 (Figures B-2, B-3). The figures for a current inventory of Yelm or Tenino are not available. The coastal bays examined for trends showed more dramatic changes in wetlands since 1931 than prior to that time. Although there was a loss in the origiinal marsh area, the net marsh area increased in Grays Harbor between 1916 and 1960 due primarily to the conversion of some upland and intertidal areas to new marshland (some wetland losses were also occurring during this period). This trend ended in 1960 and by 1973 over 2,000 addi- tional acres of marsh had been eliminated from Grays Harbor. There has been little net loss of wetlands in Grays Harbor since 1973 (Figure 8-9). The rate of loss was much more consistent in Willapa Bay averaging 45 acres per year since 1933. The Puget Sound bay showed dramatic losses between 1900 and 1940 where an average of 75 and 150 acres per year were eliminated from Commencement Bay and Snohomish Estuary, respectively. The losses in Commencement Bay continued to occur between 1944 until the wetlands were'virtually eliminated by 1980 (Figure B-4). Some of the Snohomish Estuary-wetlands were reclaimed between 1940 and 1960 so that the remaining acreage in 1970 is equivalent to that found prior to 1940 (Figure B-i). 33 C. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS AFFECTING WETLANDS As noted earlier, regulation of development activities along shore- lines, in wetlands, and in other sensitive areas became an issue of major concern nationwide during the late 1960's and early 1970's. Although the level of concern may have diminished some since that time, the environmental regulations which emerged remain and continue to be enforced. The purpose of this section is to describe those regulations, the concerns and justifi- cations which led to enacting them, the methods to implement them, the difficulties which have arisen, and the resulting effectiveness of them. Concerns, Reasons, and Benefits Most respondents indicated that the concern for wetlands protection was both real 'and justified, although it appeared to be more adamantly expressed in urban rather than rural .counties7 Tmh.�-6untTes, the concern was -- sometimes more strongly -expressed by loca-.:lanni ng staffs than it was by ioaVreside'nts n~hsi e -a-symay-odt iong-.t;wentsaa the residenf or the 'elEte- icial---Fspi'�le-for "decisio n-makT - g.k Within urban areas, it was noted that there were very few remaining wetlands. Generally, those remaining were considered important to protect. "It's nice to have natural areas within the city; the public likes to have these visible." Despite this interest, however, conflicts do arise where wetlands are located in areas slated for major development activities. If these are small isolated areas surrounded by major existing development (e.g., Commencement Bay, the Duwamish River), their importance and value may be questioned. If they are large areas long identified for development (e.g., Bowerman Basinin Grays Harbor), the importance ofeconomic growth may be stressed. Elsewhere (Yarrow Bay in Kirkland, Maltby Swamp in Everett), the demand by the public for protection of wetlands often is overwhelming. In rural areas, the opinions of the general public may be very differ- ent. Wetland areas, especially floodplain marshes, offer rich soils for agricultural activities if they are drained and properly managed. Farming interests often see wetlands protection as an intrusion on their rights to farm, especially since they still must pay taxes on the land. One respon- dant suggested that wetland values should be measured according to human food production. Logging interests see wetlands as areas of decreased productivity and sometimes obstacles to the easiest logging practices. (Private forest land grading by DNR has presumably tempered the tax issue by reducing the assessed value of these less productive lands.) In contrast, some rural fishing interests have begun to recognize the value of wetlands to fishery resources. This is particularly true in Wahkiakum and Pacific Counties. It has led to some interesting conflicts. The contrast and humor of "redneck fishermen arguing with redneck farmers" about wetlands protection was noted. In Island County, where all potable water is drawn from wells, ground- water recharge has become an issue of concern. Although still difficult to prove, this has been stated as a major issue of concern in wetland protec- tion. (This concern may also be valid in San Juan County, although it was 34 not mentioned.) In several areas, flood water storage and flood damage protection were also noted as major benefits associated with wetlands. The conflict between the protection and development interests in rural counties is also an important element. The protection interests feel the "locals" don't really understand the importance and values of wetlands. Rural development interests complain they are being dominated by urban expatriots with other sources of income and no understanding of traditional lifestyles. It appears then that the major recognized benefits from wetlands pro- tection vary between urban and rural counties. In urban areas, the recrea- tional and aesthetic benefits are noted; these benefits are also recognized in rural San Juan County. In rural areas, the more frequently recognized benefits are contributions to fisheries (and waterfowl) resources and flood damage protection.In both areas, however, -nterfe,ence-With_--c6nomic__- development_ is often .dFcasia detriment of wetlands -protection.y .*li.:-_-: ....interest+ng aside wa-s7noted with re.d-t6 a few county Pubi ic-orks Departments. These agencies are generally not recognized as leading propo- nents of wetlands protection. Nonetheless, in a few cuuntes-they -have begun to discourage wetland development in response to the physical problems of settlement and flooding. Some highway engineers, for example, are ex- pressing a preference for roadways on pilings, or even around wetland areas in order to avoid frequent and costly maintenance. Although this is not a prevalent attitude statewide, it does appear to be growing. There was little concensus with respect to the cause of these concerns. Some were willing to attribute them to SMA, as the first of several regula- tions. Others felt that Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) were more important. Still other respon- dents suggested that these regulations were more an effect of an overriding general awareness, rather than a cause. Regulatory Approaches Shoreline Master Programs Although there are no programs set up specifically for wetland pro- tection, Shoreline Master Programs are the most common means of regulating development in wetland areas. In many jurisdictions, they are the only local regulation. Generally, these programs "parrot" the SMA Guidelines (WAC 173-16). At the time they were written, few of the jurisdictions felt they had sufficient expertise to expand or modify the guidelines. In addition, in some areas, land use regulation was not well received, and e%,en less so if required by the state. Furthermore, many jurisdictions lacked the technical expertise to evaluate shoreline habitats or identify their significance. As a result, many shoreline inventories and Shoreline Master Programs (SMP) are considered weak and lacking in specificity. At-the same time, however, local planners and the concerned general public, have become better -trained in technical areas. Consequently, in many jurisdictions, staff 35 interpretations, requirements for further information from project propo- nents, and other regulations, such as SEPA or flood control ordinances, have all been used to strengthen the provisions of the programs. As written, most SMP's are based on performance standards, rather than strict regulations. Furthermore, many programs use the conditional "should" rather than the absolute "shall." Thus, programs state "projects in the vicinity of marshes, swamps, or bogs should be constructed to minimize impacts on the recognized values of those habitats." Regulations of this type obviously offer considerable flexibility in interpretation and imple- mentation and, as a result, considerable variation in effectiveness. Other Local Regulations Many of the local governments in Western Washington have enacted or proposed:other ordinances which may effectively protect-wetlands from - _ .. development, even .f4:thi s was not their-principal: ltent,-:Among these are- , :_- - ilgra~Iinq~ordirtartcesIier-osionaAncsiei me iins~t~lOd acslo - 1 ..................agaeproteijcCto--FdTefannCes nd -se-n stive areas-O rdinances-' In -a few . cases, comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances have also included provi- sions for wetlands protection. Of particular interest is that often these types of ordinances apply to areas too small to fall under the jurisdiction of SMA. Table 8 indicates which types of ordinances are used by which jurisdictions. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) also offers a mechanism for local jurisdictions and staff and federal agencies to review developments in wetland areas. Grading and clearing ordinances generally require a permit anytime a major recontouring of the land surface is proposed. Used alone, or in combination with other regulations, they allow the local jurisdiction to limit potential erosion, sedimentation, or flooding impacts as a result of development activities. Grading restrictions can be used to protect wetland areas from dredging or filling and in some cases may result in the estab- lishment of a buffer zone around wetland areas. Erosion and sedimentation control ordinances are intended to protect downstream property owners from the effects of watershed development. Here again, although the ordinances are not intended for wetland protection, they often prevent or limit a major secondary impact of development, that is, filling of wetlands from sediment-laden waters. It should be noted, how- ever, that implementation of related surface water management ordinances can actually result in the damage or destruction of wetland areas through crea- tion of sedimentation or detention facilities. This apparently has become less of a problem in recent years as wetland values have become more common knowledge. Floodplain protection ordinances generally preclude development within the floodway (main channel) and severely limit development within the flood- plain of any river or stream. Often, these ordinances are encouraged or required by flood insurance regulations under the Federal Emergency Manage- ment Act (FEMA). The limitations to fill activities associated with flood protection ordinances can function as an effective tool to protect wetlands habitats. 36 ,i !: ' I� :i Table 8 61: PLANS, ORDINANCES, AND. REGULATIONS USED TO CONTROL DEVELOPME ENT IN WETLANDS Special Purchase or Co GradngSensitive Ownership GradIng 0ra i et Areas Wetland Floodplain SMP Plan Zoning Ordinance Ordi naice Ordinance Property Management I i Clallam County X X Grays Harbor County X Aberdeen X X Hoqulam X i Island County X X X X* Coupeville X X* Jefferson County X King County X X Seattle X X xl, Kitsap County X X 'i Bremerton X x Port Orchard X Poul sbo X X Winslow X Mason County X ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.i,) , -,! i .