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













      . 1~~                           ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ A_ _ _I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 51T 

       ~~~~~~~~~~~~DE A:RTI.       EC        lOGY A 







                                 Wetland Buffers:

     *                    ~~~Use and Effectiveness'













*     ~QH
       5 41 .5
~~.W475
       1 9 92                            February 1992
                                          Publication #92-10
        U                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~printed on recycled paper








                                                                                                         -I '
                                                                                                     A
                                                                                                   :    I:


                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                         I

                                                                                                         I

                                                                                                       II



                                                                                                         I
                                                        11:1: ~ ~ ~ ~  ~     ~    ~    ~ ~ ~ | 




                                                                            CI0Iii'                '1







This paper was funded in'part by the National'Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion. The views expressed herein are those. of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
                                                                                                   :I:
   th:                              views of                                            NOAA   Or   any of:its sub-agenci
           :   V        :           :                     4    :               t       ::  D        lF~~~~~~~ . 
                                          z~~~~















                  WETLAND BUFFERS: Use and Effectiveness



                                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                 COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                 CHARLESTON, SC  29405-2413


            Andrew J. Castelle', Catherine Conolly', Michael Emers', Eric D. Metz2, Susan
              Meyere, Michael Witter2, Susan Mauermann3, Terrell Erickson3, Sarah S. Cooke4


                               'Adolfson Associates, Inc., Edmonds, WA
                                  2W&H Pacific, Inc., Bellevue, WA
                             'Washington State Department of Ecology, WA
                                4Pentec Environmental, Edmonds, WA


                                               for


                               Washington State Department of Ecology
                           Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program
                                       Olympia, Washington

'*     t




             U >~~~~~~ ~~~February 1992



                                       lProperty of CSC Library








                                ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the critical review, written contributions, and technical
expertise provided by Mark Bentley, Scott Boettcher, Peggy Clifford, Jaime Kooser, Perry Lund,
and Stewart Toshach of the Washington State Department of Ecology; Hal Beecher and Bob
Zeigler of the Washington State Department of Wildlife; and Dyanne Sheldon and Deborah Dole
of Sheldon and Associates.






                                        CITATION

This report should be cited as:

Castelle, A.J., C. Conolly, M. Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M. Witter, S. Mauermann, T.
       Erickson, S.S. Cooke. 1992. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Adolfson
       Associates, Inc., Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington
       Department of Ecology, Olympia, Pub. No. 92-10.








                                   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report was developed to assist efforts by Washington State agencies and local governments
developing policies and standards for wetlands protection. The report summarizes and evaluates
scientific literature, an agency survey, and a recent field study on wetland buffer use and
effectiveness. Published literature was obtained from several sources and contains information
from throughout the country on the concept of wetland buffers, their important functions,
effective buffer widths, and buffer determination models. The agency survey reviewed buffer
requirements of several states throughout the U.S. and for counties and cities in Washington.
The field study reviewed the current state of buffers at several sites in King and Snohomish
counties.

Scientific Literature Review

Wetland buffers are areas that surround a wetland and reduce adverse impacts to wetland
functions and values from adjacent development.  The literature indicates that buffers reduce
wetland impacts by moderating the effects of stormwater runoff including stabilizing soil to
prevent erosion; filtering suspended solids, nutrients, and harmful or toxic substances; and
moderating water level fluctuations. Buffers also provide essential habitat for wetland-associated
species for use in feeding, roosting, breeding and rearing of young, and cover for safety,
mobility, and thermal protection. Finally, buffers reduce the adverse impacts of human
disturbance on wetland habitats including blocking noise and glare; reducing sedimentation and
nutrient input; reducing direct human disturbance from dumped debris, cut vegetation, and
trampling; and providing visual separation. Wetland buffers are essential for wetlands protection.

Scientists generally agree that appropriate buffer widths are based on several variables, including:


  *    existing wetland functions, values, and sensitivity to disturbance;
  *    buffer characteristics;
  *    land use impacts; and
  *    desired buffer functions.

Wetland functions, values, and sensitivity are attributes that will influence the necessary level of
protection for a wetland. Those systems which are extremely sensitive or have important
functions will require larger buffers to protect them from disturbances that may be of lesser
threat to a different site. Where wetland systems are rare, or irreplaceable (e.g., high quality
estuarine wetlands, mature swamps, bogs), greater buffer widths will ensure a lower risk of
disturbance.

Buffer characteristics influence their ability to reduce adverse effects of development, most
importantly in relationship to slope and vegetative cover. Buffers with dense vegetative cover on
slopes less than 15% are most effective for water quality functions. Dense shrub or forested
vegetation with steep slopes provide the greatest protection from direct human disturbance.
Appropriate vegetation for wildlife habitat depends on wildlife species present in the wetland and
buffer. Effectiveness is also influenced by ownership of the buffer.

                                                ii







Land uses with significant construction and post-construction impacts need larger buffers.
Construction impacts include erosion and sedimentation, debris disposal, vegetation removal, and
noise. Post-construction impacts are variable depending on the land use, but residential land use,
in particular, can have significant impacts. Residential land use is associated with yard
maintenance debris, domestic animal predation, removal of vegetation, and trampling. Wetland
areas and their buffers should not be included in residential lots.

Appropriate buffer widths vary according to the desired buffer function(s). Temperature
moderation, for example, will require smaller buffer widths than some wildlife habitat or water
quality functions. Buffer widths for wildlife may be generalized, but specific habitat needs of
wildlife species depend on individual habitat requirements.

Buffer effectiveness increases with buffer width.  As buffer width increases, the effectiveness of
removing sediments, nutrients, bacteria, and other pollutants from surface water runoff increases.
One study found that for incrementally greater sediment removal efficiency (e.g., from 90 to
95%), disproportionately larger buffer width increases are required (e.g., from 100 to 200 feet).
As buffer width increases, direct human impacts, such as dumped debris, cut or burned
vegetation, fill areas, and trampled vegetation will decrease. As buffer width increases, the
numbers and types of wetland-dependent and wetland-related wildlife, that can depend on the
wetland and buffer for essential life needs, increases.

In western Washington, wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 200 to 300-foot
buffers depending on adjacent land use. In eastern Washington, wetlands with important wildlife
functions should have 100 to 200-foot buffers depending on adjacent land use. To retain
wetland-dependent wildlife in important wildlife areas, buffers need to retain plant structure for a
minimum of 200 to 300 feet beyond the wetland.  This is especially important where open water
is a component of the wetland or where the wetland has heavy use by migratory birds or provides
feeding for heron. The size needed would depend upon disturbance from adjacent land use and
wetland resources involved.  Priority species may need even larger buffers to prevent their loss
due to disturbance or isolation of subpopulations.

Buffer widths effective in preventing significant water quality impacts to wetlands are generally
100 feet or greater. Sensitive wetland systems will require greater distances and degraded
systems with low habitat value will require less. The literature indicates effective buffers for
water quality range from 12 to 860 feet depending on the type of disturbance (e.g., feedlot,
silviculture) and the measure of effectiveness utilized by the author. For those studies that
measured effectiveness according to removal efficiency, findings ranged from 50 to 92% removal
in ranges of 62 to 288 feet. Studies that measured effectiveness according to environmental
indicators such as levels of benthic invertebrates and salmonid egg development in the receiving
water generally found that 98-foot buffers adjacent to streams were effective.  These latter buffer
distances may be conservative for wetlands, where lower water velocities and presence of
vegetation result in increased sediment deposition and accumulation.

Studies indicate that buffers from 50 to 150 feet are necessary to protect a wetland from direct
human disturbance in the form of human encroachment (e.g., trampling, debris). The
appropriate width to prevent direct human disturbance depends on the type of vegetation, the

                                                 ni






          slope, and the adjacent land use. Some wetlands are more sensitive to direct disturbance than
         others.
          Various methods are used for determining buffer widths in a regulatory context. Regulatory
          agencies often establish a rating system, commonly of three or four categories, assessing a given
         wetland's functional value, sensitivity, rarity, or other attributes. Accordingly, the amount of
I     ~      ~protection afforded to each type differs.
          Affencv Survey
          A survey conducted of regulatory requirements for wetland buffers indicated that of 16 states
          surveyed, ten require wetland buffers and eight incorporate wetlands rating, either adopted or
U     ~      ~proposed.  Of five Washington counties with adopted wetlands protection ordinances, all five
          require buffers and four utilize wetlands rating systems (the fifth is currently proposing an
          amendment that incorporates rating). Of 28 identified cities with wetlands protection ordinances,
I      ~ ~27 contain specific buffer standards and 20 utilize wetlands rating systems.  The one city without
          specific standards has adopted an interim policy statement for wetlands protection.
3        ~~Specific buffer requirements vary widely at the state and local level.  State buffer requirements
          range from 0 to 300 feet; Washington county buffer requirements range from 0 to 200 feet; and
          Washington city buffer requirements range from 0 to 300 feet.
          Field Study
          A field analysis of the current state of buffers in King and Snohomish counties found that
          effectiveness of the buffer was determined by the type of buffer in place, the type of alteration to
          the buffer and surrounding area, the width of the buffer, the time elapsed from development, and
          the ownership of the buffer and adjacent wetland.
          Buffer function was found to be directly related to the width of the buffer. Ninety-five percent of
I       ~    ~buffers smaller than 50 feet suffered a direct human impact within the buffer, while only 35 % of
          buffers wider than 50 feet suffered direct human impact. Human impacts to the buffer zone
          resulted in increased impact on the wetland by noise, physical disturbance of foraging and nesting
I       ~    ~areas, and dumping refuse and yard waste.  Overall, large buffers reduced the degree of changes
          in water quality, sediment load, and the quantity of water entering the adjacent wetland. As a
          rule, buffers were subjected to a reduction in size over time. Of 21 sites examined, 18 were
I       ~ ~found to have reduced buffer zones within one to eight years following establishment.









            F'                                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iv







                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................ii

      TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................

      PREFACE...........................vii

      I. INTRODUCTION ........................

      II. SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE REVIEW .................3
          Buffers and Setbacks in Land Use Planning...............3
          Wetland Buffers .......................3
          Wetland Buffer Functions....................                                                       4
          Size of Wetland Buffers.....................7
 3               ~~~~Wetland Buffer Determination Models and Recommendations.........14

      Ill. AGENCY SURVEY ......................17
 3                ~~~~Background ........................17
          National Survey of State Programs .................20
          Washington Survey of County Programs ...............30
          Washington Survey of City Programs ................34

rn   ~~IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................47

      REFERENCES .........................51

3          ~~APPENDIX A:  Wetland Buffers:  A Field Evaluation of Buffer Effectiveness
                 in Pu2et Sound by Sarah Spear Cooke.............61

3          ~~~APPENDIX B: Information Sources ..................135

      APPENDIX C: Buffer Needs of Wetland Wildlife by Washington State
  I                       ~~~~~~~Department of Wildlife.................137







       I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~







                                                    PREFACE

         Three significant developments relating to wetlands protection in Washington State occurred in
          1990 and 1991. The first was the state legislature's adoption of the 1990 Growth Management
         Act that requires local governments to protect critical areas including wetlands. The second was
         Governor Booth Gardner's issuance of an Executive Order for wetlands protection. The third
         was a revision to the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan which recommends that
         local governments in the Puget Sound Basin adopt comprehensive wetlands protection programs
         to achieve a goal of no-net-loss of wetlands functions and values and a long term increase in
         wetland quantity and quality.

         Washington's Growth Management Act was adopted by the state legislature in the final days of
         the 1990 legislative session. The provisions of the 1990 statute, as well as amendments adopted
         in 1991, require local governments throughout the state to identify and protect critical areas
         including wetlands. Interim development regulations are to be adopted by all jurisdictions no
I     ~      ~later than March 1992. Final development regulations are to be completed by 1994. Those local
         governments who have not already adopted regulations for critical area protection are now in
         various stages of developing their ordinances assisted by the Department of Community
         Development.
         On April 21, 1990, Washington's Governor Booth Gardner issued Executive Order (EO) 90-04,
I      ~ ~Protection of Wetlands.  The EO is directed at both state and local governments with specific
         requirements for state agencies and recommendations for local governments. All state agencies
P~ ~~ar e     required to protect wetlands under existing authorities to the extent legally permissible.
         Following a task in the EO, the Department of Ecology developed a model wetlands protection
         ordinance to provide guidance to local governments. The model ordinance was released in
         September 1990 and will be amended in the future to incorporate new information.

         In the summer of 1991, the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority modified the wetlands
         protection element (W-4. 1) of the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The
I      ~ ~modified element recommends local adoption of a comprehensive approach to wetlands protection
         using both regulatory and non-regulatory tools. The comprehensive approach is intended to
         complement the provisions of the Growth Management Act. The Plan amendments recommend
I      ~ ~that local development regulations address several elements, including wetland buffers.  The
          amendments refer to Ecology's model ordinance for technical guidance on wetlands protection
          standards.

         Each of these three actions has brought into focus the need for technical information upon which
         to base wetlands protection policies and standards. During the development of wetlands
I      ~ ~protection policies and regulations, including the accompanying public deliberation, information
          is sought on both the scientific basis for wetlands protection standards and on the actions of other
         regulatory decision-makers.





           *                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~vi







                                              I. INTRODUCTION

        This report was developed to assist efforts by the Washington State Department of Ecology
        (Ecology), other Washington State agencies, and local governments to develop policies and
        standards for wetlands protection within existing authorities. Specifically, the report summarizes
        and assesses information related to wetland buffer use and effectiveness.