~~~) ,I w 1- I - 4! !I l'l: '. I : -! k.; " _ i _.i . I i - , I ! ; !:ii'.' . :I 1 - : I i" ,I, i!,:I i .I i i.:.1 I I. Table 8 (continued) 2Special Purchase or i; Sensitive Ownership Cornp. Grading Draina'je Areas Wetland Floodplain SMP Plan Zoning Ordinance Ordinonc Ordinance Property Management Pacific County X XX I Pierce County X X X Tacoma X K_____ San Juan County X f Snohomnish County X X X X* Edmonds X X 'IX EverettX Thurston County X x x I Olympia Xi Whatcom County X Bellingham XX Blaine X Wahkiakum CountyX c', co I_I I *Currently proposed or considered Sensitive areas ordinances are perhaps the most direct and specific mechanisms for protecting wetlands habitats. At present, only King County has such an ordinance, although one has been proposed in Island County and are being considered in Snohomish County. These ordinances identify areas extremely sensitive to the impacts of development activities and recommend preservation, buffer zones, and other means to protect them. In addition to wetlands and other unique wildlife habitat areas, steep slopes and previ- ously mined areas are also recommended for protection from development. Comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances are increasingly being used to identify and protect wetland habitats. Where wetlands are clearly iden- tified within a jurisdiction, these regulations offer a convenient mechanism for protecting them. In addition, since this type of land use planning is reasonably well accepted (with a few notable exceptions), it eliminates the need for implementation of special regulations which might not be as well ........ ecei-ved._ --- - ~ 2.--............ 5.6f~e-keiaTtions.___-- Two major state regulations can be used to regulate development activities in wetlands: Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), and Floodplain Management. As noted above, the State Environmental Policy Act also pro_ ....... v-des, s-tate agencies with the opportunity to review locally 1eguted'-- project proposals, including those,which might be located in wetland areas. The HPA is implemented by the Departments of Fisheries and Game, and is ,intended to protect fisheries resources. Any'activity which would occur within the "state's waters" requires approval from-both deoartments. -Wet-and-habitat types are generally found in or immediately adjacent to the "state's waters" and are considered important components of fisheries habitat. As a result, wetlands are often considered in HPA decisions. The state also exercises some jurisdiction over activities in wetlands through flood control management. The state flood control_manaaamentora _----gram-proitfbits construction in the floodway and limits.construction in the floodplain. Flood control management regulations are intended-to limit increases in either upstream or downsteam flood elevations due to construc- tion in the floodplain, and to provide protection from flooding for struc- tures within the floodplain. Fills are allowable if they achieve both pur- poses. Thus, protection of wetlands under these regulations is limite~Lg. --Anyens~ruction activities in the floodplain require a permit from the state if the city or county does not have an acceptable flood control ordi- nance. Most cities and counties in western Washington do have acceptable ordinances. Federal Regulations . . .. The two key federal programs which regulate development activities in wetlands are federal consistency under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and the Section 10/Section 404 Programs of the Corps of Engineers. As specified under CZMA, federal permit issuances and federal development activities must be consistent with an approved state coastal zone management program. Thus, no federal permits (including Section 10/404, Coast Guard -bridge permits, etc.) can be issued if a substantial development permit has 39 been denied by the state or local government. Furthermore, any development activity on federal lands, such as military bases, must be consistent with the requirements of SMA. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are administered in combination by the Corps of Engineers. Section 10 regulates all activities within navigable waters (navigable waters include all tidal areas to mean high water and all traditionally navigable water bodies). Although originally intended to provide for navigational safety, the Corps' review of Section 10 permits includes other elements of the public interest, including environmental considerations. Section 404 regulates only fill activities, but extends the jurisdic- tion to all waters of the United States. Waters of the U.S. have been defined to include adjacent wetlands; thus, jurisdiction of Section 404 :: extn-dSwell -teyond u ttVi-w-u-endre--baoth- :Section:. 04 and .Section 404 provides forfrev'ew-:and: comment on .all proposed. ' .~__,_S eneral 0 and ...h-u ouYd~e ibt'76Wever, the- definitions'af wetlands under SMA and Section 404 differ substantially leading to confusion and regulatory conflict. This is discussed in more detail later. Importance of Regulations Perception of the significance of any and all of the above regulations varies considerably from one jurisdiction to another, and even from one individual to another within the same jurisdiction. For local regulations, this is based in part on whatever ordinances may exist. For state and federal regulations, the perceptions vary dramatically. Many of the dif-- ficulties in coordination and jurisdiction will be discussed later. Of principal concern here is which regulations are thought by local government regulatory staff to be effective in regulating wetland development. For most jurisdictions, the SMP is the primary, and often only, regu- lation available to regulate wetland development at the local level. This was in some cases felt to be inadequate, but it is all they have. Where support from the general public or the elected officials is limited or non-existent, local staff members have very negative attitudes about the effectiveness of their programs. The use of other local regulations to implement wetlands protection varies considerably. In some areas, grading ordinances or sensitive areas ordinances offer staff planners a means to regulate development activities where the SMP has no jurisdiction. Elsewhere, comprehensive plans or zoning ordinances offer opportunities not only to manage development activities, but also to provide long-range planning and predictability in decision- making. In many jurisdictions, however, there is no effective mechanism for protecting the variety of wetlands outside the jurisdiction of SMA. This may be a matter of some concern to local planning staffs interested in protecting wetland areas. The HPA program is generally recognized as important but of little value to local regulators. In general, coordination is considered poor, with local governments often not knowing an HPA has been requested. In 40 addition, there is no mechanism for local input into the HPA process. Finally, the jurisdictional limits of HPA are considered to offer little in the form of wetlands protection. The Corps' Section 10/404 Program receives perhaps the most diverse judgments. Some local jurisdictions see the Corps as a valuable "club" to discourage development in wetland areas, especially those not regulated by SMA. The Corps is also seen to offer a diversity of technical expertise not available anywhere else. In contrast, other local planners view the Corps as a "dinosaur," and describe coordination as "dancing with an elephant." They feel coordination is poor, are unaware that the Corps offers any expertise, and wonder why they don't enforce the 404 regulations. These perceptions seem to cross both geographic and urban/rural boundaries, making it difficult to ascertain the reasons for such differences of opinion. Implementation- - While every jurisdiction interviewed has a Shoreline Master Program (SMP), very few of the plans have specific policies regarding wetland development or protection. In most cases, wetland areas for at least those recognized as significant when the program was adopted) are placed in the Natural or Conservancy environmental designations. Development in wetlands is then regulated by the general guidelines established for that particular environmental designation. Most SMP's restrict dredging and filling within the natural environment designation but there are generally no specific criteria or standards with regard to development or protection of wetland areas. At the same time, single-family homes, parks, or other "low intensity" uses are often permitted. The designation provides a general guideline for uses which can and cannot occur within the environmental designation but does not specify how this development should occur (i.e., height, bulk, construction techniques, etc.). Some SMP's also describe -setback requirements from lakes and streams which may or may not also serve -- to protect some wetland areas depending on their size and location. Regulations Implementation of wetland protection occurs for the most part on a case-by-case basis through the permitting process when a development is proposed in a wetland area. There are several local permitting processes which might be used to Implement wetland protection, i-ncluding the Sub- stantial Development Permit and building, grading, and drainage permits. If the development proposed is in a wetland area,.the local agency would use the SMP to determine if the general use proposed is permitted and then may use-several other means to regulate setbacks, bulk, height.-etc-.-Several jurisdictions have general development criteria for wetland areas within their comprehensive or subarea plans, but, again, these criteria tend to be general in nature relating to uses and general environmental qualities recommnended for the wetland areas. -The zoning code, for areas presently zoned in each- county, -is the only regulation which provides specific setback, height, and bulk gu-idelines used by all jurisdictions. Again, specific development criteria within the 4 1 zoning code will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and are subject to staff interpretation. In many cases, the zoning was adopted prior to the local SMP and, therefore, the zoning is not always consistent with the gen- eral intent of the SMP. If the zoning has been implemented after adoption of the local SMP, then the jurisdiction usually placed a low density resi- dential or agricultural zoning designation in the wetland areas. No zoning codes, however, specify standards or criteria for development within wetland areas. The setbacks, height, and bulk regulations applicable to the structures allowed within a particular zone would be applied to the wetland area as well. Some jurisdictions have encouraged PUD's as a way of protecting wetland areas while allowing dense development in less sensitive areas of a site. Some PUD guidelines specifically mention sensitive areas which should be left as open space, including wetland areas, although, again, most PUD guidelines do not contain specific criteria for deve!qpment w tWn atTaitdn-d-ea. --.a.. AtiotherprcsdnTfe2sa.easo" egt,-eInddvTp~ was the SEPA process. 's-e-ral- jui sdidtfihn specifically mentinied SEPA as a means of implementing wetland protection through imposition of special conditions as mitigating measures. The criteria developed as mitigating measures would vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on the type of development proposed and the wetlands affected. It should be noted, how- ever, that several other jurisdictions specifically mentioned that SEPA was not used to place conditions on a project but used only to disclose impacts to decision makers. Several jurisdictions implement wetland protection through purchase of the properties. Once the properties are in city and/or county ownership, development restrictions are easily implemented. Wetlands in public ownership were either left as permanent open space, developed for park and/or recreational purposes, or Incorporated into the drainage plan for the particular jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions which lack specific criteria or standards, rely on the Army Corps of Engineers, Departments of Fisheries and Game, or WDE to place restrictions on a development during their review of the Substantial Development Permit application or through the 404 or Hydraulic Project Approval process. Reviews by federal and state agencies, however, were never mentioned as the only means of regulating wetland development but were seen as an aid, particularly if the local SMP is not specific to wetland protection, thus leaving the jurisdiction with little means for achieving such protection. Personnel and Budget In most jurisdictions expenditures for shoreline and wetland management are measured as a proportion of the salary of the staff assigned to the shorelines program. Direct CZM grants or other funds spent on special studies related to shorelines or wetlands may also be considered. In general, the larger urban jurisdictions tend to have one or two shoreline planners. These planners generally are responsible for substantial development permits and other permits and planning in the shoreline areas. 42 They are involved in wetland protection and/or development, if the areas are included in their SMP or if the area is identified during the permit process as a wet area. Smaller rural'areas may only have one planner who also serves as inspector, engineer, and administrator. In most cases, the shore- line planner has a background in planning and a general knowledge of wetland issues. However, most do not have specific backgrounds in biology or nat- ural systems which would make them technical experts in shorelines or wet- land development or protection. Wetland cases usually comprise only a small portion (5-10%) of the shoreline management work for which they are responsible. Most jurisdictions received some CZM funding during 1983 and reported that the amount of funding and number of personnel had both been reduced over that of the past five years. Most jurisdictions felt a reduction in CZM funds In 1984 would not significantly change their regulation of wetland or shoreline development.primarily because current funding is minimal. -/ There were only one or. two, smaller Jurisdictions who felt that the reduction 7 >J.. widng oul reuce thfr ab il ty> g.:eul ate develjopinetirt~ rhoreins ::-~:~_-. ::c-and/ tTor~tnFas--Aecause ofn forced reduction-in 'staff- hourn and/or - change in emphasis to other local concerns. The latter was expressed by several smaller jurisdictions who felt that if federal funding was elimi- nated and local tax dollars had to be increased, then the local populations would want their dollars spent on more tangible public works projects rather than on shoreline and wetland development regulations and enforcement. Several jurisdictions felt that the funds were very helpful in the past to allow special studies to assist in identification of wetlands or for development of shoreline inventories or other studies related to, coastal zone management. Several jurisdictions expressed a concern that their ability to fund future special studies would be eliminated or severely restricted 'due to the elimination of CZM monies. No jurisdictions interviewed had allocated specific funds from their operating budget for wetland development or protection programs, nor were any able to identify specific funds set aside for wetlands.programs. In sunmnary, many SMP's do not provide specific policies or regulations concerning regulation of wetland areas. Wetlands which were recognized as significant at the time of program development were designated as natural or conservancy and are thus regulated by the general guidelines affecting development in those environments. A wide range of other regulations can be, and generally are, used by local jurisdictions to limit development in wetlands. These include grading and drainage ordinances which can be used to restrict development. The SEPA process can also be used through identi- fication of impacts and requirement for mitigating measures. In some cases, however, SEPA is used only to disclose potential impacts. Zoning Codes have also been used to limit development in wetland areas. When combined with PUD's this can be an effective method of limiting development within wet- lands, but sometimes at the expense of increased surrounding density. In general, funding for staff was not identified as a key issue except in small rural jurisdictions, where a loss of CZM funds could result in a reduction of staff. 43 Implementation Problems Questionnaire respondents were asked to identify and rank the main problems in controlling the use of wetlands. There were several main problems which appeared to be consistent among'all jurisdictions, including monitoring and enforcement, lack of expertise, funding, lack of data, lack of coordination, lack of private sector cooperation, and political influ- ences on local permritting decisions. Monitoring and Enforcement The problem mentioned by more jurisdictions in controlling the use of wetlands was monitoring and enforcement of the existing 'regulations. More counties cited this as a main problem than either urban or rural cities or towns. Even though manv of the small cities and towns have limited staff __ -(:often_ only one planner) monitoring does not-tend to'be aproble _since te ursdictional'boundaries. ar mll. heua counties.-which-~have-l-Iimited problem whereas the counties with more staffan oe'bnitonece1to cite lack of coordination and private sector cooperation as major problems. .Most of the jurisdictions who cited enforcement and monitoring as a major problem also cited funding as another key problem. Indeed, many respondents felt that with increased funding, more staff could be assigned to monitoring and enforcement. Others felt that increased funding would allow them to spend more time on critical projects and/or to have special studies conducted to upgrade their current wetland inventories. As might be expected, several of the jurisdictions who expressed the desire for greater funding for specialized studies also mentioned lack of data as a key pr oblem in controlling the use of wetlands. Two common problems cited most often among smaller rural towns was lack of expertise and political pressures in development decisions. The juris- dictions who expressed a problem with lack of expertise were ones with a small staff, often only one planner. These jurisdictions cited DOE as their key resource for experts in wetland identification and problem solving. Several of the small rural towns also felt that wetland protection gives way to political influences far too easily and that often local commissi'oners or council persons do not back staff recommendations regarding wetland pro- tections if political pressures favor development in wetlands. Definitions The various wetland definitions created problems for many jurisdic- tions. Only where there was no incentive to implement SMA, or where there was substantial local wetland expertise were the definitions not considered a problem. The problems included trying to resolve overlapping and con- flicting jurisdictional boundaries, and trying to explain the differences (and their significance) to both proponents and elected decision makers. Commnents ranged from noting that the various definitions "have created a monster" to "no problem, we can use the USFWS definition." Some repondents complained that the SMA definition lacked specificity and was difficult to measure precisely; one felt it might be a problem if it were more specific since now "they can stretch it as far as they want." 4 4 Another concern which was raised was the lack of accuracy in WOE's associated wetland mapping. It was felt that major areas were sometimes missed and that the mapping lacked the precision necessary to make it useful. Furthermore, there was some concern expressed about getting the associated wetland boundary changed when adequate data were provided to support the change. Coordination Coordination was not seen as a major problem among small rural or urban jurisdictions. Most smaller jurisdictions stated that they had little or no coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers, primarily because either their shorelines were already developed or the Corps has not had jurisdic- tion over the type of projects proposed. Most small towns expressed posi- tive experiences regarding coordination with the Department of Ecology and w: : minimal contact withWthe Departments :of Fisheries and Game. ________ Among.-cou6ty:_p1anners; -the4 asgilffic&rtt-.dif fer en__o opf io.---- -:'-:~ :~ : :-::cb~nin~6b-~-~-~sue-at-both state and federal levels. The Departments of Fisheries and Game (WDF and.WDG) were generally recognized to have the best available technical expertise concerning wetland issues. When an HPA was also required on a project, they were willing to lend their as- sistance. However, for projects in outlying areas or not requiring an HPA, it is often difficult to get WDG or WDF personnel to view the site or com- ment on the project. Furthermore, they often don't agree. "Three different agencies look at the same spot with three different interpretations. They never show up together and leave staff feeling embarrassed.,". WOE also received mixed reviews. Some felt the Department offered important administrative assistance, or occasionally technical expertise. Other comments were made about frustration, lack of coordination, and bureaucratic paper shuffling. (It was noted, however, that red tape can have the advantage of delaying bad projects0) WDE was also noted as pro- viding a layer of regulation not subject to local polftical pressures. As with WDE, the Corps received mixed reviews for its coordination and interaction. Some jurisdictions felt the Corps kept them apprised of many projects through the Section 404 public notice. The Corps was also felt to offer regulation in areas not subject to SMA. Others countered that,the "obtuse federal bureaucracy" was difficult to penetrate and not of any assistance if a project did not fall within a narrow set of standards. Overlaps and Gaps Just as there were counties who expressed a problem with coordination and too much duplication in the process, others felt the duplication in the permitting process was good and that it provided a safeguard against devel- opments that might otherwise slip through the cracks due to an oversight at the local level or local political pressures. Most of- the jurisdictions who experienced coordination problems also felt the permitting process was too duplicative and felt it should be streamlined; none, however, had specific recommendations regarding streamlining. 