        The report is organized into four sections accompanied by an executive summary, references, and
        appendices. The sections include:

                ï¿½ introductory information;
                * a review of the existing literature;
I                *~~~~~ an agency survey of existing regulatory requirements for buffers; and
                * conclusions drawn from the literature review and agency survey.

        Appendix A presents the results of a field study that provides a post-construction evaluation of
        the effectiveness of required wetland buffers in protecting wetlands from adverse impacts.
        Several local projects in King and Snohomish counties were assessed to determine the
        effectiveness of buffers that were required for development projects adjacent to wetlands.
        A companion document entitled Wetland Buffers: An Annotated Bibliograohv is also available.



               I

               I
               I
               I
               I
               I
               I
               I
               a
               I
               I
               I

               I

               I

24

               I







                                   II. SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE REVIEW

          The scientific literature review is a compilation of the findings of a literature search for
          information on wetland buffers. A general discussion of the concept of buffers is followed by
          background information on wetlands buffers and their important furnctions. Research on
          recommended buffer widths and buffer determination models is presented.

          Information was obtained from a review of published literature as well as from oral and written
          personal communications. Sources of information included computer search programs, on-line
I       ~ ~~library collections, existing bibliographies, research centers, federal and state agencies, county
          and city planning departments, professional organizations, environmental organizations, and
          individuals. A specific list of information sources for this section is listed in Appendix B.

          Buffers and Setbacks in Land Use Planning

I        ~~Our present landscape is a mosaic of developed lands and natural areas, forests and fields,
          wetlands, and uplands. Expanding human use within the landscape presents a difficult problem
          to the community and to decision makers: how best to fit the pieces of this mosaic together.
I      ~ ~Such long-range planning is fuirther complicated by the knowledge that some land uses are
          incompatible in close proximity to one another.

I        ~~Designating buffer areas between zones of incompatible land uses has been a common regulatory
          mechanism for minimizing environmental as well as other physical impacts. In diverse situations
          ranging from buffer zones around power plants, to tree-lined streets, buffers are employed to
B       ~ ~~lessen the impact of one activity on another.  In general, as the level of activity or potential for
          conflict increases, the width of the buffer needed to minimize conflict between the two land uses
          will increase proportionally (Brown and Schaefer, 1987). For example, the level of noise, light,
I       ~ ~temperature, and activity are dramatically higher in developed areas than in natural areas, and the
          border between developed and natural areas is frequently characterized by "overflows" of these
          disturbances from the developed land to the undeveloped. These "overflows" may take many
I       ~ ~forms:  subsurface and surface water flow; increased sedimentation; atmospheric pollution;
          increases in noise and temperature; the introduction of toxins, bacteria, and viruses; more
          frequent, extensive, and intensive physical disturbances; and the introduction of non-native plant
          and animal species. Buffer zones are used to protect natural areas such as streams, shorelines,
          steep slopes, and wetlands from these impacts.

I        ~~Wetland Buffers

          Wetlands are among the most valuable and complex ecosystems on earth. They provide many
          functions and values to society, including flood control, ground water recharge and discharge,
          water quality improvement, shoreline stabilization, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational and
          educational opportunities, and aesthetic values (Smardon, l978; Williams and Dodd, 1978;
          Adamus and Stockwell, 1983; Roman and Good, 1983; Brown, 1985).
          Until recently, the complexity and importance of wetlands were not widely known, and
          accordingly, wetlands protection was non-existent or ineffective. Land use strategies in the past


                                                          3







frequently encouraged the filling of wetlands, calling it "reclamation," and granted title to anyone
who would fill the land. More recently, however, wetlands have been recognized as ecologically
and economically valuable.  Federal, state, and local governments have responded by enacting
laws and developing programs to protect the important values of wetlands recognized by society.

Many wetlands managers believe that the most effective means of stemming the loss of wetlands
is avoiding and minimizing adverse impacts of development from the outset (Shisler, 1987). This
includes both impacts originating within the wetland perimeter as well as impacts originating
adjacent to the wetlands. Uses and development adjacent to wetlands can negatively affect
wetland systems through increased runoff (Harris and Marshall, 1963); sedimentation (Darnell,
1976); introduction of chemical and thermal pollutants (Ehrenfeld, 1983); diversion of water
supply; introduction of invasive and exotic species; and reduced populations of wetland-dependent
species (Zeigler, 1990). The area immediately upland of the wetland boundary is important as a
seed reservoir, as habitat for aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species, and as a refuge to
wildlife during periods of high water (Brown and Schaefer, 1987).

One method of reducing the impacts of development upon adjacent wetlands is to provide a
buffer around the wetland. Wetland buffers are those areas that surround a wetland and reduce
adverse impacts to the wetland functions and values from adjacent development.  Wetland buffers
can include both upland and aquatic areas contiguous with a wetland edge, however, the focus of
this study is on vegetated upland buffers.

Wetland Buffer Functions

Wetland health can be measured in terms of water quality, hydrology, and fish, wildlife and plant
species diversity and abundance.  The protective functions provided by wetland buffers can be
described under these same parameters.

Water Quality
Wetlands are generally located in low areas of the landscape, causing them to be particularly
susceptible to sediment loading from upland sources and to erosional scouring that results from
increased water velocities from mismanaged upland surface waters (Brown and Schaefer, 1987).
Vegetated wetland buffers function to reduce adverse impacts to water quality by controlling the
severity of soil erosion and removing a variety of pollutants from stormwater runoff (Shisler et
al., 1987).

Soil erosion is reduced within buffers as vegetation and organic debris shields the soil from the
impact of rain and binds soil particles with root materials. Vegetation acts as an obstruction to
water flow thereby decreasing water velocities, allowing infiltration, and reducing the erosion
potential of stormwater runoff. As a physical barrier to flowing water, vegetation also traps
sediments and other insoluble pollutants. The proper functioning of a buffer zone depends in
great part on its ability to resist channelization (Broderson, 1973). If the majority of stormwater
moving through the buffer does so as sheet flow, the rate of flow is significantly slower, and the
residence time of the water in the buffer is increased, allowing more time for settling of water-
borne sediments and infiltration. In addition, the root systems of the buffer vegetation aid in the
maintenance of soil structure and bank stability (Broderson, 1973).

                                                 4







Soluble nutrients and pollutants are also removed or transformed by the soils, bacteria, and plants
in wetland buffers (EPA, 1988). The uptake of dissolved heavy metals and large amounts of
nutrients by plants has been well-documented (Murdoch and Capobianco, 1979; Shisler et al.,
1987; Gallagher and Kibby, 1980). For example, Murdoch and Capobianco (1979) found that
Glyceria grandis, a wetland grass, took up 80% of the available phosphorus, and also took up
significant quantities of lead, zinc, and chromium. Gallagher and Kibby (1980) found that salt
marsh species such as Carex lyngbyei (Lyngbi's sedge), Salicornia virginiana (pickleweed),
Juncus balticus (Baltic rush), and Potentilla pacifica (Pacific silverweed) accumulated copper,
chromium, iron, manganese, strontium, lead, and zinc.

Vegetation scatters sunlight and provides shade, reducing water temperature in the summer,
limiting nuisance algae growth, and reducing the release of nutrients from the sediment (Karr,
1978).

Hydrology
Large, sudden fluctuations in wetland water levels often destroy wetland vegetation, particularly
along the wetland edge (Clark, 1977). Where wetland vegetation is weakened or destroyed by
periods of drought or flooding, native plants give way to weedy, invasive species, invertebrate
communities are altered, and wildlife species dependent on these food sources disappear.
Increased water level fluctuations caused by increased urbanization have been found to be a major
threat to remaining wetlands in the Puget Sound Region, with potential effects on plant
succession, habitat, and breeding conditions (Stockdale, 1991).

Wetland buffers play a role in moderating water level fluctuations. Vegetation impedes the flow
of runoff and allows it to percolate into the ground.  The soil then yields this water to the
wetland over an extended period of time, resulting in stable, natural ecosystems. Vegetation also
produces litter which increases the humus content of the soil and increase adsorption and
infiltration. It also protects other soil properties that are important to infiltration capacity.  By
intercepting intense rainfall, vegetation preserves soil composition so that infiltration is not
impaired (Dunne, 1978).

Bertulli (1981) concluded from his study of a southern Ontario, Canada watershed that adjacent
ï¿½forest vegetation and litter lowered stream flow from 388 to 207 inches in a 100-year flood
event.  It should be noted, however, that when a catchment area for a wetland has been
urbanized and the natural infiltration system has been disrupted, the role of buffers in reducing
abnormal water level fluctuations is less significant.

Fish and Wildlife Habitat
The vegetated uplands adjacent to wetlands are considered to be one of the richest zones for
aquatic organisms, mammals, and birds (Clark, 1977; Williams and Dodd, 1978). Wetland
buffers provide essential habitat for wetland-associated species. In Washington State, 85 % of the
terrestrial vertebrate species use wetlands and/or their buffers; 359 of 414 species in western
Washington (Brown, 1985), and 320 of 378 species in eastern Washington (Thomas, 1979). In
Washington, stream buffers and riparian areas provide essential habitat for 68 species of
mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles. One hundred and three species are more numerous in
riparian ecosystems or use them more heavily than upland habitat (Riparian Habitat Technical

                                                5







Committee, 1985). In western Washington and Oregon, 236 animal species are reported to use
coastal, riparian, or wetland communities as their primary breeding or feeding habitats. One
hundred and twenty-one species of animals use both aquatic systems and associated uplands for
primary breeding or feeding habitat. One hundred and six species use upland edges associated
with aquatic systems as primary breeding and feeding habitats (Brown, 1985). This increased use
of riparian and other transitional areas demonstrates the concept of "edge effect," a term first
coined by Leopold (1933), who proposed that species numbers of both plants and animals
increase at edges, due to overlap from adjacent habitats and to creation of unique edge-habitat
niches. Such edges are the location of increased wildlife use including feeding, roosting,
breeding and rearing of young, and cover for safety, mobility, and thermal protection (Ranney et
al., 1981). Naturally vegetated wetland buffers frequently provide vertical as well as horizontal
edges that provide ground, shrub, and tree canopy cover (Zeigler, pers. comm., February,
1992).

Often birds and animals that are considered to be wetland-dependent species have essential life
needs that can only be met in the adjacent upland buffer (Naiman, 1988, WDW [Appendix C,
this report]). These life needs include food, water, shelter from climatic extremes and predators,
and structure and cover for reproduction and rearing of young. Waterfowl feed primarily in
wetlands but most species nest on dry ground to avoid flooding their nest (WDW, [Appendix C,
this report]). Species such as wood ducks, great blue herons, pileated woodpeckers, and ospreys
require large trees for nesting. While amphibians, such as the Pacific chorus frog, spend only a
short portion of their life span actually in a wetland, they cannot complete their life cycle without
one. Many wetland-associated mammals, such as mink and river otters, feed in wetlands, but
breed and raise their young in the buffer (Zeigler, 1990). These animals must burrow above the
high water mark to avoid inundation of their burrows, which means that they spend significant
portions of their lives in the buffer.

Wetland buffers are also important for wetland-related wildlife: animals that concentrate near
wetlands but are not necessarily wetland-dependent. The Department of Wildlife (Appendix C,
this report) notes that "lush and divergent vegetation in wetland buffers provide food and cover
for many species ranging from large mammals, such as deer and elk, to small ones, such as voles
and shrews. These areas are used for rearing of young."

Wildlife species have varying spatial requirements to maintain viable populations for survival.
Buffers provide an area where animals have needed separation and interspersion to reduce
competition and maintain populations (WDW [Appendix C, this report]). Habitat alterations and
land use changes adjacent to wetlands can affect wetland-dependent wildlife populations by
fragmenting habitat to non-functional sizes and shapes and by introducing disturbance factors
above the tolerance levels of some species (Brown and Schaefer, 1987). In 1916, Dice reported
that along the Touchet River in southeastern Washington, the natural vegetated buffer was about
a quarter mile from the stream.  He noted that where the tall cottonwood and shrubby understory
had not been disturbed by man, it provided excellent refuges for birds and mammals. Today, the
average width of the riparian vegetation is about 50 feet and species that have been totally
eliminated or greatly reduced in number since Dice's time include sandhill crane, bobwhite quail
(bobwhite), sparrow hawk (American kestrel), Lewis' woodpecker, chipping sparrow, black-
headed grosbeak, warbling vireo, Macgillivray warbler, redstart, and long-tailed chickadee

                                                6







~~   ~ (black-capped chickadee) (Mudd, 1975). Washington Department of Wildlife (Appendix C, this
         report) cited Foster et al., 1984, who found that grazing next to wetlands in the Columbia Basin
         removed buffer vegetation and reduced waterfowl production by 50%.

         Particularly in urban environments where isolated wetlands and riparian wetlands often afford
         much of the greenspace and wildlife habitat, the use of buffer zones as travel corridors is critical.
I     ~      ~The vegetated buffer allows animals and birds to move through the urban landscape with some
         protection from humans and domestic animals. These wildlife corridors have become
         increasingly important to wildlife with the continuing development of the natural landscape into
I     ~      ~smaller and smaller isolated units. Corridors effectively increase the size of the habitat area and
         its ability to maintain viable wildlife populations.