45 It was also stated that wetland concerns were different at different levels of government and, therefore, justified different levels of regula- tion. At the local level, flood protection and drainage issues might be most important. At the federal level, however, protection of major stops along a "flyway" might be a much more significant issue. Gaps in coverage include geographic areas as well as types of activi- ties. Geographic areas which are not be covered by SMA include wetlands adjacent to lakes less than 20 acres in size and wet areas in excess of 200 feet from a shoreline. [Many local shoreline planners had originally felt their SMP's provided protection for most of the wetlands in their jurisdic- tion. They were surprised to learn the extent of wetlands when the USFWS NWI mapping was prepared.] Although the Corps' Section 404 program extends to wetlands adjacent to streams with flows of as little as 5 cfs, there are still numerous wetlands which are not protected by regulations. (See, for .example, the di-scussion in Inventory- Resultsrb-avd _WetT nds 6egulat din Kinrg Co6u nty.- ..... ........Actl- tii-trfet rn-egulated i s6me-jurisdIctions which may ind rectly-or directly affect wetlands include dredging, logging activities, grading and draining, and in some cases filling in small wetlands not under Corps jurisdiction. Several respondents expressed concern-about inadequate regulation of logging activities and indirect impacts to wetlands areas. Some felt the Forest Practices Act did not offer adequate protection, or else it was inadequately enforced. Impacts included direct habitat destruc- tion or indirect impacts due to road construction and sedimentation. Off- site sedimentation was also identified as an often unregulated impact associated with a variety of development activities. "The state is making a mistake by regulating the estuary, but not controlling upstream influences. Federal Consistency Generally, federal consistency was not recognized as a significant issue. In Grays Harbor, however, it is an issue of significant concern. Some feel it is one-sided and should work in both directions (i.e., not only should federal agencies be reztricted from issuing permits over local SMA limitations, but also they should be required to issue permits where local government has authorized projects). Although this is not an issue which can be handled at the state level, it is one which should be stated. Results and Effectiveness Estimates of SMP effectiveness in protecting wetlands varied consi- derably as did the criteria for determining wetland losses. Evaluations ranged from "D" to "very effective." General criticisms included "too awkward" and "too late to stop residential development." The following sections discuss some of the factors identified as measures of the success of SMA and the associated SMP's. Types of Wetland Losses Several respondents noted that fills in estuarine or coastal wetlands were no longer occurring as a result of SMA regulations. Others felt this was more a function of public awareness rather than any specific regulations 46 ("standards and regulations did not save the wetlands, public process did"). There was general agreement that the level of awareness and to some degree the difficulty in getting permits all contribute to diminishing losses. Evidence of this is "the existence of places where people would fill if they could. There was even mention of the reversion of marginal wet agricultural lands to wetlands because it was no longer economically feasible to protect or reclaim them. In contrast were responses which recognized the incremental or minor wetland losses and the effects of indirect impacts (e.g., changes in drainage patterns due to construction in another region of the watershed). These were attributed to activities occurring outside the jurisdiction of SMA. Often these activities go unregulated due to the lack of ordinances to control them. Changes in Trends of Wetland Losses .. .. Ge .r.Y',J__W0_asx ume thit,,the! trend-o~f_wetla'nd ose a --_- __ felt that there was a decrease in wetland losses within the jurisdiction of SMA, but perhaps an increase outside the jurisdiction. One local planner suggested that SMA had contributed to slowing wetland losses," but it is not a leader in the field." There was even the suggestion that the attitude has become "fill it while you can before the regulations get tougher"; as a result areas have been fiiled which would not have been before. Permit Conditions Another important men, sure of program effectiveness is the development of permit conditions to m;nimize the impacts of development activities in or adjacent to wetland areas. Setbacks or buffer zones are the most common conditions required. These are generally considered successful in protect- ing wetlands ("if the work hasn't been completed before they apply" or "if the person applying-isn't political"). Erosion and drainage controls (including catch basins and oil-water separators) were also noted by some as successful. Other conditions which were mentioned include requirements for providing public access, revegetation and limits on construction time to protect any nearby fish spawning. In general coastal planners are convinced there has been some reduction in wetlancreased destruction of "upland" (palustrine):wetlands not under the jurisdiction of SMA. Permit conditions were seen as a means of protecting or minimizing impacts to wetland areas. Buffer-zones,_sedimenr. tation controls and revegetation were a few of the conditions mentioned. Suggestions Many coastal planners offered suggestions for improvements to various aspects of the Shoreline Management Process. Some were as basic as a"streamline the process" while others provided much more detail. These suggestions are listed below. (Since the suggestions were phrased inlmany 47 I _7.! different ways, the location of a suggestion on the list only approximately represents how often it was mentioned-) � Change "associated wetlands" definition to parallel Corps 404 or USFWS definition, or develop specific criteria for definition. * SMP's should be more specific, improve regulations and guidelines. * Streamline the process, shorten required time frame for permits. � Improve coordination with WBE, WDF, WOG. * Should develop an inventory and policy for sensitive lands (espe- cially those outside of present SMA jurisdiction) or, extend SMA __jurisdiction to include other wetland areas, smaller creeks, etc. ~~~~~~~~~~~n-nocmn c-apabJ-lities.,*-*.ii �WOE should work more ctively to reduce political influences on decision making and assure adequate expertise. �Expand jurisdiction to include dune lands, dune marshes, and natural spits. * Improve accuracy of DOE associated wetland maps. * WDG should be more involved in wetlands regulation (since they have the technical expertise). �Local governments need good grading and erosion control ordinances. o Strengthen and enforce Forest Practices Act. �Create a technical group at state level to provide support and expertise to local governments. Develop specific requirements for mitigation. *Allow public interest groups to file suits and claim damages. *Raise the $1,000 minimum on permit requirement. Enact Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan. *Make federal (Section 404, CZM) and state (SMA) regulations more readable. Allow administrative variances. Develop basinwide land use regulations controlling drainage, grading, and filling. 4 8 From the responses, it was apparent that increased specificity in the definition and in SMP guidelfnes and regulations are considered important- to most county shoreline planners. The need for a streamlined process was also considered important. These suggestions imply the SMA regulations are con- sidered too vague and, therefore, difficult to implement. These difficul- ties may also be reflected in the desire for increased coordination with state and federal agencies. These agencies are considered important sources of technical expertise which can aid local decision making. It is also interesting to note that there was substantial encouragement for expanded jurisdiction to dune lands, isolated wetlands, and other areas. There were also several requests for improved monitoring and enforcement capabilities and for more active DOE participation to,reduce political In- fluence on decision making. These suggestions were recognized as requiring more funds. They also indicate a recognition of the difficulties in requ- lati-ng .w-etland--deve-lopmen-t-and a des-i-re-to.-improve--the-e-ffecti- venL-ss-of--that-- regu4*t4on.~, 0. OTHER APPROACHES TO WETLANDS PROTECTION Protection of wetlands can also occur through efforts undertaken by citizens and organizations in both public and private sectors. These efforts may range from public education and rehabilitation programs to inventories, mapping, wetland purchases, and taxing programs. Government programs are supplemented by the nonregulatory techniques to increase their effectiveness and to achieve objectives unobtainable through regulations. Concerned individuals and conservation groups have developed these ap- proaches in some cases as a result of the inadequacy or lack of existing wetlands regulations. Implementation of protective measures presents a variety of difficulties and limitations, but the individuals involved have overcome many of these obstacles with creative solutions. Identification and mapping of wetlands is a key step toward achieving wetlands protection, as accurate maps provide helpful tools for other approaches. Several mapping approaches .exi st. For all of the lower 48 states, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared the National Wet- lands Inventory using the classification in "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States" (Cowardin,et al., 1979). These small-scale maps (originally 1:100,000 transferred to 1:24,000 quad maps) are useful to identify sensitive areas, but small areas of interest must be remappepd if accurate boundaries are required. Large-scale mapping provides detailed site characteristics (i.e. vegetation, wildlife, soil, water regime) which are useful in determining the relative importance of a given wetland. Numerous small wetland surveys have been made for impact assessment, planning or development programs, wildlife surveys, endangered, threatened or sensitive species surveys, or in compliance with permit regu- 7ations. These small surveys would be more useful if a consistent classi- fication system was used to identify the habitats. Consistent definitions and classification allows sites to be ranked and provides valuable informa- tion and for land use planning, to help evaluate development permits, and to define acquisition priorities. 