I        ~~Riparian buffers maintain fish habitat by providing shade, keeping water temperature low enough
         in the summer to retain dissolved oxygen to support fish and to prevent lethal low temperatures
         in winter. Streamside vegetation provides a food source through leaf litter and insect drop and
I     ~      ~provides cover through deposition of large organic debris.  By decreasing sediment loads, buffers
         reduce siltation of essential spawning ground and the destruction of aquatic invertebrates that are
         important fish food sources. Buffers provide bank cover for fish and provide bank stability
I     ~      ~though the soil binding capacity of root systems and energy dissipation during flood periods
         (Riparian Habitat Technical Committee, 1985; Young, 1989).

I        ~~Direct Human Disturbance
         Vegetated buffers provide visual separation between wetlands and developed environments,
rn ~~blocking glare and human movement from sensitive wildlife (Young, 1989). Buffers also
         discourage direct human disturbance within a wetland in the form of dumping debris, cutting
         vegetation, or trampling. Direct human disturbance affects both the habitat provided by wetlands
         vegetation and the wildlife species that are dependent on the wetland. Plant loss can result from
I      ~ ~either direct crushing or the compaction of soil. Plants in wet soils are especially vulnerable to
         trampling. Compaction of the soil damages roots, decreases soil water retention, lessens seed
         germination and seedling survival, and promotes the survival of more aggressive weedy species.
I      ~ ~As cover is reduced by trampling, for example, wildlife species that depend on the cover or food
         provided by the vegetation decrease. All wildlife respond to human activities but the intensity
         and duration of the response varies with life-cycle stage and the affected species. Disturbance at
I      ~ ~breeding and nesting time can lead to reduced populations caused by loss of eggs and/or young to
         predation or injury following abandonment by the parents. Repeated disturbance during feeding
         or resting can result in depletion of vital energy stores during flight or other avoidance responses
         to humans (Josselyn et al., 1989).
         Size of Wetland Buffers
          The literature review found a number of approaches used to assess the adverse impacts on
         wetlands from adjacent land uses and to determine what buffer width will be effective in reducing
I      ~ ~adverse impacts.  Some researchers focused on the use of buffers to reduce impacts of specific
          land uses such as silviculture, agriculture and recreation. These studies and others have
         examined buffer requirements and effectiveness either holistically or have isolated one or two
          specific functions in their studies. Researchers have measured buffer effectiveness by using

            I,                                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~7







various biological, chemical, and physical components to assess wetland impacts. These studies
include monitoring water quality and quantity; examining plant and animal species distribution;
monitoring habitat quality and composition; and measuring levels of human use. Each of these
approaches gives a portion of the information necessary to make informed decisions about buffer
widths.

The width of buffer considered appropriate to protect a wetland from degradation is related to the
wetland functions being protected and the buffer functions being provided (Rogers, et al., 1988).
Because buffer function is an important factor in determining buffer widths, information from the
literature is summarized according to the following functions:

       ï¿½ sediment removal;
       ï¿½ nutrient removal;
       0      fecal coliform removal;
       ï¿½ temperature moderation;
       *      human impact deterrence; and
       ï¿½ wetland species distribution and diversity.

Sediment Removal
Sediment removal is recognized as an important function of wetland buffers, not only to protect
the wetland from the adverse impacts of increased sediments loads, but because most nutrients
are attached (adsorbed) to sediment.  Several investigators have researched the width of buffer
necessary to reduce sediments. These studies measure effectiveness based on percentage of
sediments removed rather than other measures of ecosystem health.

Wong and McCuen (1982) analyzed the ability of vegetated buffers to trap sediment. They found
that average particle size, slope, roughness of vegetated cover, and runoff characteristics must be
taken into account in determining buffer widths effective to trap a given percentage of sediment
in stormwater flow. Using these parameters, they derived an equation to determine effective
buffer widths. While small buffers were found to remove small amounts of sediments, these
investigators found that the direct relationship between buffer width and percent sediment
removal was non-linear and that disproportionately large buffer width increases were required for
incrementally greater sediment removal. For example, effective buffer widths approximately
doubled (from 100 to 200 feet at 2% slope) when the design criteria increased from 90 to 95%
sediment removal. The authors did not address the removal of the soluble components in
stormwater. Young et al. (1980) looked at sediment trapping from livestock feedlots and found
that an 80-foot vegetated buffer reduced the suspended sediment in the runoff by 92 %. Gilliam
and Skaggs (1988) found that 50% of the sediment from agricultural fields was deposited in the
first 288 feet adjacent to the exit location of the fields. Horner and Mar (1982) found that a 200-
foot grassy swale removed 80% of the suspended solids and total recoverable lead.

The effectiveness of buffers at improving water quality adjacent to logging operations was
examined by Broderson (1973), Darling et al. (1982), Lynch et al. (1985), and Corbett and
Lynch (1985). Broderson studied three watersheds in western Washington (Green River, North
Fork Snoqualmie River, and South Fork Tolt River). He noted that buffers will have little or no
effect on sediment removal if the sediment-laden waterflows cross the buffers as channelized
flow; buffers can only be effective if they resist channelization and maintain overland flow as

                                                8








sheetflow. Broderson found that 50-foot buffers were sufficient for controlling most
sedimentation on less than 50% slopes, while steeper slopes required wider buffers. A maximum
buffer width of 200 feet was found to be effective even on extremely steep slopes. Furthermore,
Broderson recommended that buffer widths be measured not from the top of the streambank, but
rather from "visual signs of high water."

Corbett and Lynch (1985), citing research for an earlier paper by Corbett et al. (1978),
concluded that a 40-foot buffer may be adequate to protect streams from excessive temperature
elevation following logging, but that a zone of 66 to 100 feet may be necessary to buffer the
entire ecosystem, especially when steep slopes are encountered and increased runoff with heavy
sediment loads are generated.

Darling et al. (1982) assessed an Oregon State University (OSU) formula for protecting streams
and wetlands from tree blow-downs and subsequent large debris and sediment incursions into
streams and wetlands. This formula included factors, such as slope and horizontal and
elevational distances, from the midpoint of the buffer to the top of the nearest major ridge in the
direction of the prevailing winds. Additionally, soil stability and antecedent soil moisture were
considered. These investigators were primarily interested in buffer stability over time, and
concluded that the OSU formula could be successfully applied in Olympic National Forest,
Washington. Further, they found that the best-functioning buffers were the most stable, and that
buffer stability was in turn enhanced by high percent vegetative cover and dense stands of trees,
rather than by  sparse vegetation or individual trees protruding above an understory. They did
not, however, directly address buffer widths.

Lynch et al. (1985) assessed the success of 98-foot buffer strips between logging activity and
wetlands and streams in Pennsylvania. They found that these buffers removed an annual average
of approximately 75 to 80% of the suspended sediment in stormwater. Greater sedimentation
resulted from forested areas which had been commercially clear-cut and then denuded with an
herbicide. Surface flow in these areas tended to be channelized rather than sheetflow, although
Lynch et al. (1985) made no recommendations for larger buffers in such areas.

Moring (1982) assessed the effect of sedimentation following logging with and without buffer
strips of 30 meters (98 feet). The author found that increased sedimentation from logged,
unbuffered, stream banks clogged gravel streambeds and interfered with salmonid egg
development. With buffer strips of 98 feet or greater, the salmonid eggs and alevins developed
normally.

Both Erman et al. (1977) and Newbold (1980) found that a 98-foot buffer zone was successful in
maintaining background levels of benthic invertebrates in streams adjacent to logging activity in a
study of California streams.

Nutrient Removal
A number of studies have assessed the use of buffers to control nutrient inputs into wetland and
stream surface waters. Vanderholm and Dickey (1978) monitored feedlots exposed to natural
levels of rainfall and found buffer widths ranging from 300 (at 0.5% slope) to 860 feet (at 4.0%
slope) to be effective in removing 80% of the nutrients, solids, and oxygen-demanding substances
from surface runoff through sediment removal and nutrient uptake. Doyle et al. (1977) assessed

                                                9








the effect of forest and grass buffer strips at improving the quality of runoff from manure
application. These investigators found that both forested and grass buffers were effective at
reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and fecal bacteria in 12.5 and 13.1 feet respectively.
In addition, grass buffer strips were effective in reducing nitrate and sodium levels. The
percentage reduction of these nutrients was not discussed. Lynch et al. (1985) evaluated the
utility of vegetated buffers in reducing soluble nutrient levels in runoff from logging operations.
They found that a 98-foot buffer reduced nutrient levels in the water to "far below drinking water
standards." Wooded riparian buffers in the Maryland coastal region were found to remove as
much as 80% of phosphorus and 89% of nitrogen from agricultural runoff, most of it in the first
62.3 feet (Shisler et al., 1987).

Phillips (1989) studied non-point source pollution in North Carolina, and found that the current
75-foot regulatory requirement for estuarine shorelines was inadequate for filtering polluted
runoff from typical residential development. Phillips used a hydrologic model that measures the
ability of a buffer to detain polluted stormwater. Pollutant removal efficiencies were estimated
for biochemical oxygen demand, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus.

A slightly different approach was used by Bingham et al. (1980), who studied pollutant runoff
from caged poultry manure. Rather than recommending specific buffer widths, the authors
reported that a 1:1 buffer area to waste area ratio was successful in reducing nutrient runoff to
background'levels for animal waste applications. Overcash et al. (1981) analyzed grass buffer
strips as vegetative filters for non-point source pollution from animal waste with a one
dimensional model, and also concluded that a 1:1 ratio of buffer area to waste area was sufficient
to reduce animal waste concentrations by 90% to 100%.

Lowrance et al. (1984) evaluated the ability of riparian forest vegetation to remove sediment and
nutrient discharges from surrounding agroecosystems. They found that nutrient uptake and
removal by the soil and vegetation in the upland forested buffer was high and prevented outputs
from adjacent disturbances from reaching the stream channels. However, they did not
recommend any specific buffer widths.

Fecal Coliform Removal
A fecal coliform reduction model for dairy waste management was developed by Grismer in 1981
and applied to the Tillamook basin in northwestern Oregon. The model considered the effects of
precipitation, season, method of waste storage and application, die-off of the bacteria in storage,
die-off of the bacteria on the land surface, infiltration of bacteria in the soil profile, soil
characteristics, overland transport of bacteria through runoff, and buffer zones. Grismer's model
suggested that a 98-foot "clean grass" strip would reduce the concentration of fecal coliform by
60%. Bufferstrips of 118 feet were found to be sufficient in reducing the concentration of
nutrients and microorganisms to acceptable levels in feed lot runoff from summer storms (Young
et al., 1980).

Temperature Moderation
Forested buffers adjacent to wetlands function to provide cover, thereby helping to maintain
lower water temperatures in summer and lessen temperature decreases in winter. The ability of
forested buffer strips to maintain lower water temperatures in the summer months has been
investigated by several researchers.


                                                10







Broderson (1973) found that 50-foot buffers provided 85% of the maximum shade for small
streams (defined as streams with mean annual discharges of less than five cubic feet per second).
Broderson also found that buffer widths along slopes could decrease with increasing tree height.
For instance, a stand 200 feet tall on level ground provides shade approximately 90 feet from the
trunk during mid-July when temperature problems often occur. If this stand of trees were on a
60% slope, the effective shade width would increase to 150 feet. Shadow length also increases in
the summer months with increasing latitude.

Lynch et al. (1985) found that a 98-foot buffer from logging operations maintained water
temperatures within Iï¿½C of their former average temperature.  Barton et al. (1985) found a strong
correlation between maximum water temperatures and buffer length and width for trout streams
in southern Ontario, Canada. They derived a regression equation in which buffer dimensions
accounted for 90% of the observed temperature variation.

In their study, Brazier and Brown (1973) sought to define the characteristics of buffer strips that
were important in shading small streams adjacent to logging.  They found that 73 feet was often
ample buffer to shade these streams, maintaining pre-logging temperature ranges. They
advocated establishing a buffer range that would apply to different situations of slope, exposure,
and canopy cover on a case-by-case basis.

Human ImDact Deterrence
Buffer zones function to protect wetlands from direct human impact through limiting easy access
to the wetland and by blocking the transmittal of human and mechanical noise to the wetland.
Direct human impact to wetlands most often consists of refuse dumping, the trampling of
vegetation, and noise. Shisler et al. (1987) analyzed 100 sites in coastal New Jersey to evaluate
the relationship between buffer width and direct human disturbance to wetlands. The
investigators completed a post construction analysis to demonstrate the effectiveness, or lack
thereof, of different buffer widths for different land uses. Disturbance came in the form of
abandoned or dumped constructions materials, dumped debris, cut or burned vegetation, fill
areas, excavation, trampled paths, bulldozed areas, and adjacent residents expanding their
property illegally into the wetlands.  Shisler found that the adjacent land use type accounted for
much of the variation found in the level of human disturbance. In all cases, human disturbance
was higher in wetlands adjacent to dense residential or commercial/industrial uses. As a result of
their investigation, Shisler et al. recommended that low intensity land uses (agriculture, low
density residential, and recreation) maintain buffers of 50, 50, and 100 feet, respectively, for salt
marshes, hardwood swamps, and tidal freshwater marshes. For high intensity land uses (high
density residential and industrial/commercial), buffers of 100, 100 and 150 feet were
recommended. As buffer width increased, direct human disturbance decreased. Disturbance
levels were double at sites with narrow buffers (less than 50 feet). Buffers of 100 feet and
greater provided significantly more protection and reflected in lower disturbance to the wetlands
than did buffers less than 50 feet. Steeply sloping buffers with dense shrub understories provided
the greatest protection.

Cooke (Appendix A, this report) studied 21 wetlands in King and Snohomish counties in a post-
project evaluation to assess the effectiveness of buffers in protecting wetlands from human
disturbances. Efficiency was measured qualitatively, using observations of human caused



                                               11







disturbance to the wetland and buffer to indicate loss of buffer effectiveness. Cooke felt that the
effectiveness of a buffer in protecting adjacent wetlands was dependent on:

         ï¿½intensity of adjacent land use;                                                                    E
       ï¿½ buffer vegetative cover typ; and
       * buffer area ownership.

Buffers functioned most effectively when adjacent development was of low intensity; when buffer
areas were 50 feet wide or greater and were planted with shrub and/or forested plant
communities; and when the buffers were located on land owned by individuals who understood
the rationale for establishing buffers, or were on land outside of residential lots. Projects that
incorporated the buffer within residential lots resulted in the loss of the natural vegetation
community to lawn over time. Buffer functions were found to be reduced most often as a result
of decreasing the effective size of the buffer. Nearly all of the buffers that were less than 50 feet
wide at the time they were established demonstrated a significant decrease in effective size within
a few years; in some instances, degradation was so great that the buffers were effectively
eliminated. Fewer than half of the buffers that were originally at least 50 feet wide showed
demonstrable degradation.

The ability of vegetated buffers to abate noise has been analyzed by Harris (1985). Harris
studied vegetated borders along busy streets, and concluded that the insertion loss per foot
through an evergreen vegetated buffer was between 0.2 to 0.3 decibels(A), and a 20-foot wide
mature evergreen buffer would provide an insertion loss of approximately 4 to 6 decibels(A). (A
loss of 3 to 4.5 decibels(A) corresponds to approximately tripling the distance between the source
of noise and the receptor.)
Josselyn et al. (1989) studied the effects of public activities on waterbirds in wetland habitats in
the San Francisco Bay region. In measuring bird disturbance responses (usually movement to
another location within the site), they found the distance from the human activity causing a
disturbance ranged between 50 and 175 feet. The distance varied between species and habitats,
with dabbling ducks exhibiting the most sensitivity. The Washington Department of Wildlife
(WDW) (Appendix C, this report) concluded that "a person approaching heron or a flock of
waterfowl can agitate and flush them even at distances of 200 to 300 feet. This is especially true
for grazing waterfowl on shallow wetlands and wet pastures or black brant on open water."

Wetland SLoecies Distribution and Diversity
Often, the health of a particular type of habitat is measured by the presence or abundance of a
particular species of plant or animal or by the presence of particular community types called
indicators. These indicator species and communities are used to determine the amount or extent
of protection that a habitat needs in order to remain viable. Protection afforded to wetlands and
streams by buffers has been assessed using various species of birds and animals as indicators.

 Milligan (1985) studied bird species distribution in 23 urban wetlands in King County,
Washington. She found that bird species diversity, richness, relative abundance, and the
breeding numbers were moderately positively correlated with wetland buffer size. Specifically,


                                                 12







increases in species diversity were associated with wetland buffer size increases from 50 to 100
to 200 feet. Milligan concluded, however, that wetland size and the amount of wetland edge
were more important than buffer size. Her work suggested a minimum 50 feet of buffer for bird
habitat preservation. Finally, Milligan noted that larger buffers may be required for wetlands
adjacent to high intensity land uses.

The following information is summarized from Buffer Needs of Wetland Wildlife, prepared by
the Department of Wildlife and attached as Appendix C to this report.

In herbaceous vegetation next to wetlands, blue-winged teal use select grassy vegetation for
establishment of nest sites. They need three acres of upland for each acre of wetland for
breeding. The annual loss of untilled upland nesting cover is a major factor contributing to
suppressed duck production, regardless of water conditions. Because of conversion of adjacent
uplands, teal and gadwall production in Washington state has been significantly reduced (Zeigler,
pers. comm., February 1992). Blue-winged teal nests in North Dakota averaged 256 meters
from water. Optimum nest cover values are assumed to occur at less than 250 meters from any
wetland other than ephemeral wetlands. Great blue herons tolerate human habitation and
activities about 100 meters from a foraging area and occasional, slow moving, vehicular traffic
about 50 meters from a foraging area.

In shrub vegetation next to wetlands, the beaver use zone includes an area 600 feet from the
wetland edge. Trees and shrubs closest to water are used first. A majority of beaver feed within
328 feet of water. In dry environments, 90% of the beaver feed within 100 feet of water.
Belted kingfisher broods use shrub cover along water for concealment. Roosts were 30.5 to 61
meters from water.

In either shrub or herbaceous vegetation in buffers, foraging sites within 200 meters of wetlands
that contain nest sites are assumed useful for blackbirds.  The average distance from gadwall nest
sites to water was less than 45.8 meters in several studies of gadwalls, but nests in North Dakota
averaged 351 meters from water. Gadwalls typically select the tallest, densest, herbaceous or
shrubby vegetation available in which to nest. The majority of lesser scaup nests have been
recorded within 10 meters of the water's edge. They have been found up to 0.4 kilometers from
water. The most preferred nesting habitat for lesser scaup is assumed to occur when a 50-meter
zone surrounding permanently flooded, intermittently exposed, and semipermanent flooded
wetlands with 30 to 75% canopy cover of herbaceous vegetation. Lesser scaup most frequently
are observed on wetlands with at least half of the shoreline bordered by trees and shrubs.

In forested buffers, the limiting features for wood duck use are open water, marsh or shrubs and
snags. They distance from 0 to 1149 feet from water but average 262 feet. Most nests are
within 600 feet of water. Beaver feed up to 600 feet from the wetland edge, using trees and
shrubs closest to water first. Lesser scaup use forest buffers, nesting up to 165 feet from water
in herbaceous layers. Mink use forested buffers within 600 feet from open water.  Most use is
within 328 feet of the wetland edge. Mink need 75 to 100% forested cover. Den sites in Idaho
were placed up to 328 feet from the wetland edge. Pileated woodpeckers nest within 492 feet of
water; most nest within 164 feet. Because of impacts caused by timber harvest to the marten




                                               13







populations, WDW  management guidelines recommend no harvest within 200 feet of riparian
corridors.

McMahon (1983) found that vegetated buffers were important for survival of juvenile coho
salmon, both for temperature moderation, cover and increased food supply. Brook trout are also
extremely susceptible to elevated temperatures, and Raleigh (1982) recommended a 30-meter (98-
foot) buffer width with 50 to 75% midday shade as optimal. Eighty percent of this buffer should
be vegetated, for erosion control, for maintaining the undercut bank areas, and for providing
essential cover for the trout along the bank. Raleigh et al. (1984) described similar habitat
requirements for rainbow trout, and recommended the same size and make-up for buffer areas.

Some researchers have assessed the value of buffers for several species concurrently, and offer
general buffer recommendations.  Mudd (1975) studied the Touchet River, analyzing current
conditions along the river, and the amount of riparian and wetland wildlife habitat that existed.
Bird, mammal, and plant species were surveyed, although game species were studied most.
Mudd found that a minimum of 75 feet of natural riparian, primarily mature, vegetated buffer
promoted optimum wildlife populations for pheasant, quail, mourning dove, and deer.

The WDW  (Appendix C, this report) summarizes that:

        "To retain wetland-dependent wildlife in important wildlife areas, buffers need to retain
       plant structure for a minimum of 200 to 300 feet beyond the wetland. This is especially
       the case where open water is a component of the wetland or where the wetland has heavy
        use by migratory birds or provided feeding for heron. The size needed would depend
        upon disturbance from adjacent land use and resources involved.

        Influence of the water table on the landscape and vegetation is often reduced on the
        eastside of the state with more abrupt wetland-upland edges. Wildlife use tends to be
        concentrated closer to water in drier climates. Hall (1970) showed more narrow beaver
        use on streams in eastern California than had been reported in the literature (100 feet vs.
        328 feet). Mudd (1975) showed minimum riparian area for maximum pheasant and deer
        use to be 75 feet in one eastern Washington study.

        In western Washington, wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 300-foot
        upland buffers for intense land uses and 200-foot upland buffers for low intensity land
        uses. In Eastern Washington, wetlands with important wildlife functions should have
        200-foot upland buffers for intense land use and 100-foot buffers for low intensity land
        uses.

        Priority species or especially sensitive animals or wetland systems such as bogs/fens or
        heritage sites may need even larger buffers around wetlands to prevent their loss to
        disturbance or isolation of subpopulations or other loss of wetland function or value."

 Wetland Buffer Determination Models and Recommendations

 Washington State agencies and local governments are not the first to consider the question of
 wetland buffer protection and buffer sizes. Others, most notably in the eastern United States,

                                                14







have researched wetland buffers and provided methods or models for establishing required buffer
distances.

State of New Jersev
A wetland buffer delineation method was developed by Rogers, Golden, and Halpern, Inc. (1988)
for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for the protection of tidal and non-
tidal wetlands of the coastal zone. This method, designed primarily to maintain water quality, is
dependent upon three factors: vegetative cover, soil characteristics, and percent slope. The
investigators incorporated a modified version of the Manning's Equation (used in hydraulics to
relate runoff to a number of slope variables) to graph relationships among:  (1) mean runoff
velocity; (2) the roughness coefficient of vegetation; (3) vegetation type; (4) percent slope; (5)
sediment trap efficiency; (6) sediment particle size; and (7) buffer width.

The New Jersey method resulted in buffer width recommendations that varied from 25 to 645
feet, depending upon buffer vegetative cover type, slope, and degree of development impact.
Based upon this method, specific buffer recommendations were made for coastal New Jersey.
Three-hundred-foot buffers were recommended around wetlands which are designated as
providing habitat for threatened, sensitive, or endangered species, and around those wetlands
designated as a wildlife refuge, management area, or sanctuary.  They were also recommended
between wetlands and any facility that involves hazardous substances or wastes; septic fields,
spray fields, or sewage application areas; and mineral extraction activities, including sand and
gravel pits. A minimum of 25 feet was recommended for residential development if the buffer is
forested, with a minimum 50-foot buffer for shrubby and herbaceous buffers. No buffers were
recommended for projects if the site drainage patterns would be completely diverted away from
the wetland, before, during, and after construction (such a practice, however, may have adverse
impacts on wetland hydrology).  The authors emphasized, however, that although no buffers
would be needed to protect wetland water quality if all site drainage were diverted, other
functions should be evaluated to determine appropriate buffer widths. (Present factors, such as
noise attenuation, maintenance of wetland hydrology, and the availability of upland habitat for
wildlife, indicate that buffers are important even if water quality is not an issue.) This method
also recommended significantly larger buffers (up to twice as large) if a portion of the buffer is
unvegetated or impervious. Additional buffer widths of up to 30 feet are recommended
depending upon soil characteristics such as organic matter content and soil drainage class.

New Jersev Water SuDDlv Reservoirs
As a part of a comprehensive watershed management project for the State of New Jersey, a
parameter based buffer model was developed by Nieswand et al. (1990) for application to all
watersheds above water supply intakes or reservoirs. The primary buffer function sought by the
model was nearshore water quality protection. Input requirements for the model include a
combination of slope, width, and time of travel across the strip. As a result of their study,
Nieswand et al. recommended a minimum 300-foot width for terminal reservoirs and their
tributaries due to their "critical position." The 300-foot recommendation excludes slopes in
excess of 15% and strip impervious surfaces such as roads, where widths should be greater. For
non-terminal reservoirs and pumping stations, the recommended buffer was a minimum of 100
feet excluding slopes and impervious surfaces. For perennial streams and lakes, the
recommended buffer was a minimum of 50 feet with the same exclusions.


                                               15







New Jersev Pinelands
Roman and Good (1983 and 1986) developed a model to determine buffer widths for the New
Jersey Pinelands Area, a sensitive complex of uplands, wetlands, and aquatic communities in
southeast New Jersey. The model evaluated relative wetland quality and relative impacts of
development. Relative wetland quality was determined by vegetation, surface water quality,
potential for water quality maintenance, wildlife habitat, and socio-cultural values. Relative
impact of development was determined by the potential for site specific impacts, the potential for
cumulative impacts on a regional basis, and the significance of watershed-wide impacts. The
final values assigned during the scoring process determined final buffer requirements ranging
from 50 to 300 feet. Prior to any evaluation, however, a determination of the presence of
threatened or endangered species is made. If the wetland is known to support such species and is
critical to their survival, the wetland is assigned a buffer of 300 feet.

Wekiva Basin. Florida
Brown and Schaefer (1987) derived a formula for the Wekiva Basin, Florida, using four factors
to determine the width of buffer zones: (1) the wetland boundary; (2) the erodibility of soils in
the zone immediately upland of the wetland boundary; (3) the depth to groundwater in the upland
area immediately adjacent to the wetland; and (4) the habitat requirements of aquatic and
wetland-dependant wildlife species.

Rather than setting general recommendations, Brown and Schaefer (1987) gave a detailed formula
for a case-by-case determination. The method relied first upon accurate wetland delineations and
slope and erodibility determinations. Buffer width recommendations ranged from 43 (for a slope
of 3% or less and soils with low erodibility) to 87 feet (3% slope and high erodibility). Larger
buffers were required if the ground water table is expected to be lowered as a result of
development activity. Buffer widths of 78 to 392 feet were recommended for drawdowns of
between one and five feet. Another variable in their model was the maintenance of suitable
habitat. In some instances, recommended buffer widths exceeded 500 feet for the specific
Floridian ecosystem used in this modeling effort. Finally, Brown and Schaefer addressed the use
of buffers for noise reduction and concluded that a minimum of 42 feet of forested buffer is
adequate, but that this width should increase to 60 feet if the buffer zone is deforested.