49 Detailed maps and inventories also provide valuable data for educa- tional efforts. Public educationprograms include films, workshop and publications produced and presented by conservation groups, government agencies and regional botanical or wildlife societies. The Nature Con- servancy, National Audubon Society and its local chapters, the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation increase public awareness of wetlands. Lectures, slide shows, public school audio-visual presentations, fund raisers and workshops are important vehicles for dissemination of general and site specific wetlands information. Technical assistance and educa- tional materials are available from many federal and state agencies to assist local groups in their presentations. Land acquisition or acquisition of development rights and tax incen- tives are effective measures used in conjunction with regulations to protect wetlands. Public purchase of land is expensive but it provides good protec- ...tion and_ permits public_ use.. -Federal: and state. open space,. recreations. and . .... wildlife:grant-in-aid_:programs-are: avai-lable-toaid-community.group-iin - : - acqul ring. de -o1er} 'pert es::--_Some: of_- the,:" most r-ef fecti vem:l-nd:.acqui siti on...L M .programs exist-w$thm-onsurvatiorgroups. - -- :. The Nature Conservancy acquires land through donations or bargain sales and uses federal tax laws to make it desirable for the landowner to sell. They insure that the land is managed in a manner acceptable to the previous owners and the State. Over 175,270 acres of land is owned or leased by Audubon Society and patrolled by Society wardens. The sanctuaries range from 10 to 26,800 acres in size and most are acquired through donations, independent purchases or joint ventures with other conservation groups. They may lease portions or all of the property to other resource agencies for management and to alleviate maintenance costs. The National Wildlife Federation, though not a large land owner, channels donations of land to private and public organizations that maintain property donations in ac- cordance with the wishes of the donor. It is an effective program since all donations are tax deductible. Thousands of state and local citizen organi- zations play wetland protective roles. Ducks Unlimited has acquired over four million acres of wetlands in Canada to be protected and managed by the Canadian Fish and Wildlife Service for waterfowl. Currently, no purchase of properties in the United States is allowed except through the Duck Stamp program; however, the Department of Interior presently has a bill in Con- gress which would provide funds for waterfowl habitat protection nationwide. Other options for protection indirectly related to land acquisition are deed restrictions, covenants and conservation easements. These protect wetlands by restricting their use and allowing landowners to protect their wetlands even after their death or the sale of land. Federal and state governments offer tax advantages and conservation groups coordinate these efforts to encourage use of these contract restrictions. Each of these techniques requires legal assistance, since there are no standard require- ments, validity, enforceability or tax implications for all jurisdictions. Real property taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, and income taxes all affect the use of wetlands. Real property taxes are based on the "assessed" value of lands and structures. Development restrictions can be used to lower the assessed value of property. Landowners can enjoy the benefit of reduced property taxes assessments if they own some wetland area and that 50 portion of their property is taxed at a use value rather than its full market value. The State has developed three systems of differential tax assessment--pure preferential assessment, deferred taxation, and restrictive agreements. Landowners can be encouraged to protect their wetland property by taxing the property at its use value (i.e., lower undeveloped value) and not the fair market value. These landowners often subdivide and sell their property when they encounter changes in market value or development pres- sures. No penalties are applied for developing the land or withdrawing from the program. Deferred taxation applies when the Ilandowner converts to a non-eligible use (i.e., residential, commercial).' The owner may then be asked to pay some or all of the taxes that would have accrued during the years of preferential assessment. Restrictive agreements encompass the first two systems but also include an agreement by the owner to leave the property undeveloped for an-assigned number of years. This is probably the most effective property tax approach for wetland protection; however, the ~~~-taxation scheme-shouT&be-supplemented with regulatory programs to insure - --protection of ecologically..-sensitive areas. Est-ate taxe!9' pCid- ta the- st-ate~ or- federal- government upon an- i-ndi vi-.-- dual's death, are calculated on a progressive scale and based on the value of assets in-the decedents estate. If most of the assets are land, the taxes may be extremely burdensome to the beneficiary.- Therefore, tax laws provide for a deduction of the value of all gifts or donations of property, leases, options to purchases or easements to charities or government bodies. In effect, the value of the donated land or interest is deleted from the total estate value. Gift taxes are calculated as estate taxes; they are imposed at the time of-the donation and they apply.only to property transferred without compen- sation. Gifts to certain charitable organizations and all government bodies are exempt from taxation. Income taxes are the major source of revenue for the federal government and-most state governments. As discussed in the land.acquisition section, landowners may obtain tax advantages through donation of land, conservation- restrictions, or easements for charitable organizations-or government bodies. The owner may deduct the full value of the capital gain on the donated property provided that it does not exceed 30% of the adjusted gross income during the year of the donation. For gifts of partial interests in property, the donated interest must be granted in perpetuity or it must qualify as a conservation purpose. The objectives in preserving land for conservation purposes are to (1 preserve natural wildlife, plant or fish habitat; (2) preserve open space for the public; (3) preserve outdoor recre- ation areas; or (4) preserve a site of historical importance. Wetland rehabilitation efforts are a way of protecting these fragile ecosystems and drawing attention to their ecological value and their primary role in maintaining the integrity of our environment. Communities or local wildlife or plant sometimes may initiate wetland rehabilitation efforts for damaged or destroyed areas to reestablish natural wetland vegetation and. hydrologic regimes. The success rate of reestablishin-g wetlands is high providing the wetland area has not been totally eliminated. For example, previously diked land in Willapa Bay Estuary, reopened to tidal waters in 5 1 1980, is reestablishing as a productive part of the estuarine habitat of Washington. Some local jurisdictions require the reestablishment of wet- lands acreage comparable to parcels of wetland destroyed through develop- ment. Creation of these new wetlands is possible and has been attempted by many agencies; however, the possibility of developing new wetlands should not encourage filling or elimination of existing ones. 5 2 V. RECOMMENDATIONS The following are mechanisms which might enhance wetland protection efforts: Local regulations such as grading or building ordinances should be enacted or amended to address environmental concerns in addition to engineering concerns. o Establish procedures to improve WOE, WDG, WOF coordination with local jurisdictions, including coordinated site visits and project review. o Provide a mechanism for local input into the HPA process. . Adopt-singte-we-tlands cla-s-s-if-ication-sys-temsuch-as-Cowa-rdims or that used by WOG and have it_used_byalLresource.agencies.. ~~~~ ana~~~~~~~as- c,iabt wetlands to remove ambiguities (e.g., "wetland", retitled Shoreline Management Zone; "associated wetlands", use USFWS definition). Add a wetlands element to the SMP's, identifying specific mechanisms for regulating development activities in wetland areas.. . Amend SMA to include isolated wetlands, rather than only those associated only with lakes greater than 20 acres or rivers greater than 20 cfs. o Establish mechanisms to coordinate all local permits and regulations, and state permits, which presently are used to control wetland development. Assist county planners in zoning decisions, encouraging open space designations for wetland areas. . Conduct special studies to obtain data; this would assist decision making and contribute to public education. Possible studies include: comprehensive wetlands identification/mapping -improve and update shoreline inventories -regional coastal zone management studies for areas of interest or concern -update WOE associated wetlands maps and streamline procedure for amendment -develop slide shows, movies, pictorial boards, and other presentations for the general public develop workshops to educate local coastal planners concerning available data, general wetland ecology, etc. Improve enforcement and monitoring mechanisms and increase available funding. Possible actions include: 53 - accumulate and disseminate more data in comprehensible language - improve data base for selected areas where high use is expected - raise $1,000 minimum on permit requirements - update shoreline inventories - improve WDE associated wetlands maps - complete NWI summaries of wetland areas for the quads not covered in this document Improve effectiveness of SMA wetland regulations by providing specific requirements for buffer zones, best management practices, and strict limitations on development activities. . Clarify and strengthen regulations in SMA limiting development in wetlands areas. . .. ......En coura-ge-establttshment7of-PUDls-to protect small wetlands and ::--=- .......... --:--- . .---::sensit-ive areas --include specific gui delines--for wetland porti ons -:- ---'-.- -ta...................... e - riter fordevelopment-withif wetland- ...................................... o Encourage development of sensitive area ordinances to limit development activities in wetlands areas. 54 REFERENCE S Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witman, 1976. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 964. Burg, M.E., E.S. Rosenberg, and D.R. Tripp, 1975. Vegetation associations and primary productivity of the Nisqually Salt Marsh on Southern Puget Sound, Washington. In contributions to the natural history of the Southern Puget Sound Region, Washington. Unpublished research report. The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington. Burrell, G., 1978. Snohomish estuary wetlands study - classification and mapping, Volume. III. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington- 'Cowardin,. L'M-,;- V.-Caer C be,adE.LRe ~7 . :Classific.atin Biological Survices, U.S. Fish and Wildli-fe Serfice, U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. Creveling, J., et al, 1980. Chehalis Habitat Inventory Team. Inventory of vegetative communities and associated wildlife of Black River drainage. Washington State Department of Game. Ellman, N.S. and J.P. Schuett-Hames, 1979. Wetlands of Lake Washington, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Olympia, Washington. Jefferson, C.A., 1975. Plant communities and succession in Oregon coastal ,salt marshes. Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. King County Wetlands Inventory, 1982. King County Planning Department, Seattle, Washington. Kirkland, City of, 1982. Yarrow Village Draft EIS, Appendix D. Natural Resources, Kirkland Department of Community Development, Kirkland, Washington. Kunze, L. and L.C. Cornelius, 1982. Baseline inventory of rare-;, threatened, and endangered plant species/communities along Washington's Pacific coast. Washington Natural Heritage Program for Washington State Department of Ecology and NOAA, Coastal Zone Management Grant No. G82-029. Kusler, J.A., 1983. Our national wetland heritage, a protection guideline. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. Maynard, C., 1979. Inventory of vegetative communities and associated wildlife of the Skookumchuck River Drainage. Washington State Department of Game, Olympia, Washington. 55 Merker, C.R. and N. Hale, 1982. Wildlife habitat management plan for Merwin Project and adjacent Pacific Power and Light lands, Lewis River Basin. Washington Department of Game for Pacific Power and Light. Northwest Environmental Consultants, 1974. Willapa River and harbor navigation project, Pacific County, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Northwest Environmental Consultants, 1975. The tidal marshes of Jefferson County. Jefferson County Planning Department, Port Townsend, Washington. Oakerman, G., 1980. Cowlitz wildlife habitat development plan. Washington State Game Department for Tacoma City Light. Raedeke; L.D. -; Garcia;-J.C.-, and R.D. -tab e7-T976-. 7 WetlanUds-of Skagit....... <*County,jocations, :characteristics,. -and Wildlife values. College obf. Shapiro and Associates, Inc., 1982. Aquatic habitat and vegetation survey of the Dosewallips River floodplain. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Shapiro and Associates, Inc., 1981a. Inventory of wetlands Green-Duwamish River Valley. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Shapiro and Associates, Inc., 1981b. Wetlands study of Commencement Bay. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Shapiro and Associates, Inc., 1978. Inventory of wetlands lower Skagit River. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Shaw, S.P. and C.G. Fredine, 1956. Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39. Shotwell, J.A., 1977. The Willapa estuary background studies for the preparation of a management plan. Planning Division, Departnment of Public Works, Pacific County, Washington. Smith, J., D.R. Mudd, and L.W. Messmer, 1976. Impacts of dredging on the vegetation in Grays Harbor, Appendix F. In maintenance dredging and the environment of Grays Harbor, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington. Sweeney, S.J., W.H. Nelson, and E.A. Rodrick, 1982. Baseline inventory of land cover/land use and wildlife use in the coastal zone of Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties, Washington. Washington Department of Game, Nongame Program, Olympia, Washington. Thomas, D.W., 1982. Habitat changes in the Columbia River Estuary since 1868. Draft, CREST. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1973-1983. National Wetlands Inventory Maps. St. Petersburg, Florida. 56 Washington State Department of Ecology, 1977-1980. Coastal zone atlas of Washington, 12 volumes. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1980. Coastal zone atlas of Washington. Automated data base - an introduction. Olympia, Washington. Washington Water Research Center, 1977. Wetland surveys of Skagit and Grant Counties, Washington. Inventory, wildlife values and owner attitudes, Report No. 29, Pullman, Washington. A ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~- 7- -7-"- 5 7 APPENDIX A COUNTY WETLANDS INVENTORIES 58 I., A I' m I 11111111VI I103 N' I _- N N L`-_' . I _ . --_-'. .- I . ammmmmmmmm i I I - I 1 I _ f 09_ -.'IC i ' 1I!I-N '2'- , i, 'e I . 4 . . M L-- :49- r -i Li-~ ; AN A,NDI ~~ 't Mr 11ANFR Z N I 'i'_ ' ; . III, ;;_ I. _ - i _'__ e' . r$ _ 11 -- v, v A> .f AK A ~~~~~~~LAKF A11 ",IN[ ( :R-~A'I ..T'4I U'~~~~ it- 3' A- _'Ii I _ I 11 rt L E tl' pI Fil I Ir" i 'i - V IN _' -X i J i I I II Z_'p'_.. I '. . _-----d' :. 1 i___ 1 I OSII I CLEAR tAEik 1 1 I I"I 1, 4, 1'.,- V ___4 4 I)h PIl tf r- i ftiol 111- - __1__, r . _'V rg_' _ V 91"', 5_ 4 _ 1 7 i, P _4 1_ cRANI tE CALlS U.S ' I .1 - -_ .1 __ _ - __ _I_ _ 'i _N I'll I 'V_ I _'i ' .IN ' I _"-' , _ Ir ; 5 __t I - 1- 11-__"."".'__ _1-__ - 11 -- 11 - 1- - _'- :--- - -: - ---- ____ , I 1 - I '_ _F_ - V I I NAI AN[ '; MNO III L I l l 4 1 t N I, - I I L . _ T I I D rIONAL PARK D VICINITY(S) ""OIlMA lI ll.Itk.f:!t 0111MI't I aa - I : -.. _ 1: A"", __ t- W, - I VI IL NI't A% . .11 k'* _ IKA a.. _ _ - MOMRtE_.. I; l q rr 11 SF A t - li r di t =21 __ 7 ! 9 1 .."tu )-TA$t M-= . Iz " 2:itk _ _ 11_ -Iwff__ - ""P". - R'Rn - i 06 0 - R. 747- - - f- I , 4 - I - I I II 7_ a. '_a_ aS' a, 1" I '_ 4 ,;fi A _' I (III FIRCUILRS MOUNTr Si - =__ gras- *__ "Z_ -_ -, .. - I I __ I,-.wit e "F_11 01'_p ai !'y W900W."44-_ x '. 1 I TIIRIHOALI - 1 I I--1111 I 4' ffl(il VCI E1 MALTAY1111. A_Vi _tf_"F I I _ il l I I 11 I"' 9 i- L1; _ N.. I I F It - 1- I ofl "I' e I 1 g - o I I II I I 11 smimmmi - - I I I I W 11 _1 I I Z1111" *W._' _ )1N!1RR S U'A I MI f v "'AS' I'l I g(iSIIAIJL I I AXI1 PORtAIISI 4 _ F ri V _ ft=4_ , , _' -Ax I _1 1-1 1 7 f W.I'll Id"41--11PA.- 111.4 I I 4 ' "al " , a.'., L 11'el-I 1A, I E%A 1- -1 .4 ; '77 4 0, 1 'mi _ _ a ' _ 1 1 p _ I _-VIEV" 'W -1 fti i I IlIpII II'l I'_ - I "? G-6- c". I w. CN t I II I IAALI I V GREENAI4MA I I 1.1 - I Mtn .406W _ ------i i w 9 . I . - , - - . "W' X L I . .-f - I I a, I _ _ w. -, I r, V _ 11_ _e -.1, M .? I ER I -- L W- Ilti ffig _f' MO Ixjft_ M_ I -I RINtilf"lI it 4'll- m I I . . I _ Yf' B -t I I11 - 1 '_', ';4 j:--4 V, "-I tI 'I,~I I- eAI"'!'p'Nn MAt nuL KAPOWMAI -'-- - - I _ I .. I I L .M. - __ -1- ad-ISgig Ia-', 1.5-I' "" ADUA rEI-A .... I RAYMOND !'A' II,,, I I IINAI ASIIA III I _ N MINI~I,AJ RAND?l a s - - 1U I I Ii 4. -. I I U I I)).) I_IU_ K'Y_j -_ SWAmr)bTR 'r_ - . 4.. NfRWRUfr - I 111141 491111IA IA-Il.:'' II.. - , a. II I 1.-Ia I s_ I I .1 t 6 f a I C , , 0 I '151G:F(I aIRII: L "' I 4 t;I I)C~~~~~;A OAR 1 M IT. STIIIr Ia I __ _: faiI I 71 ,I 1 4 1 :'j k i k F It I I i I I N W_ I I 44F.i. .;, P zI, le I ,- it, I I I ; '_ I I - . A. .. . I --- - N=== _' _ P- if lfilitNI ... I _ il . 1 1 -iiei I 4 if M I t M I 41_ - - eAll 11 f I .oN _ 1 1 1111 1151 '4S I L'? I FIGURE A-i NWI Map Coverage IRISf Itivi 11 jjjI..SI!.% County boundary Boundary of area covsred by NWI maps NWI maps ueed in this inventory la 20 30 40 Miles a ~ ~ ~~I I a A- - - _ I K I HOOD It U I 511011(1 %_0RSLAND I AMA' IIRIDAL oIl) NI4IIVII,I t_K a 0 t AAM m - - - ---a- MEMO I i SCAL19 1,1000000 g m M ,LLAM COUNTY 41 ...&C AKE SSW*~~~~~ ?wAa Mat C. -S%%.a Ift % "W- 11_ CLAI 1% -%% % .. f.qAIJ,. Ca .. Fla " a .l Iasj aIg TK~ 1 % ,I trp-f --_` -f / p% . - I-1 I I I -a p. - - --, ". ,4*APeaaI C uII4FPSIM _J\_ _a_vI _, _ _ I> _ �S.TL q'L.h. D_ *_ * _ ;pp Pal Simi - 94.4 H.Ok 6ASIePb1 is URI&- I A 4 4 'f i r r - O IS TW",.4 AW. C, .1111, .1. C 41 c 1'* 1 1 .J ' I/II~ > 6 I ?F lr I k LIJ, le-I "I -1 I A. a t i I a4 a I , -- I ' o "' A' /,x c _ __ :Om IjIA.... K~~~~~~~ ~~~~1 * , . ) - N-% ~~!~'h. fmAd8~~h~ 1. Coastal Zone Atlas,I 19-18. 'i 1: I. __ i, ,0; 0, ic:; _,,i! jJ;; ,f,! _ . .1 _!v " 1; '. I 1. i I-; I - 1 . _ : ! 'i; I jE - 1I I i .i ! I SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FOR!CLALI Size Distribution (nl /acrqs) 1.l: NM COUNTY Watershed Size (acres) Wetlanb Type Total Area -I -(Acres) I - K. __ . . . . . .... I .I I ~1' 111 .gl , [ t-#l%lT Illia e,# I ll llfl I -Mi a1a ( <lU LU-IUU .1QUV I' , ZUUU-OUUU rOUUU KUUU I _ _ _; ,, I , _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - � !. i I ;! . t/1683' I i/3l2 II -- I ; i _ (. t I' ! i,, . ~.. ,). I. 'i' __ 1? i __ '', i., ri i ' ' ' i ' ) ., -ouuu Estuarine, Intertidal Beach Substrate Emergent . Scrub/Shrub Forested Subtidal Aquatic Bed N A N P 214 8 476 NA/46 5 4/16 4 204 3 6/22 5 Lacustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Palustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub/Shru b M) Forested Total: 4874 Total: 4874 11 3 94 7/7 9 4/1 9 2/7 8 1/7 5 : i I = flat. Sources: Coastal Zone Atlas, 1980 In=number of wetlands beach substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) rI rocky shore, beach bar GRAYS HARBOR CO T0n.t lstAnd is C i r lllibelh Ir 1. Kumze and Cornelius, 1982. A 2. National Wetlands Inventory. 3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976. k I il; SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FOR GR'YS HARBOR COUNTY -- -- -- - . ~ ~ ~ I Wetland Type Total Area Size Distribution (n/ea acres) , >100 , ' i'oo 'J:� 6/11811 : '1, __ IVI;, . - - i, 1/129 i t ' %/439 i I ,1 .: ji, !: n/129 I.I; I * i i j ] . i i, . .~i ; ' :' Watershe ed Size (acres) (Acres) I n ----- <lU ]LU-[UL <ZUUU ZUUU-oUUU >)UUU (I U- 'U-jl-I Estuarine, Intertidal 2 Beach Substrate Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Subtidal Aquatic Bed Lacustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent 13,950 2775 29 35/1449 2/29 25/145 14,948 439 Pal ustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested 39 9 1340 503 940 13/39 2/9 121/257 21/83 14/67 16/422 13/291 9/194 _-, t Total: 34,972 ; I I Sources; , National Wetlands Inventory !UoS. Corps of Engineers, 1976 Kunzp and rnmaltloi 1 A9 I P. **&.. I l. UFU CI e ulClu IIUS z.OL 2n=number of wetlands beach substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) = flat, rocky shore, beach ba ,, . I Wetlands Inventory) I I I . ISLAND COUNTY 1. Coastal Zone Atlas, 1979. Ii 2. National Wetlands Inventory. ;' (coverage of entire county) . l V -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' ii 1', , 1979 i , L I 2. Nat~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ionlWtad Inventory., i t i SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FORi ISLAND COUNTY I " Wdt pe Total Area (Acres) ( nl/ Iacr !l ri ' jj5 ::' i: i 1'' i I � ) )1 'i t 'i1 :! '): ii: I ' . . Size Distribution Watershed Size (acres) ,nnri gnnn lrA.flt \ <10 1o0-1ou >1nn A-. vv -liu "Izuuu V IUlII -,4U 1 ' LIF %nnnI _ _ _ N-_- LuVVu-uuuu MOIMUU Estuarine, Intertidal Beach Substrate2 Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Subtidal Aquatic Bed Lacustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed _- Emergent ' Palustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested 8370 744 1 18 NA/63 1/1 NA/369 1/18 2/312 I I ; 647 4 86 _ 1/8 6 99 20 1143 625 139 27/85 1/6 57/24 7 27/13 1 12/55 5/56 1/14 26/588 23/494 4/84 2/299 i j i ' _ i I I ;t I j ; I i z i t'! I' 'i i .;: t! ,a ' Welad Invnoy I i ' ! I'i i\all lgetlands Invlentory) i i Total: 17,719 , , 1 . I I Sources: I l , ' National Wetlands Inventory Coastal Zone Atlas, 1980 2nnumber of wetlands beach ,ubstrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) = flat, rocky shore, beach bar (Natic , I.,Nati ., il i; �! i:: i r; I i: ; i::: :i JEFFERSON COUNTY 1 3 11.0 vmo - - '- Am.r IN. 0.