Washington Model Wetlands Protection Ordinance
The Model Wetland Protection Ordinance developed by the Washington Department of Ecology
as guidance for local government offered a buffer determination method based on wetland rating
categories. The rating categories were defined according to functions and values, sensitivity,
rarity, and replaceability of the wetland.  Recommended buffers were 200 to 300 feet for
Category I; 100 to 200 feet for Category II; 50 to 100 feet for Category III; and 25 to 50 feet for
Category IV. These buffer widths can be raised or lowered based on specific criteria.










                                                16



U~~~~~~~~l


         I                                     III~~~~~~~1. AGENCY SURVEY
        The agency survey provides a synthesis of existing regulatory requirements for wetland buffers
          for significant state programs in the nation and key Washington county and city programs. The
          purpose of the synthesis is twofold. The first is to confirm the methods and standards for buffer
          widths that have been adopted through legislative processes by regulatory agencies. The second
          is to evaluate the effectiveness of the buffer standards.
          The synthesis of regulations includes information on the overall regulatory program of the state
I       ~ ~or local government; specific buffer width requirements; wetlands rating' or other methods used
          to establish buffer widths; and the administrative effectiveness of the regulatory program. The
          adopted buffer requirements for states, counties, and cities are summarized in Table 1.

          Rapid changes are occurring in Washington State and the nation in the formulation of growth
           strategies and wetlands protection programs. Many jurisdictions that do not currently have
I       ~ ~regulations in place are in the process of drafting them, and some are in the process of amending
          regulations already in place (e.g., Thurston and Island counties). Information on proposed buffer
          requirements for Washington counties and cities is generally not provided in the regulatory
           synthesis, however, it is summarized in Table 2.
          The data used in this study were collected in April and May of 1991. Washington State local
I       ~ ~government data was updated in February 1992. The information was collected primarily by
           contacting state and local agencies directly and requesting all relevant laws, regulations and
          guidelines. The Washington State data was updated according to information currently available
        to Ecology. Personal communications are cited only when the information provided was not
           contained in an official agency publication. Only those agencies who have adopted specific
           regulatory programs which cover wetlands have been included in the regulatory synthesis. Table
I       ~ ~2, the summary of proposed programs, includes as many programs as the investigators could
           find; it is not necessarily the exhaustive list and the proposed standards presented are changing
           rapidly. Information is presented in alphabetical order by jurisdiction.

           Background

           Any environmental regulatory program, whether it is administered at the federal, state, or local
           level, may be divided into three basic components: (1) laws, or enabling legislation to grant the
           necessary power to regulate certain activities in prescribed areas (e.g., Shoreline Management
           Act and King County Sensitive Area Ordinance); (2) regulations, which implement and interpret
           the laws and are mandatory (e.g., Washington Administrative Code and Code of Federal
           Regulations); and (3) guidelines, which are typically non-binding, flexible advice, on how best to
3        ~~~bring projects into compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

           For at least the last two decades, a major policy objective of federal, state and many local
           governments has been a consistent approach to wetland regulation based upon the scientific


  I            2 ~~~~A wetlands rating system is a process that differentiates wetlands according to specific characteristics
           or functional attributes. Protective measures can be varied, with the highest levels of protection given to thc
P         ~~~highest rated wetlands.
                                                           17







information. In November of 1989 the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U. S.
Environmental Agency entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for determination of
mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA clarified the
standards for determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts.
These include: 1) avoidance, which does not include compensatory mitigation and allows permit
issuance only for the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative; 2) minimization,
which requires appropriate steps to minimize the adverse impacts through project modifications
and permit conditions; and 3) compensatory mitigation, which is allowed only after all
appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.

Ecology's Model Wetland Protection Ordinance incorporates the same three-step hierarchy for
evaluating proposed projects in wetlands. The ordinance contains a wetlands rating system for
establishing required buffer zone widths and compensatory acreage replacement ratios. Such
linkage was suggested in 1984 by the Office of Technology Assessment.

The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) undertook a wetland study in the early 1980s at the
request of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and its Subcommittee on
Environmental Pollution (OTA, 1984) to address a range of policy options for dealing with
wetland use and regulation. One of the policy options articulated in the study is directly
applicable to Ecology's current investigations of wetland buffers and compensatory mitigation.
OTA found that categorizing wetlands by relative value (low vs. high), combined with a
regulatory strategy that would allow the protection of wetlands based upon those categories,
would allow regulatory programs to be "tailored" to protect specific types of wetlands (Eric
Metz, OTA Wetlands Advisory Panel Member, pers. comm. April 1991). The Environmental
Protection Agency is currently considering such a system for regulating wetlands under the Clean
Water Act (Reilly, 1991).

Subsequent to the OTA study, The Conservation Foundation convened the National Wetlands
Policy Forum to take a broad look at wetland policy, and to recommend ways to better protect
and manage wetlands (The Conservation Foundation, 1988). The Forum recommended
establishing a national interim goal of achieving no overall net loss of the nation's wetlands base,
and a long term goal of increasing the quantity and quality of the nation's wetland resource base.
At the present time, these goals are widely accepted by the federal, state, and local governmental
regulatory community.  The no-net-loss policy goal lies at the heart of every major wetland
protection program in the state of Washington, for example, the Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan, the 2010 Action Agenda, and the Governor's Executive Order for wetlands
protection.

In Washington State there are several key wetland regulatory and policy documents guiding local
government wetlands protection efforts. Guidelines (Chapter 365-190 WAC, "Minimum
Guidelines to Classify Agriculture, Forest, Mineral Lands and Critical Areas") have been adopted
by the Department of Community Development for use by local governments in compliance with
the Growth Management Act. These guidelines encourage Washington State counties and cities
to make their actions consistent with the intent and goals of Executive Orders 89-10 and 90-04
for the protection of wetlands as they existed on September 1, 1990. The guidelines encourage
counties and cities to consider Ecology's model ordinance, and to consider the use of a wetland
rating system.

                                               18






         The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority has incorporated a wetlands protection element into the
         1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. One part of this element (W-4. 1)
         recommends local adoption of a comprehensive approach to wetlands protection using both
P         ~~regulatory and non-regulatory tools. The Plan amendments recommend that local regulations
         address several elements, including wetland buffers. The plan refers to Ecology's model
         ordinance for guidance on wetlands protection standards.

















           I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1







                              National Survev of State Programs

At least sixteen states throughout the country utilize existing laws and regulations to protect
wetlands.  These are summarized below:

CALIFORNIA

Regulatorv Program: The California Coastal Act of 1976 contains the only statewide
requirements for wetland protection and management, and the Act applies only to wetlands within
California's coastal zone.  In 1981, the California Coastal Commission adopted a comprehensive
set of guidelines for assistance in determining the commission's wetland jurisdiction. The
guidelines established permitted uses in wetland areas, provided specific functional criteria for
establishing wetland buffers, and provided standards for determining compensatory wetland
mitigation. The process of drafting and adopting the interpretive guidelines was long (nearly two
years), very controversial, and relied extensively upon expert scientific opinion (Metz and
DeLapa, 1980).

To provide a scientific basis for the guidelines, the commission hired Dr. Christopher Onuf, a
salt marsh ecologist, to prepare scientifically supportable standards for protecting wetlands from
land use impacts (Onuf, 1979). The report issued by Onuf included two case studies assessing
actual attempts by local governments to protect and manage wetlands in a manner consistent with
California Coastal Act policies. The case studies included the City of Carlsbad's Aoua Hedionda
Specific Plan for protecting a coastal lagoon, and the City of Santa Barbara's Environmentallv
Sensitive Draft ReDort on the Goleta Slough for protecting a coastal slough. In addition, the
commission convened a panel of federal and state agency wetland regulatory experts to review
Onuf's recommendations. Along with the Onuf report, literature reviews, technical workshops,
and informal interviews with scientists were conducted by commission staff, and constituted the
basis of the recommendations contained in the guidelines for determining buffer widths.  As a
result of the firm scientific foundation for the regulatory concepts contained in the guidelines,
subsequent commission decisions which relied upon those principals were upheld in court (Metz
and Zedler, 1983).

Rating System:  Not actually a rating system, the act distinguishes between "wetlands" and
 "degraded wetlands."  Under the act's system, only "degraded" wetlands are candidates for any
type of compensatory mitigation. The California State Department of Fish and Game is
responsible for determining whether a wetland qualifies as a "degraded" wetland, a determination
based in part on whether the wetland "...is so severely degraded and its natural processes so
substantially impaired that it is no longer capable of recovering and maintaining a high level of
biological productivity without major restoration activities." The "degraded wetland"
classification does not affect buffer width.

Buffer Reauirements:  The act itself does not contain specific requirements for buffer widths.
Buffers are determined on a case-by-case basis using standards contained in the guidelines.  The
general standard contained in the guidelines is a 100-foot buffer. The precise width is
determined based upon the functions, values, sensitivities of the wetland in question; and upon
the type, scale, and intensity of the development which is proposed adjacent to the wetland.


                                                20








Administrative Effectiveness of Reulatory Program:  The wetland guidelines have now been in
place for ten years. In 1986, the Coastal Commission staff convened a wetland task force and
completed an internal assessment of the Commission's wetland program and its effectiveness.
The effectiveness of wetland buffer requirements has not been assessed. It is not generally
known if buffers were provided, as promised. The guidelines have not been revised or amended
since they were adopted in 1981, and they have not been followed consistently by the staff or the
Commission.  This is due, in part, to the fact that there has not been a full-time wetland
coordinator position at the agency since 1983 (Jim Raives, California Coastal Commission, pers.
comm., April 1991). Consequently, there has been no overall coordination or technical
assistance provided in the wetland area during the past seven years.

To help address these problems, the staff is preparing a wetland regulatory training manual to
promote consistent wetland policy within the agency. The agency is also considering reinstating
the wetland coordinator position. The task force report recommends that the agency adopt a pro-
active wetland program designed to educate the public about wetlands, to reduce conflict with
fish and wildlife agencies, and to continue to improve the program.

CONNECTICUT

Regulatorv Program: The Connecticut Inland Wetlands & Watercourses Act was passed in 1972.
This act and subsequent amendments required municipalities to establish inland wetland agencies
to carry out the provisions of the act. These agencies are further obliged by the act to prepare
"inventories of regulated areas" which are similar in nature to the National Wetland Inventory
maps. While delegating this authority to the individual municipalities, the state has not mandated
a specific regulatory program. The state Department of Environmental Protection has issued
"Model Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations" as a guide to assist in the implementation
of municipal inland wetland regulatory programs. The Department of Environmental Protection
acts as a technical advisory panel for the individual municipalities.

Rating System:  There is no statewide wetland rating system. All wetlands identified on
Connecticut Inventory Maps are afforded the same protection under the law.

Buffer Reouirements: While no buffer standards exist in Connecticut, approximately 60% of the
municipalities have adopted some form of buffers around "regulated areas" (Doug Cooper,
Department of Environmental Protection Water Resources Unit, pers. comm., March 1991).
These range from 25 to 150 feet and are usually in areas providing significant local habitat
functions (R. Palumbo, City of Millford Planning Dept., pers. comm., March 1991).

DELAWARE

Regulatorv Proeram: Delaware regulates wetlands through the Tidal Wetlands Act of 1973, and
the Sub Aqueous Law of 1986. The legislation does not contain specific requirements for
buffers. For this reason, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control has developed a new Freshwater Wetlands Act which is currently being reviewed in the
legislative process. The proposed bill is based closely on Delaware's Tidal Wetlands Act of
1973. The proposed Freshwater Wetlands Act would include buffer requirements and a five-tier
rating system.

                                              21







Rating System: The proposed rating system is consistent with Ecology's four-tier rating system,
the except for Class 5 wetlands which include and are limited to human-made detention facilities
and receive minimal protection under the proposed act. In the proposed Freshwater Protection
Act, Class 1 and 2 wetlands will be clearly defined on regulatory maps prepared by the
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. The project proponent, or
developer, is responsible for delineation of Class 3 through 5 wetlands. All other wetlands are
regulated as Class 3 wetlands unless specifically reassigned by the department to another class.

Buffer Reauirements: Buffer requirements range from up to 300 feet for Class 1 wetlands, and
up to 100 feet for Class 2 wetlands.  These buffer areas will be included in the jurisdictional
maps. Buffers associated with Class I wetlands are protected as if they were Class 2 wetlands,
and buffers associated with Class 2 wetlands are protected as if they were Class 3 wetlands. The
rationale is that wetland acreage will be increased while at the same time discouraging peripheral
impacts to significant wetland systems. Other classes of wetlands are assigned buffer
designations on a case-by-case basis. For example, significant alteration of a Class 3 wetland
may result in the department upgrading that wetland's status to a higher class so it may receive
greater protection under the law.

ILLINOIS

Re2ulatorv Program:  The Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989 is the first piece of wetland
protection legislation passed by the State of Illinois. This law establishes a no-net-loss goal for
acreage and function and provides for enhancement of existing wetlands by conditioning state
funded projects. This act established an Interagency Wetlands Committee to advise the State
Department of Conservation in the development of administrative guidelines.

Rating System:  No rating system is contemplated as of this writing.

Buffer Reuuirements: Buffer requirements are not included as an expressed provision in the act.