&ruU- I"" 0 P I ;#,: f - F- 010 1c- - - 1. t, e .~~~~~. / JI C..AsIs.'. le I i Ito.. 3 i j! !ii Im i I I ..j.- :i!;1 1. Coastal Zone Atlas, 1978. 2. National Wetlands Inventory, 1973. 3. Northwest Environmental Consultants, 1975. 4. Shapiro and Associates, Inc., 1982. i . '. . i ! ' I 1 I ' I I I SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FOR COUNTY Tota l (acres ) Estuarine, Intertidal 2 Beach Substrate2 2253 Emergent - 673 NA/262 NA/272 Scrub/Shrub _ Forested Subtidal Aquatic Bed 6615 Lacustrine Open Water 411 -- 12/411 Aquatic Bed -- - Emergent - Palustrine Open Water 211 22/88 7/121 Aquatic Bed 190 2/13 6/17, Emergent 640 70/272 21/361 Scrub/Shrub 601 64/238 15/36: Forested 209 16/82 6/12; 2 1/139 __ i _ mm 1 im Ii ki II N -4 3 7 8 3 7 i .. I . I !i , i : , . I'5' Total: 11 ,803 4 I .I ands Inventory) I I Sources: National Wetlands Inventory "; !' Coastal Zone Atlas, 1980 2n=number of wetlands beach substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) , l i i , . ( I I ' If I, flat, rocky shore, beach bar (Nati Ina 'j { .'i '' I i - i !iI I i : I! II I L . I;; i ! _j ! ' , , ; Ii , , I I . . t ; , I I I 1 . : ; . I KING COUNTY ( Fj#iiIan~~ 4~ - '4all Oh d i- ~ ta MIJ /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-b SN 1.fl ~ ae~ ~ tCi~ Pais S n'3 ~4.~M4""' E'r . ~ 11 nd 4..1-na.8, A K~~~~~~an a 1979. t ., 1 ca *t* - ds inventory, 1982. 1 d cities) I ates, Inc., 1981. It1 I q,. .4. I~~~~~~ -1-I I .,L4 .1 J -ps F 1/ 1. coastal Zone Atlas, 2. King County Wetlane (minus incorporatee 3. Shapiro and Associa 4. National WetlandsI 5. Ellmvan, N.S. and J. I I Inventory. .P. Schuett-Hanes, 21979. . Ii-: ; . -S.- - '1'i . - i i I:.t I i I I I I - I,Id.I 1 ,,, !I I I; ,,I :i !j _ - i . I 1, j )1 1! _ -I 6. City of Kirkland, Yarrow Village Draft EIS Appendices, 1982. OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FOR KIN( 'COU S1ze Distribution (Iacres Size Distribution (n /acres) I SUMMAR Y ) , NT Y I Wetland Type Total Area Watershed Size (n/acres) I -A *"n I n - a I ! .!: 'I ' ; : 1 1 - !, I: I' t . I i:ii; I, 1i,, . o. .' , 1^aa - -- - .--. --- - - - (Acresi c1U IU-lUU >IUU (<UUU 200UU-8UU >80UU - -- ---.-I--- : l t 1/253 1/10 i I -- ; 22/910 il1/36 ,6/275 131/ 1295 .1 8/98 i46/169 5 f48/339 1 L06/156 9 124/77 Estuarine, Intertidal Flat Rocky Shore Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Subtidal Unconsolidat ed Aquatic Bed Lacustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Unconsolidat ed Palustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Unconsoli dated 220 7 144 5 1 0 2./ 15 1/47 1/10 7/214 5 2/144 5 3/306 1/818 3/392 2/45 14/853 8/684 8/281 6/164 8 1/627 1 2 218 2 140 5 36 27 5 141 7 98 336 3 452 1 220 9 77 2/1 6 24/929 1/36 6/275 3/46 0 99/35 7 14/28 149/63 3 194/81 0 92/36 6 21/30 45/110 7 4/70 69/191 7 99/277 3 14/168 1 3/47 2/20 4/13 2 2/11 0 2/76 5/771 5/89 9 1/18 5 9 I Total: 19,257 Sources: National Wetlands Inventory Coastal Zone Atlas, 1980 .. I , Shapiro and Associates, Inc, o ry Ila l I, ! nai ,. q I King Cit y County Wetlands Invenr of Kirkland, Yarrow Vi ,1982 e DEIS Appendices, 1982 Wetlands Inventory) 198 1 Ellman and Schuett-Hanes, 1979 ' 1n=number of wetlands , beach substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) = flat, rocky shore, beach bar (Natit ii i i' li l j :j 'I Sl lj i KITSAP COUNTY 1. Coastal 2 1. Coastal Zone Atlas, 1979. 2. National Wetlands Inventory. !1: : :i.X i .i sl " ' ! i , . .r . I , I I i i I I l SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FORi Size Distribution (n1/acres) , 4A? COUNTY KIT . . I 1; Wetland Type Total Area Watlprghpdl Ci7a Iarrnae -.1 .. . r- I nuII ,eFicF i , eg LC - zeacresl (IAlrre% . /1 n -i n 'Inn -. nn I ' i . onnn En,n o t Au I I %J1U IU-lUU iLUU ! i . <i It ll 7 I[0 -HIIlIII >llIIu I-uu I l_vvvu & vvv- 1vvWV Estuarine, Intertidal 2 Beach Substrate Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Subtidal Aquatic Bed Lacustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Palustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested ! 1 I I 3944 284 4 NA/7 4 1/4 NA/178 9382 104 5 109 416 156 1406 812 181 12/516 3/10 9 3/530 '; ii : i'�; j,l li !.t! i, 1 1 1 I I i I 94/269 32/80 227/737 88/324 22/77 10/147 4/76 32/669 23/48 8 4/104 Total: 17,739 1 I i ,. I Sources: National Wetlands Inventory 'Coastal Zone Atlas, 1980 2n'number of wetlands beacH 'substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) = flat, rocky shore, beach bar (Natil ,, i I etl ands Inventory) II I MASON COUNTY 1. Coastal Zone Atlas, 1980. 2. National Wetlands Inventory. I j , I 11 i Ii , I 6 k 7 _MASON COUNTY SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORI S F 1. i I, I _ CA -- 9%A -&..-AL .._& - - I -1 I - - __ - - % I .. I Wetland Type Estuarine, Intertidal Beach Substrate Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Subti dal Aquatic Bed Lacustrine 9Open Water -I Aquatic Bed Emergent Palustrine Dpen Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Total Area I, Siz7e Dictributio+in ( n,larraItl uatarchagi 4z-y'a Ing-eac a - ." U If Jff g;u VI in /Lures?U:I cesne b zeI ares I Arrae) v n _ T.1 nnfl *_,vlnn I ---- inIAre ri <10 % lU- 100U >1((l Q-000- -- -Hl(ll >80(a~ .__ I - - - -- f -. - - - - % I I -- I _ I I : " I I ! r 1 i 1 �I i ii :1 : : � 3 : i i / ii' : i j 9 :, i�1; i i i:l' 1_ I :I i : ri ; i I 'ir I j : I :j r ; ; I i. 1�1 1 I:I: i "i i a' 3612 701 2 6 NA/9 1 1/2 1/6 NA/385 1/225 2071 943 13 2 19/790 6/128 1/121 1/4 179 78 391 705 277 28/11 4 9/42 66/226 35/153 28/151 5/65 3/36 14/165 24/552 8/125 Total: 9097 Sources: National Wetlands Inventory Coastal Zone Atlas, 1980 2inonumber of wetlands beach,substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) = flat, rocky shore, beach bar (Natit etlands Inventory) I i :I : I : ! , r PACIFIC COUNTY - I .;awts . 1 c i C" I 1. National Wetlands Inventory. 2. Northwest Environmental Consultants, 1974 3. Kunze and Cornelius, 1982 and Washington Game, 1982. i ! i SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FOR PACIFIC COUNTY pe Total Area Size Distribution (n1/acres). j:' Waters (Acres) <10 10-100 >100 _ j21- Wetland Ty shed Size (acres) li nf - I niti ....... fu ll 1-u u II >H11 Im evu iu euu (acr Ues Estuarine, Intertidal Beach Substrate2 Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Subti dal Aquatic Bed Lacustrine Open Water g Aquatic Bed y. Emergent Palustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested i! ,rI .,: , i !' : / , :;' f I i I , I ; i '1' ) . 17,0003 7987 11 10 13,1003 24/762) I" -~- j 9/32 2/1 1 2/1 0 10/334 60 2/6 0 102 1 0 941 1319 375 33/72 54/182 34/125 8/37 2/30 10/225 24/75 5 5/323 2/314 3/439 i I I N ; I Total: 40,915 ! ' . ' l I Northwest Kunze and Sources: National Wetlands Inventory ,; , Washington Dept. of Game, 1982 Environmental Co CornPlins 1Q0aR9 rsultants, 1974 ., , mnal Wetlands Inventory) FOr DOE Coastal Zone Atlas 2n"number of wetlands , 3beach.substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) = flat, irocky shore, beach bar (Nati, figures, are estimates from Washington Dept. of Game, 1982, maps prepared'i !z' , t! , ~!i a I PIERCE COUNTY .- 1. Coastal Zone Atlas, 1979. 2. National Wetlands Inventory. 3. Shapiro and Associates, Inc., 1981. SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FORIPIERCE COUNTY Wetland Type Total Area Size Distribution (n1i/acres) . Watershed Size (acres) (Acres) ' ' <1U IU 1: <zouo zuuu-8uuu >u Estuarine, Intertidal Il Beach Substrate2 2993 -- - . t ; EmeScrub/Sgenthrub 237 NA/52 -- NA/185 4 : Scrub/Shrub 6 1/6 Forested Subti dal Aquatic Bed 3261 - ~ Lacustrine I Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Palustrtne Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub/Shru b Forested j; I i ' I I I I ~:'. i!I .; : , . . ; ,I ' ' i ' !:i ., ?', : ~!! ! '! ir 268 4 219 411 89 1601 1431 1245 14/43 5 4/21 9 1/224 9 1/19 6 1/11 1 82/302 7/40 150/53 5 124/52 9 78/416 8/10 9 4/49 38/87 0 42/79 1 38/829 Total: 14,177 ,,. I . ,;, Sources: National Wetlands Inventory Coastal Zone Atlas, 1980 1 i~ iF 2n=number of wetlands beach substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) = flat, rocky shore, beach bar (Nati , r ) F i I ; l : ,:i i i .,. 4! I tI I i I I I I SAN JUAN COUNTY %w 1. Coastal Zone Atlas, 1979. '\ ' 2. National Wetlands Inventory, 4 / w _ i i i!: I; 1' :I ' H,'. [ I i i I !, ' !11 1 I A ! 1; ,I i. 1' SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FOR SC.ize, nz i irsht.Sinn I n /airr-c.\ COUNT Y Wetland Type Total Area Watershed Size (acres) -.. i l- bJI 1a.nr ",, LUlU-uF! g I /I fd C r , ! ; I ~~Airr rel \I IFA n nn - \ . nn I I ' I -a-eshe --ze _ac re* IA res J -.U IU-IUU >U10U . ? '; CZU00I I(I20-HI000 >8(0Q - - - --- I.U:i-JI ?IUU .1M II: Iv !i NA/62 NA/160 3/13 _ -- ',: 1/7 2/105 - I 68/148 1/12 , : 3/7 __ _ :', 63/236 8/178 I-., " 28/112 1/12 -- 10/36 4/66 -- I flat,rockshor,bechba(Naiona, i ' flat, rocky shore, beach bar (National Wetlands Inventory) *~~~~~~~~~~i, iS0 Estuarine, Intertidal Beach Substrate2 Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Subtidal Aquatic Bed Lacustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent 2484 22 2 1 3 393 6 11 2 160 7 414 124 102 Palustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub/Shru b Forested Total: 7574 1 Sources: National Wetlands Inventory ,, ,, Cpastal Zone Atlas, 1980 1I' ' 2n=nunmer of wetlands beach substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) ,1 ' . I SKAGIT COUNTY '41 %awfl, ows,114 ItyI~L - - .- - -.-~~~-~ - - ~ - - - - - i a~~~~~~~~~~~~i 1. Raedeke L D. ea. 197ra 2.A C oastal Zrpone tl 1979-, G. I . ~I. d~~nb: Cf 2 (covragew �ofo entix cony 2. Coastal Zone Atlas, 1979.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.c G~~~~~ 1 . i . i I ! T' i t !SKAGIT! COUNTY W I Watershed Size (acres) SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FOR Wetland Type InI 1/acres) Total Area S1 ze ni Ditribhutinn -I-w , r - .. -. .- - -a - U I- 9 S gUU AVII in - *Ib--I )1 ll , ' .'flhni - otnnn onnn mnnnmU iAcres <1U lU-1U- /J,.UU , I . LUUU ,UUU--~uuu .UUill 1 ' ' . .... ____..... ,i,'.h. .. I. � ? . !:, ' I i ,i [ ' . i' ,, . :I I �: 1�: .� i .' i i'! I'' l i li' , , !I !i: i : i7 . i!r 1 . 1P;, 1 ,i.. I :! ! i~~~~~~~~~~~: i, I�.i *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ej Estuarine, Intertidal Beach Substrate2 Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Subtidal Aquatic Bed Lacustri ne Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Pal ustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub/Shrub- Forested 6645 4154 1 6 127 4 634 3 1694 2100 862 120 Total.: 23,199 Sources: Raedeke, LoDo., et al., 1976 ;, , Coastal Zone Atlas, 1979 2n=number of'wetlands beach substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) .tlands Inventory) i I , , I i I C_ - hew -j .,.MIa ,*_I _ 0 *4. * Non. Ia Lj V hi SNOHOMISH COUNTY' 2~~~~~i Getche cmail* allil imso~~~Puaw ood~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I It* M aiii coastcal Z gone A tas 19790 2 ' N ai o a Wetans Inventory. ' N mhs I0 -NA (1 i .9r 1 I- . ~~~I cii .I /- I -I;--- ---I - j - - -I ~641 Mi . IM I .I ; T i - - I f , - 1.0"w"Ilis .11.1 -6 I pop' I 1"' a A__ 111- igton Dept. of Game, 1979. it ',1 1! I! 1 3. Burrell, G., Washin iE SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FOR SNO)HO1 Skte Dilstrilbution (nl/acres) !;:. 1 r ' ISH COUNTY Wetl and, Typoe Total Area Watershed Size (acres) (Acress) <'10 . lQ-100- >lOOn ;,1 <000nn 20nnnnnn %:nnn . . 1,,s I''vv &V-%JU%U I Ouut lu -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0in- >ln I9A 9AA(L.OAA I I . . ;. NA/2494', j . I i ., YI ' ! i,. .! i. ": 2/272 '' ; I ii' 2/272 Estuarfne, Intertidal Beach Substrate Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Subti dal Aquatic Bed Lacustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Pal ustri ne ,Open Water =D Aquatic Bed ') Emergent X Scrub/Shrub Forested 742 0 374 4 528 1/45 2163 14 1 4/141 16/305 27/446 47/1031 579 30 983 1690 2834 79/274 7/30 246/537 97/387 64/355 50/1247 3/588 ', : : ! I ' :. i ; 1981 .: f flats rocky shore, beach bar (Natnal Wetlands Inventory) i i 1 Total. 20,112 Sources: National Wetlands Inventory ,,, ,1 . Coastal Zone Atlas, 1980 .... ~,,, fhapiro and Associates, Inc., 2n=numnber of wetlands , beacliSustrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) = , ., , I I ;I I i i I1, i i THURSTON COUNTY,! AI: 1. Coastal Zone Atlas, 1980. ' I ,T~~~~'ItID 2. National Wetlands Inventory I~~~~~~~~i 'I -T 3. Burg e, M.E., et al., 1975. 2. National Wetlads Inventory T3~j/ . I I (Unpublished) I ; 2 i I . - - . - - 1 SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FOR JHURSTON Size Distribution (nl/acres) K - <10 10-10O >100 o i c< I 1 COUNTY Watershed Size (acres) Wetland Type Total Area (Acres } 'fl rnnn r nn nr- linn "Ont LUUU rsuu-d iUUU >8I0UU 'f -- -- Estuarine, Intertidal Beach Substrate2 Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Subtidal Aquatic Bed Lacustri ne Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Palustrine Open Water -: Aquatic Bed 'Jo Emergent LZ Scrub/Shrub Forested '' I :;j, ii l :'i, ;!l i 1 ; ' i i {, . ' t:; r , I :r i i: ,ii Ij i ! I i, * jt :i !?al Wetlands Inventory) t~l!!W *�;l: t : 2302 419 NA/54 1/14 1/351 __s 1356 1236 258 35 265 560 73 13/588 5/648 1/115 22/83 3/13 49/167 37/15 7 9/28 4/60 1/22 7/98 19/403 4/45 Total: 6504 , . , ! Sources': ,!I I . National Wetlands Inventory 'C'astal Zone Atlas, 1980 2n=number of wetlands beach substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) = flat, rocky shore, beach bar II 1222 I 1 _ 7 1 I) I Li 2 2 '22' I 3 WAHKIAKUM COUNTY 1. Thomas, D. W., 1982 Draft. I MM# COUNTY H. Wf. SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FOR WAHKIA Size Distributionn (ni /acres) Wetland Type Total Area !abQrVhPd NU70 larriOr- - I - -u - 4" B I a '. iu, n I UN% A I 0II-U .I b .I wzresI (Acres) I -<IBn I _ I.nn .i nfi I jo. -Innn u nnn annn nnflkr h S., ff-cb I IIJLU IU-.LIUU >IUU !Pi ! <?000 2000-8000lllll >2000II - -u----- II I-Iu r_UV IfUU XO Estuarine, Intertidal 2 Beach Substrate Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Subtidal Aquatic Bed 1260 2470 i ; i I :i ; : i ;;4 i � � _sli_ d Z : i .i� 1 Lacustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Palustrine : Open Water Aquatic Bed -%.IEmergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Total I i I , 1 I I I i 1 1 i i I I i.! i ;;. II ; i 3, i j i I:; I I _:� nal i i i i I I i Sources: Thomas, D.W., 1982 Draft nonumnber of wetlands beach substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) = flat, 'rocky shore' beach bar (Nat Ilp. S Wetlands Inventory) , i 1 i I .; , I I WHATCOOM COUNTY ~ I.:: 2 2 *~~C .1'~7�r --~ _I~U ��r'~ ~~ SF II**h~/�L `Irl! ~II��, I -m ~ ~ -' ;-. .~..b: hL~ ~ ~ *~ fi':2.''t a La O~~~~~- 1 . *e .v'*.J1 1 o Irr-l,' l* MI. L''/' '"~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,1 ,1,,~~~~'~gI - nu-...l 4 IY) ~ ~ C. ~~~ ~ - I -1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-: --~-- -' -'T'- - - - - - fw, IDI C.uI' A .K ...P li' I. cfn,,lE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, e~L I.* u *)l'K Ac.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 ~1~-*"" A -. Atlas~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, 1 9 7 9 IebI lands Inventory. - IIIlaI lands~c Inetoy I 3,.~n C~7j .rL I T '9 � """~~~~It I 1-1 $me 1. Coastal Zone 2. National Wet] i . p I : |tATCOM COUNTY I, | _ Water! ! I : CIfllll SUMMARY OF WETLANDS INVENTORIES FOR Size Disetrihaitn1an i niarrae 11 Wetland Type Total Areal shed Size (acres) Z? i I-Xuullo(.( %l. illli .cr.es .0 - lo >1 D. - .-_ ."uS- ;nv'.....u -AW .LU-.L%iv -11U" - - --.-P - V - UV -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ._ --.. --;, : t !- G V fj otu tu J, . ' II ,i ,, :I % 1t I i'i, i? i i! ! ,. !�: I ; '1 i ,; j l; .: ; i , 1: I 'l Estuarine, Interti dal Beach Substrate Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested Subtidal Aquatic Bed Lacustrine Open Water Aquatic Bed Emergent Palustrine :> Open Water DC, Aquatic Bed Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested 3753 6 0 NA/1 9 NA/4 1 _- j! i 159 4 1773 9/278 1/10 21/487 46/1205 41/1083 7/149 5 1/136 1/311 104 0 - 2931 200 3 159 4 58/103 0 116/230 8 77/798 35/200 Total: 14 748 Sources:, National Wetlands Inventory ,, qastal Zone Atlas, 1980 I ..1, 2n-number of wetlands beach substrate (Coastal Zone Atlas) = flat, rocky shore, beach bar I I ands Inventory) I APPENDIX B WETLAND TRENDS . . . . n0j250 , Table B-1 GRAYS HARBOR, WASHINGTON 1982 ESTIMATES OF WETLAND ACREAGE Approximate Acres Quad and Location Emergent Marsh Point Brown - North of submerged jetty on Point Brown "The Sink" 270 Copalis Beach - east site of Point Brown Ocean Shores Marsh Area 185 Copalis Crossing -Humptulips-River-Marshes -65 - - .Copalis Crossi_ ng- Chenois Creek Marsh --. - - Copalis Cross Grass Creek Marshes 55 Westport - Point New 9 Hoquiam - Bowerman Basin - Basically developed since 1973 175 Grayland - Hunt Club/Mall and Slough Marshlands 550 Hoquiam - Johns River Marshlands 310 Grayland - Beardslee Slough (Elk River Estuary) 100 Westport - Westport Marshes 370 Grayland - Elk River Marshes, Elk River, Andrews Creek 320 Whitcomb Fiats Island 40 Goose Island and Sand Island too Total 2,719 Source: Washington Natural Heritage Program, 1982 Table B- 2 WILLAPA BAY ESTUARY AREA 1982 ESTIMATE OF WETLAND AREA Approximate Area (Acres) Quad/Locatio n North Cove - North Cove Marsh 300 Bay Center - Tokeland - Tealduck, Kindred Sloughs Cedar River/Norris Hawks Point North River/Smith Creek 170 * 40* 70* 300 * South Bend - II Slough/Kellogg Slough 134* ---Frederickson-STough .= - =. 320*- . - ... . . . . . ... . ..... .... *ru-ep-r- ............. ....... ... ---.--=- -. -Bay -Center --gan-senr Creek-,:z-~ ---" - - -------- - - ---- - Bruceport------- - Bay Center - Bone River Niawiakum River Nemah - Palix River North Nemah River Middle and South Nemah Long Island - Seal Slough Naselle River Omeara Marsh Bear River Cape Disappointment - Porter Point Oysterville - Goulters Slough Leadbetter Point North Cove, Oysterville - Leadbetter Point Drive System Ocean Park - Oceanside Dunes Long Island - South Long Island Baldwin Slough 300* 450 700 125 * 300 30* 750 45* 330* 400 .250 * 400 * 2,800 * 180 * 75 Long Island - Lewis Slough Diamond Point RNA Long Island - Jensen Point Smokey Hollow Bog Cedar Grove 150* upland 65* 15* 264* (upland) Tota l 9,224 *Not indicated on the navigation charts as marsh and therefore not included in the estimated Willapa Bay Estuary wetland value in text. Source: Washington Natural Heritage Program, 1982 FIGURE B-1 SNOHOMISH ESTUARY . .-. .. -. . - ..-- --.. ____- ~7 10 0 0-0- Co z 0) in 4o -a w 0 P -.,~4~ Diked Agriculture Vegetate Wetld.... Vegetated WIetlands 8000-r 6000-r / / / 4000-- / / /. I / / / / I / I 2000 Industrial I ~~~~~I a I, I. .1 I I880 190o 1920 1440~ 1960 1980 YEAR Source : Shapiro/Driscoll, 1979 p ~: FIGURE B-2- TACOMA SOUTH I15' OUAD .5000 - ....-.. - - - .-.-.-----.-. __ z -j 1-- U. 0 w 4000- 3000- :_z::7z- 0) 2000- 1000- I I I I I 1900 . I 1 1944 1953 1968 1981 YEAR 094 FIGURE B-3 LAKE TAPPS8 15' QUAD -- - 500-Sa 1- - co , z '-j LL -0 co LU cr 0- 400- 300- 200- -- I- 100- I I I I I I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ia- -.- --- I- 1900 I 1 1944 -1953 1 1968 1 a YEAR FIGURE B-4 COMMENCEMENT BAY 4000 3000" u. 0 -2000 LU LL 0 200 LU Dredged ledWetlanWetlands' Filled Wetlands , Vegetated Wetlands Dredged Intertidal Flats 1000 "- --..._.____ Filled Intertidal Flats Unvegetated Intertidal Flats YEAR Sources: Hart-Crowser and Associates, Inc. Bortleson, C.Go.. et al., 1980 FIGURE B-5 lo.. 0-- 24001 LAKE WASHINGTON- 9 2100C r- 0 CD 0 to 0 18000- LL Lu 12000-- 0 9 , 0 0 . . 1 - I . - - I ... -I CD -- .-- -. I7 -~~~~ . rl:.~-- -, - -. - . q, 0 0 .0 Wetlands 9000. / Protected r - 6000- 3000- z Diked and Agriculture Z. ~~~~~I 9 5 1880 1900 1920 1960 I1980 1940 YEAR Sources, Hackett, C.A.. 1978 EIIman., N. and J.PF Schuett-Hames, 19719 FIGURE B-6 TENINO 15' QUAD '~~---- .- 5000- .. 4000- c, z -j w U- 0 C', w c 3000- 2000- 1000- I I I a I I I i ~~~~~~I I 1900 1944 1953 1 1968 YEAR 1!H FIGURE 6-7 YELM 15' QUAD ----��-- --r.�-;_ :--�;-;;-�---1;-_i- - �------;---c_-_�_ _iiC- ;-ii_ -- .i_:-�i---i---Ti-__ -_ _- � -_i. �C. ------ . ;-LLLi -- - -.- . - - - -- 000- co a z -j 1- w LL 0 co ui% it 0 4000-- 3000-- 2O00- 1000- I I I I I I I 1 1900 I I 1944 1953 1 1968 YEAR W !) 9 FIGURE B-8 GRAYS HARBOR 60- 50- -..... .Total Estuary . Open Water AAl- .-% 4U- 0 0. 0 x O X w30- 0c Intertidal Flat 20-- 10- 8- ------6~-- 4- 2- Wetlands I1900 1'2o 19'40 19,0 19Io YEAR 100 FIGURE B-9 GRAYS HARBOR 0 f-L-: _ --' - - cnnA- ---.. ~~_~_. .. -_. _ .- . -- - '7000- 6000-- x CO 0 cc U. 5000- 4000 - 3000 - Original Marsth 200 0-- 1000-- 11 I - t - - --- I I I ,-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- I I~~~~~~~ I .1I 4 1960 1967 1973 1981 1931 1895 1 6 YEAR I (.1 o FIGURE B-10 WILLAPA BAY 8000- ~7006- - -. -----.. --.--_---*-----.-._.;.-..:1.AN.i.'-... - - . -....-- .-'-.-.---.,.-. - --- -1- -l--l-=-.---- __. x LL. 0 0 6000-- 5000- 4000-- 3000-- 2000- 1000-- I I I I 1933 YEAR I 1974 I I 1905 1912 is955 102