LOUISIANA

Regulatorv Drogram: The State of Louisiana has no statewide wetland protection legislation.
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1990 has enabled the state to regulate land use in wetlands
in a portion of southern Louisiana. Wetlands within the Coastal Zone Boundary are regulated by
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Coastal Zone Boundary is a political line that
limits DNR jurisdiction, it is not ecologically based. Furthermore, only tidally influenced
wetlands (fresh or salt water) are covered under the act. This act requires compensatory
mitigation for all wetland impacts and establishes the framework for mitigation banking
programs. The state DNR is currently drafting detailed rules and regulations relating to
mitigation policy and mitigation banking. The Louisiana DNR also has a division responsible for
management of the Coastal Restoration Trust Fund. This fund may also be utilized for
restoration and creation of wetland areas deemed suitable by the state legislature.  This fund is
supported by state oil and gas revenues directly.

Rating System:  The Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) developed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is used for determining mitigation bank credits, for monitoring mitigation

                                                22








projects, and for determining proposed impacts.  This rating system considers only fish and
wildlife habitat in the evaluation and is not used for determining buffers (that are not required--
see below).

Buffer Reauirements:  The entire Coastal Zone is within the flat alluvial delta of the Mississippi
River. Land surface elevations vary by only five feet through the entire area. At certain river
flows, the entire land area in southern Louisiana is below the level of the river and is only
protected from flooding by existing dikes. The entire coastal zone may also classify as wetland
under the Federal Interagency Committee's Technical Criteria. Buffers are not considered
important or feasible in this situation.

MAINE

Reulatorv Proaram:  Wetlands in the State of Maine are regulated by the Natural Resources
Protection Act of 1988 (amended in 1990). The act is implemented by the wetland protection
rules, developed by the State Department of Environmental Protection in 1990. The rules
establish minimum guidelines that all municipalities must adopt and administer. These standards
include a regulatory definition of wetlands, and establish three wetland classes with associated
buffer requirements.

Rating System: Under Maine's system, Class I wetlands are considered most valuable and
include rare and unique habitats, species, and functions. Class 2 wetlands are also considered
valuable and include floodplains. Class 3 wetlands do not contain any characteristics of a Class 1
or 2 wetland, and include wet meadows and swamps that are not contiguous to any water body.
All land meeting technical criteria in the Federal Manual is considered wetland and placed into
this classification system. Class 1 and 2 wetlands under Maine's system are similar to Ecology's
Category I and II wetlands, respectively. Under Ecology's four-tier rating system, Maine's Class
3 would be divided into two Categories, III and IV.

Buffer Reauirements: Class I and 2 wetlands are considered sensitive and require buffers. Class
1 wetlands require 100-foot buffers and Class 2 requires 50-foot buffers.

MARYLAND

Rezulatorv Proaram: The State of Maryland passed the Non-tidal Wetland Protection act in
January of 1989 (based upon The Tidal Wetland Act of 1974). This act contains a no-net-loss
policy for the state, and establishes statewide buffer standards. Buffer requirements are taken
directly from The Tidal Wetland Act.

Rating System:  A two-tier wetland rating system is employed in Maryland, which includes
"areas of special state concern," and all other wetlands. A wetland is considered an "area of
special state concern" if it provides habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered plants or animals,
or contains a unique habitat or plant association within the state boundaries.

Buffer Reauirements: Wetlands considered "areas of special state concern" require a 100-foot
buffer, while all other wetlands have a mandatory 25-foot buffer.



                                               23







MICHIGAN

Regulatorv Proaram:  The Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act of 1979 is the primary
piece of legislation governing land use in wetlands in the state of Michigan. Administrative rules
promulgated in 1988 enable the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to
comprehensively administer the wetland management program.  In August of 1984, this ,state
became the first in the nation to assume 404 program responsibilities from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. This program is primarily focused on expediting the permit application process.
Built into the assumption rule is a 90-day time limit for permit review. All wetlands contiguous
with lakes, streams, or ponds and all isolated wetlands greater than five acres are covered under
the state regulatory program.

Rating System: The State has developed its own methodology for wetland identification that
relies more heavily on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation than the methodology presented in
the Federal Manual.  There is no standardized rating system employed in this state. Wetlands
are rated individually by DNR staff and are given a ranking based on a state-developed ranking
methodology that also utilizes a great deal of subjective habitat and functional determinations.

Buffer Reauirements: There are no buffer requirements for the state of Michigan.

MINNESOTA

Regulatorv Program: The Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (H.F. 1) is Minnesota's main
statute governing wetland areas. It includes several key elements: (1) requiring the Board of
Water and Soil Resources to adopt rules within the next two years (by 1993) to determine ithe
public value of wetlands and to be the basis for assuring adequate wetland replacement; (2)
establishing a restoration and compensation program; (3) establishing a no-net-loss goal for the
state; and (4) requiring special protection for peatlands.

Rating System The act protects all wetland types and sizes, with some exemptions.  Replacement
must be restoring or creating wetland areas of at least equal public value for those wetlands on
agricultural lands and at a two to one replacement ratio for non-agricultural lands. Calcareous
fens are offered total protection (avoidance of all activities).  Also, peatlands are offered special
protection by designating certain lands as scientific and natural areas. Replacement is not
required for those wetlands also receiving a general permit under the federal Clean Water Act;
for activities in Type 1 wetlands on agricultural lands, except bottomland hardwood wetlands;
and activities in Type 2 wetlands that are two acres or less in size.

Buffer Reauirements:  There are no buffer requirements for the state of Minnesota.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Reaulatorv Program:  New Hampshire's enabling legislation for regulating wetlands is its Fill
and Dredge in Wetlands law (RSA 482-A). This statute provides the authority for the state's
administrative rules that establish the New Hampshire Wetlands Board (Chapter Wt 100 through
Wt 800). The board consists of the commissioners and directors of several state departments, as
well as county and municipal government representatives. The board has developed and

                                               24








administers wetland protection rules and regulations for the state. Regulated wetlands include
fresh water and salt water wetland areas, as defined by the methodology presented in the 1989
Federal Manual for the Identification and Delineation of Wetlands.

Rating System: Freshwater wetlands are divided into 3 general types: bogs, marshes, and
swamps.  The law incorporates a priority system based on the rarity and difficulty in restoration
of the bog or marsh environment.  Priority judgement is also based on the location and relative
size within the individual watershed. The rules specify certain habitats and functions as being
more "valuable" than others. Specifically, bogs are considered to be the most valuable, followed
by marshes, and then swamps. Other specific criteria used by the Board when processing permit
applications include: (1) the impact on plants, fish, and wildlife, including rare and endangered
species; (2) the impact of the proposed project on public commerce and recreation, with special
attention to those projects in or over public waters where boating is possible; (3) the extent to
which a project interferes with the aesthetic interests of the general public; (4) the impact upon
abutting land owners; (5) the benefit of a project to the interests of the general public, including
but not limited to streambank improvement, safety, roadway improvement, and recreational
improvements; (6) the impact of a proposed project on quality or quantity of water in watersheds
or waters that are public water supplies; and (7) the potential of a proposed project to cause or
increase flooding.

Buffer Reauirements: Wetland areas are rated and, if considered "valuable" by the Board, are
protected by a mandatory 100-foot buffer. Tidal areas are automatically considered valuable, and
all tidally influenced areas have a 100-foot buffer requirement.

NEW JERSEY

Reulatorv Program: The State of New Jersey has three statutes that protect wetlands:  (1) the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1970 that regulates land use in all coastal wetlands; (2) the
Freshwater Protection Act of 1988 that provides protection for freshwater wetlands statewide; and
(3) a statute that governs activities in the New Jersey Pine Barrens.

Rating System: Coastal wetlands are not rated, however, there are three categories for wetlands
covered by the Freshwater Protection Act: (1) those with exceptional resource value; (2) those
with intermediate resource value; and (3) those with ordinary resource value. Wetlands with
exceptional resource value include those which discharge into certain trout production waters or
their tributaries and wetlands with habitat for threatened or endangered species. Wetlands of
ordinary resource value include certain isolated wetlands, and human-made drainage ditches,
swales, or detention facilities. Wetlands of intermediate resource value include those with no
exceptional or ordinary attributes.

Buffer Reouirements: The Coastal Zone Management Act can provide for up to 300-foot buffers
for coastal wetlands.  The Freshwater Protection Act provides for protection of "transition areas"
based on the rating category. Exceptional resource value wetlands are assigned buffers of 75 to
150 feet; intermediate resource value wetlands are assigned buffers of 25 to 50 feet, and ordinary
wetlands receive no buffer. In the New Jersey Pine Barrens, buffers up to 300 feet may be
required.



                                               25







NEW YORK

Regulatorv Program:  The New York Freshwater Wetlands Act of 1975 is the only statewide
wetland legislation.  Under the act, the state regulates:

       "...wetlands greater than 12.4 acres in size; wetlands of unusual local significance; and
       Class 1 wetlands which are at or near a water body used primarily as a water supply."

Delineation of wetland boundaries is primarily based on vegetation indicators. Within the state
of New York, the Adirondack Park Agency also regulates wetlands pursuant to the act on park
agency land. The park agency requires a permit for any work in wetlands greater than one-half
acre in size.

Rating System: Wetlands regulated in the state of New York are placed into one of four Classes.
Class distinctions are based on habitat and vegetation associations, as well as value estimates
related to flood control and water quality.

Buffer Reauirements: Under the Department of Environmental Conservation Program, wetlands
meeting the minimum size requirement are afforded a 100-foot buffer (Patricia Rexinger, NY
Dept. of Environmental Conservation, pers. comm., March 1991). The Adirondack Park
Agency establishes buffer widths on a case-by-case basis. (Ray Curren, Adirondack Park
Agency, pers. comm., March 1991).

Administrative Effectiveness of the Re2ulatorv Program: The New York Freshwater Wetlands
Law of 1975 was one of the first wetland protection measures initiated by any state. There have
been no significant amendments to this statute since its inception.

OREGON

Regulatorv Program: Oregon has a state removal/fill law that is administered by the Oregon
Division of State Lands (ODSL) (ORS 541.605-541.695). A permit is required for removal from
a waterway of 50 cubic yards or more of material from one location in any calendar year, or the
filling of a waterway with 50 cubic yards or more of material at any one location at any time.
This law also applies to "waters of the state," which include navigable and non-navigable rivers,
bays, estuaries, permanent and certain intermittent streams, and salt and freshwater wetlands.

Oregon also has a mitigation law (ORS 541.626) that applies to fill or removal from estuaries.
In addition, in 1989 the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 3, which requires a statewide
wetland inventory, and calls for the preparation of Wetland Conservation Plans by local
governments.  Senate Bill 3 is implemented by administrative rules on wetland inventory and
wetland conservation plans (ORS 196.668-196.692).

Rating System:  ODSL is developing a broader based functional methodology for all wetlands.
The goal is to develop a habitat based model, like that described below for estuarine systems, if
there is sufficient information for freshwater wetlands.



                                               26







I        ~~The administrative rules for estuarine mitigation contain a habitat based model for weighing
          relative          vleofselected estuarine habitat types. Two models exist, one for the Columbia River
        Estuary, and one for all other estuaries. Substrate, salinity regime, and vegetation are evaluated
          for relative habitat value, but the output is used only for calculating compensatory mitigation, not
          for determining buffer width. A comparison is made between values lost and values replaced,
          with the goal of no overall net loss of estuarine surface area, productivity, diversity, or natural
          habitat areas.
          Buffer Reauirements: Senate Bill 3 requires buffers but provides no standards. A senior ODSL
          staff contacted for this survey believes that determining buffer widths must be addressed on a
          case-by-case basis, and would depend upon the local planning context. Buffer type and width
          should be determined based upon the adjacent land use proposed, and the position of the wetland
          in the landscape. ODSL staff do not support the assignment of buffer widths to wetlands based
          upon a wetland classification system, which is believed to be 'too simplistic" of an approach.

I        ~PENNSYLVANIA

          Rejaulatorv Proaram: Pennsylvania does not currently have comprehensive wetland protection
I       ~ ~~legislation at the state level.  The only existing law that requires wetland protection is the Dam
          Safety and Encroachments Act of 1979.

I        ~~Ratinz System:  According to Section 105.17 of the proposed rules for Dam Safety and
          Waterway Management, which are administered by the Department of Environmental Resources,
b         ~~~Pennsylvania rates wetlands using two categories:
                  "The existing regulations contain special permitting criteria for projects affecting
                  'Important' wetlands. The Department has determined that all wetlands will be more
                  appropriately regulated through the establishment of two wetlands categories; namely
                  exceptional value wetlands and all other wetlands. Although all wetlands are valuable and
                  subject to the requirements of this chapter, exceptional value wetlands are special
                  wetlands that deserve enhanced protection. Exceptional value wetlands include wetlands
                  that provide habitat for important, threatened or endangered species, and protect water
  U              ~~~~~~quality. "

          Buffer Recauirements: The act requires that dams be set back 300 feet from "important" wetlands
          and watercourses. The State Department of Environmental Resources regulations makes it clear
          that the setback mentioned does not apply to land uses other than dams.
          RHODE ISLAND

          Re~ulatorv Prosgratn: The Rhode Island Freshwater Wetlands Act of 1971 is administered
          pursuant to the Department of Environmental Management Rules and Regulations (1989). The
          rules contain jurisdictional definitions and activities requiring permits. Activities included in this
          permit procedure include wetland fill, as well as water quality and flood water impacts. Buffers
*         ~~~are required.



                                                          27







Rating System:  The state employs a "Wetland-Wildlife Evaluation Model" as a method for
determining affected areas (Models for Assessment of Freshwater Wetlands, University of
Massachusetts at Amherst, Publication No. 32). This rating system is applied on a case-by-case
basis. The evaluation includes a determination of whether the land is considered "unique" or
"valuable." This assessment is based on cultural and biological parameters, including fish and
wildlife habitat values. Rhode Island's "Rules and Regulations Governing the Enforcement of the
Fresh Water Wetlands Act," March 1981, defines the above terms as follows:

       (a)    Unique Wetland - The term "Unique Wetland" as used herein shall refer to those
              wetlands having special ecological or cultural significance within Rhode Island and
               possessing one or more of the following characteristics:
               1)  presence of rare or endangered plants and animals;
               2)  presence of plants of unusually high visual quality and infrequent occurrence:
               3)  presence of plants or animals at or near the limits of their geographic range;
               4)  unusually high production of native waterfowl;
               5)  annual use by great numbers of migrating waterfowl, shore birds, marsh birds
                   or wading birds;
               6)  "outstanding" wildlife diversity and production as determined by the
                   aforementioned "Wetland-Wildlife Evaluation Model";
               7)  presence of outstanding or uncommon geomorphological features;
               8)  presence of outstanding archaeological evidence;
               9)  availability of reliable scientific information concerning the geological,
                   biological or archaeological history of the wetlands; and
               10) designation as rare, endangered, exemplary or unique by the Rhode Island
                    Natural Heritage Program.

        (b) "Valuable Wildlife Habitat" shall refer to:
               1)  those marshes, swamps and bogs that are characterized by "high" diversity
                    and production of wildlife, according to the aforementioned "Wetland-
                    Wildlife Evaluation Model," and (2) those rivers and ponds classified by
                    regulation as Category A, B, or C by the DEM Division of Fish and
                    Wildlife.

Buffer Reauirements:  The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management maintains
 maps of designated wetland areas that are regulated. Included on these maps is an additional 50-
 foot buffer area that is also regulated.

 VERMONT

 Reeulatorv Program:  The Vermont legislature passed a statewide wetland protection act in 1986.
 Vermont Wetland Rules, developed by the state's Water Resources Board, were adopted in 1990.
 The rules apply to all land identified as wetland by methodology presented in the 1989 Federal
 Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.

 Rating System: Buffer requirements apply to three classes of wetlands.  Class determinations are
 based upon habitat functions and values, as well as open space and aesthetic concerns.
 According to the wetland rules:

                                                28






                 "Class One wetlands are those wetlands that, in and of themselves, based on an evaluation
                 of the functions in Section 5 (i.e., water storage for flood water and storm runoff, surface
                and groundwater protection, fisheries habitat, wildlife and migratory bird habitat,
                 hydrophytic vegetation habitat, threatened and endangered species habitat, education and
                 research in natural sciences, recreational value and economic benefits, open space and
                 aesthetics, and erosion control through binding and stabilizing the soil), are exceptional or
                 irreplaceable in their contribution to Vermont's natural heritage and are therefore so
                 significant that they merit the highest level of protection under these rules.

 I              ~~~~Class Two wetlands are those wetlands, other than Class One wetlands, which based on
                 an evaluation of the functions in Section 5, are found to be so significant, either taken
                 alone or in conjunction with other wetlands, that they merit protection under these rules.

                 Class Three wetlands are those wetlands that have not been determined by the Board to be
                 so significant that they merit protection under these rules either because they have not
                 been evaluated or because when last evaluated were determined not be sufficiently
                 significant to merit protection under these rules.'

I        ~~Vermont's Class One and Two wetlands closely correspond to Ecology's Category I and If in its
          recommended four-tier rating system. Wetlands considered Class Three in the Vermont system
          include Ecology's Category III and IV. Class Three wetlands are not protected under Vermont's
          wetland rules.
          Buffer Reauirements: Class One and Two wetlands under the Vermont system require buffers of
          100 and 50 feet, respectively.











           U~~~~~~~~~~~~~2






                         Washington Survey of County Programs

Five counties (Clark, Island, King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Thurston) in Washington State have
existing wetlands regulations in place. Of these, King County has by far the most fully-                      I
developed program protecting wetlands. Many of the other counties are in the process of
developing wetlands programs for compliance with the state's Growth Management Act (GMA)
of 1990. Washington's adopted county regulations are as follows:I
CLARK

Re~ulatorv Prop-ram: Following more than a year of public involvement and development, Clark
County adopted a wetlands protection ordinance in February 1992.

Rating System: The ordinance contains a five-tier wetlands rating system. Category V wetlands
are typically small, isolated, rural wetlands dominated by invasive species. These are exempt
from regulation.
Buffer Reauirements: Buffer requirements are complex and provide for a high degree of site-
specific flexibility.  Standard buffer widths are 300 feet for Category 1, 200 feet for Category II,I
100 feet for Category fill, and 50 feet for Category TV wetlands. Standard buffer widths can be
reduced by up to 40%, depending on the quantity of the existing buffer and potential
enhancement of the buffer.I
Buffer widths for rural zones are reduced by 50% to 150 feet for Category 1, 100 feet for
Category II, 50 feet for Category III, and 25 feet for Category IV wetlands. In the rural zones,
buffer widths cannot be further reduced.
ISLAND

Re~ulatorv Program: Island County was one of the first counties in the state to adopt wetlands
protection regulations. In 1984, the county adopted these wetland provisions as an overlay zone
within the County's zoning ordinance which includes a wetlands rating system, buffers, and
mitigation requirements. Regulated wetlands include those defined under the federal Clean Water
Act, with exemptions for smaller wetlands.
Rating System: Island County has a three-tier rating system:

       Category A: Wetlands 1/4 acre or larger with the "presence of a protected species or an
       outstanding habitat for a protected species" and those with a 'predominance of native
       wetlands species over introduced or non-native wetland species."I
       Category B: Wetlands that include all marshes, bogs, swamps, and lakes regulated by the
       Shoreline Management Act and the county's Shoreline Master Program, as well as allI
       other wetlands one acre or larger that exhibit a predominance of non-native wetland plant
       species. Mitigation sites are included.



                                             30q







       Category C: Wetlands created by humans "where no wetland before existed." These
       wetlands are not regulated.

Buffer Reouirements: A 100-foot buffer is required for Category A wetlands; a 25-foot buffer is
required for Category B wetlands; and no buffers are required for Category C wetlands. Buffers
widths may be modified by the county planning director on a case-by-case basis, and reduction of
the buffer may be allowed "to provide a reasonable buildable area for a single family residence
or accessory building on a lot legally established prior to the effective date of the ordinance.

Administrative Effectiveness of Regulatory Program:  The Board of Island County
Commissioners feels that their program is a responsible approach to wetlands protection. They
use a two category rating system because of its simplicity yet effectiveness.

KING

Regulatorv Pro2ram:  The King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance (KCSAO) passed by the
county council in 1990 is in many ways a pioneering document. This ordinance attempts to
define all major environmental areas of public concern, including wetlands, throughout the
county. The accompanying map folio to the KCSAO includes all regulated land as it pertains to
the KCSAO. Alteration of wetlands and required buffers is not allowed without an appropriate
mitigation plan that enhances or protects the wildlife habitat, natural drainage, and/or other
valuable functions of wetlands. Delineation is based on the 1989 Federal Manual.

Rating System:  The ordinance contains a three-tier rating system for wetlands.  The King

including National Wetland Inventory and field verification. The inventoried wetlands were rated
using distinctions based exclusively on habitat, plant associations and size.

       Class 1 wetlands are wetlands assigned the Unique/Outstanding #1 rating in the King
       County Wetlands Inventory, 1983, or meeting the following criteria: providing habitat
       for threatened, endangered species; having 40 to 60% permanent open water in dispersed
       patches with two or more classes of vegetation; being wetlands ten acres or more in size
       and having three or more wetland classes, one of which is open water; or having rare
       plants.

       Class 2 wetlands are those wetlands assigned Significant #2 rating in the King County
       Wetlands Inventory, or with the following: greater than one acre in size; equal to or less
       than one acre in size and having three or more wetland classes; wetlands equal to or less
       than one acre that have a forested wetland class; and/or the presence of heron rookeries
       or raptor nesting trees.

       Class 3 wetlands are those assigned the Lesser Concern #3 rating in the King County
       Wetlands Inventory, or inventoried wetlands that are equal to or less than one acre in
       size, having two or fewer wetland classes.





                                               31







Buffer Reauirements: Alteration of wetlands and required buffers is not allowed without an
appropriate mitigation plan that enhances or protects the wildlife habitat, natural drainage, and/or
other valuable functions of wetlands. Buffers are established as follows:
                               Class I wetlads: I 00                                                           fee
       Class 2 wetlands:             100 feet
       Class 3 wetlands:       2      50 feet

Additional buffer requirements may be set by the county in sensitive areas including critical
drainage areas, locations of hazardous materials, critical fish and wildlife habitat, landslide orI
erosion hazard areas adjacent to wetlands, groundwater recharge and discharge, and trail or
utility corridors.

Minimum building setbacks of 15 feet are required from the edge of the wetland buffer.
Prohibitions on the use of hazardous or toxic substances and pesticides or certain fertilizers in
this area may be imposed.I
Administrative Effectiveness of the Reaulatorv Proaram: The county is finding that dividing the
KSAO into two separate documents would ease administration of the program. These documentsI
would include a general policy statement and overview of the program, and an accompanying set
of detailed regulations. Experience has shown that the standards contained in the KSAO are
complex and affect many departments within the county which has lead to some confusion.I
Weekly meetings held by county staff are used to formalize interpretations of those KSAO
provisions that have needed further definition. Since the KSAO has been enacted in such a short
time, it is premature to judge its effectiveness (Cindy Baker, King County KSAO Implementation
Coordinator, pers. comm., May 1991).
PIERCEI

Reaulatorv Pro2ram: In January 1992, the Pierce County Council adopted Ordinance No. 91-
128S3, the Pierce County Wetland Management Regulations. The ordinance requires that by
September 1992, the director of Planning and Land Services report to the Council's Planning and
Environment Committee on implementation of the ordinance.

Rating System: The ordinance establishes a four-tiered rating system. Category I wetlands are
those of exceptional resource value, based on attributes which may not be adequately replicated
through creation or restoration.  Category II wetlands have significant resource value. CategoryI
III wetlands have important resource value based on vegetative diversity. Category TV wetlands
are those of ordinary value based on monotypic vegetation and hydrologic isolation.

Buffer Requirements: Buffers range from 25 to 150 feet, based on wetland rating category, with
the ability to modify (increase, decrease, or average) buffer widths dependant on specific

allowances.




                                              32








SNOHOMISH

Re2ulatorv Program:  On May 30, 1990, Snohomish County Council adopted the Aquatic
Resource Protection Program (ARPP), consisting of policies and ordinances for the protection of
aquatic resources (Freeman, 1990). A referendum petition placed the ARPP on the November
1990, ballot and it was subsequently suspended. Until early 1991, the ARPP was administered
as policy. In early 1991, the Snohomish County Council voted to eliminate the Aquatic Resource
Protection Program for use even as a policy document.

Until a new wetlands program is approved, the wetland protection policy in Snohomish County
that is currently in operation is contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Through SEPA review,
categorizations and buffers are determined based on site-specific information.

Rating System: The county does not employ a wetland rating system at this time, although a
three-tiered system was developed for the ARRP.

Buffer Recuirements: An average 50-foot buffer is required adjacent to a wetland. The county
works with the applicant and determinations are made on a case-by-case basis.

Administrative Effectiveness of the Regulatorv Program: The county employs six full-time and
two part-time biologists who review wetland issues and permits. The Snohomish County
Planning Department and Planning Committee are developing a new wetlands program (Marilyn
Freeman, Snohomish County Planning, Pers. Comm., May 1991).

THURSTON

Regulatorv Program: The Environmentally Sensitive Areas Chapter of the Thurston Regional
Planning Council Comprehensive Plan, completed in 1988, regulates wetlands greater than one
acre. Special plans are required for certain developments, and the county can also require
"building and development coverage, setbacks, size of lots and development sites, height limits,
density limits, restoration of ground cover and vegetation, or other measures for environmental
protection." A wetlands map included in the Comprehensive Plan depicts the general outlines of
wetland areas in the county. In November 1990, the county drafted revisions to its
Environmentally Sensitive Areas chapter.

Rating System: None, although the draft standards include a four-tier rating system.

Buffer Reauirements:  The county does not require standard buffers adjacent to wetland areas,
but using its general wetlands polices established in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Ordinance, the county may require up to 200-foot buffer on a case-by-case basis. The draft
standards use the same buffer zone widths (25 to 300 feet) as the Ecology's model ordinance.








                                              33







                            Washington Survev of Citv Proerams

Since the Growth Management Act Guidelines were enacted, many Washington cities have, or
are in the process, of developing regulations concerning development in and around wetlands. At
least 28 Washington cities now require wetlands protection. The majority of these cities have
specific wetland buffer requirements.

ANACORTES

Regulatorv Program: The City of Anacortes regulates wetlands through a subsection of the city's
Zoning Ordinance No. 1917. This subsection, called "Non-tideland Wetland Protection," applies
to all lands in, or within, 25 feet of a non-tidal wetland greater than 10,000 square feet. Non-
tidal wetland permits are issued if an activity is determined to be in the public interest, is water-
dependent, and meets other detailed requirements.

Rating System:  None.

Buffer Reauirements: No regulated activity in or within 25 feet of a non-tidal wetland may be
conducted without a permit.

BAINBRIDGE

Rezulatorv Program: The City of Bainbridge adopted a wetlands protection ordinance in
February, 1992.

Rating System:  Bainbridge has developed a four-tier rating system that is a modification of the
Washington State and Puget Sound Wetlands Rating Systems.

Buffer Reauirements: Buffers are specified as 150 feet for Category I wetlands, 100 feet for
Category II wetlands, 50 feet for Category III wetlands, and 25 feet for Category IV wetlands.

BELLEVUE

Regulatorv Proeram:  The City of Bellevue regulates wetlands through the City of Bellevue Land
Use Code, the City of Bellevue Comprehensive Plan, and the City of Bellevue Sensitive Areas
Notebook. Bellevue's regulated wetlands are defined as follows:

        "Those sensitive areas transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water
        table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For
        purposes of applying this definition wetlands must have one or more of the following
        three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes;
        (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non-soil
        and is saturated by water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing
        season of each year."





                                               34







Rating System: Wetland buffers are regulated through a rating system that includes Type A, B,
and C wetlands.  Wetlands are rated according to their relationship to Type A or B riparian
corridors and by size (Sensitive Areas Notebook, Section 3.3)..

Buffer Reauirements: Type A Wetlands require a 50-foot buffer, and Type B Wetlands require a
25-foot buffer. Type C wetlands are not regulated by the City of Bellevue; however, if a Type C
wetland is determined to have certain significant (not defined) functions and values, the city may
decide to regulate that wetland and require a buffer (Kim Eggebraten, City of Bellevue, Storm
and Surface Water Utility, pers. comm., April 1991). Adjustment of buffers may be possible
when required setbacks exceed 50% of area encompassed by the property.

BELLINGHAM

Regulatorv Program: After two years and completion of a comprehensive inventory, the City of
Bellingham adopted a Wetlands Ordinance in December 1991.

Rating System: The ordinance includes a three-tiered rating system.

Buffer Reauirements:  Buffers are 100, 50, and 25 feet for Category I, II, and III wetlands,
respectively.

BONNEY LAKE

Reaulatorv Program: The City of Bonney Lake adopted a Sensitive Areas Ordinance in August
1991. The code has a wetlands protection element that regulates wetlands as defined under the
federal Clean Water Act and ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds. One of the
goals of the ordinance is for no-net-loss of wetlands functions and values. Sensitive Areas
Permits and special studies are required for wetlands impacts.

Rating System: The city uses Ecology's four-tier rating system. The minimum size for
regulation is 5,000 square feet of a Category IV wetland.

Buffer Reauirements: Type I wetlands require a 200-foot buffer; Type II require a 100-foot
buffer; Type III require a 50-foot buffer; and Type IV require a 25-foot buffer. A 15-foot
setback may be required for some projects.

BOTHELL

Repulatorv Program: The City of Bothell adopted an interim critical areas ordinance in
December 1991.

Rating System:  The city's rating system is the same as King County's three-tier system,
providing varying regulatory requirements for Categories 1, 2, and 3.

Buffer Reauirements:  Buffer requirements are established as ranges. They include 75 to 150-
foot buffers for Category 1, 50 to 100-foot buffers for Category 2, and 25 to 50-foot buffers for
Category 3.

                                              35







BURLINGTON

Reaulatorv Program: In August 1991, the City of Burlington adopted interim regulations for
critical areas as an addition to the Municipal Code.

Rating System: None.

Buffer Reauirements: A minimum 25-foot buffer is required unless a wetlands study, requested
by the Planning Director, recommends a greater width.

CANMAS

Revulatorv Pro2ram:  The City of Camas added an environmentally sensitive areas chapter to the
zoning code in August 1991. Prior to issuance of a SEPA threshold determination within
identified wetlands areas, the applicant is required to submit a wetlands report that serves as the
basis for wetlands protection requirements.

Rating System:  None.

Buffer Reauirements: Buffers are required for all development proposals and activities adjacent
to wetlands. The required buffer width will be established by the Planning Director based on
information contained in the wetlands report and will generally be 50 feet. However, the buffer
may be reduced to 25 feet for wetlands determined to be of low quality and increased to 100 feet
for wetlands of higher quality.

DES MOINES

Reulatorv Prozram: Wetlands within the City of Des Moines are subject to the regulations in
Ordinance No. 853. All areas considered wetland according to the 1989 Federal Identification
and Delineation Manual are regulated within the city limits.

Rating System:  A wetland rating system has been developed that assigns each wetland into one
of two categories:

        "Significant Wetlands" include the following: (1) any wetland assigned either the Class 1I
        or Class 2 rating by King County; (2) any wetland showing significant changes since
        being inventoried; (3) wetlands having any threatened or endangered species; (4) wetlands
        within a stream corridor greater than or equal to one acre in size having one or more
        wetland classes; or (5) wetlands within a stream corridor having three or more wetland
        classes.

        "Important Wetlands" are defined as follows: (1) any wetland that has been assigned the
        Class 3 wetland rating by King County; (2) any rated wetland that has significantly
        changed conditions since being inventoried; or (3) a collection of wetlands within a stream
        corridor, which is less than one acre in size having two or fewer wetland classes.

All wetlands are placed into one of these two categories. This two-tier rating system is based on
the King County Wetland Inventory.

                                               36








Buffer Reauirements:  Buffer standards are based on the two-tier rating system. A significant
wetlands require a 100-foot buffer, and important wetlands require a 35-foot buffer. Additional
buffers may be required if, for example, rare plant or animal species are present, or a unique
wetland exists.

EATONVILLE

Re2ulatorv Program: The city adopted a wetlands protection ordinance in September 1991.

Rating System: Eatonville incorporates Ecology's four-tier rating system in their ordinance.

Buffer Reauirements: Required buffer widths are 50 to 100 feet for Category I wetlands, 35 to
50 feet for Category II wetlands, 25 to 35 feet for Category III wetlands, and ten to 25 feet for
Category IV wetlands.

ENUMCLAW

Regulatorv Propram: The City of Enumclaw passed a Critical Areas Ordinance in January 1992
which provides wetlands protection regulations.

Rating System: The city uses Ecology's four-tier rating system.

Buffer Reauirements: The buffer requirement for Category I wetlands is 100 feet, for Category
II wetlands is 75 feet, for Category III is 50 feet, and for Category IV wetlands is 25 feet.
Certain conditions allow buffers to be reduced by a maximum of 25%, or increased.

EVERETIF

Resulatorv Program:  The City of Everett adopted Environmentally Sensitive Area Policies and
Zoning Regulations in 1991.

Rating System: The regulations classify wetlands into four categories based on wetland size,
wetland class (forested, shrub-scrub), and to some degree, functions, and values.

Buffer Reauirements: The regulations include 100, 75, 50, and 25-foot buffers for Categories I
through IV.

FEDERAL WAY

Rezulatorv Program: The Federal Way Zoning Code classifies and regulates wetlands and other
sensitive areas. The Zoning Code defines "regulated" wetlands that include any wetland that has
been mapped and classified by King County; any other wetland that is functionally related to a
mapped wetland; or any wetland, whether or not mapped, that has or is functionally related to a
wetland that has any significant or valuable (not defined) functions.

Rating System:  None.


                                              37







Buffer Reauirements: All regulated wetlands have a setback requirement of 100 feet.
Encroachment into the buffer is permissible under certain, limited circumstances. For example,
if a wetland setback area encompassed an entire building lot, and if reasonable use of property
could not be attained, buffer encroachment would be allowed, but a mitigation plan would
probably be required. These issues are determined on a case-by-case basis (Susan Meyer,
Consulting Wetland Specialist to the City of Federal Way, pers. comm., April 1991).

Administrative Effectiveness of the Refulatorv Program: Administration of these buffer
standards is sometimes difficult due to the lack of clear, consistent comprehensive guidance.

KIRKLAND

Reaulatorv Program: Chapter 90 in the City of Kirkland Zoning Code contains wetland
regulations. The city's definition of "regulated' wetland's is very similar to that which is used
by the City of Federal Way (see above).

Rating System: None.

Buffer Reauirements: A 50-foot setback is required around all wetlands.

Administrative Effectiveness of the Reulatorv Program: The wetlands protection regulations are
somewhat difficult to administer because they are open to interpretation (Joan Liebermann-Brill,
City of Kirkland Planning Department, pers. comm., March 1991).

LACEY

Regulatorv Program: In July 1991, the City of Lacey adopted a Wetlands Protection Ordinance.


Rating System: Lacey uses Ecology's four-tiered rating system with an added 'Category V"
wetland. Category V criteria are wetlands that do not meet the requirements of Categories I
through IV and are Type 2 to 5 waters as defined by the Washington Forest Practice Rules and
 Regulations. Type 1 waters are specifically excluded from this category.

 Buffer Reauirements: The City of Lacey's buffer widths are:

        Category I:           200 to 300 feet
        Category II:          100 to 200 feet
        Category III:         50 to 100 feet
        Category IV:          25 to 50 feet
        Category V:           50 to 200 feet

 The city's ordinance includes buffer averaging, criteria for increasing and decreasing buffer
 width, and a building setback requirement which corresponds to the required yard area setback
 for the underlying zone.

 LYNDEN

                                                38







Reaulatorv Proram: The City of Lynden passed a Sensitive Areas Ordinance which amended
the Municipal Code in September 1991. Within the ordinance, the city declares that there is no
land within the city limits which can be considered wetlands, except areas within the shorelines
of the city that are protected through the Lynden Shoreline Master Program. There may be
wetlands in the urban growth areas that could potentially be annexed by the city, but the
ordinance leaves that issue to future consideration.

Rating System: None.

Buffer Reouirements: Sensitive area buffers are a minimum of 25 feet and a maximum of 100
feet.

MILTON

Resulatorv Pro,,ram: Milton adopted Ordinance 1148 on August 6, 1991.

Rating System: The ordinance utilizes Ecology's four-tier rating system.

Buffer Reauirements: The City of Milton's buffer widths are 200 to 300 feet for Category I
wetlands, 100 to 200 feet for Category II wetlands, 50 to 100 feet for Category III wetlands and
25 to 50 feet for Category IV wetlands.

OLYMPIA

Regulatorv Proeram: The City of Olympia adopted amendments to its zoning code in March
1992.

Rating System: The city utilizes Ecology's four-tier rating system.

Buffer Reauirements: Required buffer widths are 200 to 300 feet for Category I wetlands, 100
to 200 feet for Category II wetlands, 50 to 100 feet for Category III wetlands and 25 to 50 feet
for Category IV wetlands. Provisions are provided to reduce buffer widths if wetland buffers are
enhanced.

Administrative Effectiveness of the Regulatorv System: The city is revising its Environmentally
Sensitive Areas Chapter. The current buffer rating system is seen as inadequate, and will be
modified to a system that incorporates wetlands quality in addition to size. The current ordinance
effectively prohibits any development within a wetland, and an amended ordinance may allow
increased flexibility while assuring protection. Olympia will be utilizing the regional mapping
system prepared in 1992 (Steve Morrison, pers. comm., September 1991).

PORT ANGELES

Re2ulatorv Proaram: In November 1991, the City of Port Angeles adopted their Wetlands
Protection Ordinance.

Rating System: The city uses Ecology's four-tier rating system.

                                              39







Buffer Reauirements: The city's buffer widths are 200 to 300 feet for Category I wetlands, 100
to 200 feet for Category If wetlands, 50 to 100 feet for Category III wetlands and 25 to 50 feet
for Category IV wetlands.

PUYALLUP

Reulatorv Proeram: On September 3, 1991, the City of Puyallup adopted a new chapter of the
Municipal Code entitled Wetlands Protection Regulations.

Rating System: The City of Puyallup has adopted a four-tier rating system that is similar to
Ecology's rating system.  Category I and II wetlands have no minimum size requirement.
Category IV has a 10,000 square foot minimum size requirement, but also includes wetlands less
than 5,000 square feet that are a functional part of an interconnected aquatic system containing
two or more wetlands.

Buffer Reauirements: Category I, TI, III, and IV wetlands have 150, 100, 50, and 25-foot
minimum buffer widths respectively.

REDMOND

Regulatorv Propram:  The City of Redmond is in the process of adopting a Critical Areas
Ordinance that includes a comprehensive wetlands section. Because the development of the
Critical Areas Ordinance has taken more time than anticipated, the city adopted an interim
wetlands protection ordinance in September 1991. The interim ordinance (Ordinance No. 1649)
has no standards and states the following policy:

        "Retain and protect the important biological and hydrological functions of wetlands
       through conditions on new development to assure no-net-loss of wetland acreage,
       function, and value in the Redmond Planning area."

Rating System: None.

Buffer Reauirements: None.

SEATTLE

Requlatorv Program: In October 1990, the City of Seattle adopted interim regulations to protect
critical areas. Wetlands reports or additional information for project review may be required by
the director to ensure more thorough analysis of alternatives.

Rating System:  None.

Buffer Reauirements: Required wetland buffers are 25 feet.





                                               40







SHELTON

Reaulatorv Program:  Not available.

SNOQUALMIE

Reaulatorv Prosram: The City of Snoqualmie adopted a sensitive areas chapter into their
municipal code in August 1991. Wetlands protection regulations include a three-tier rating
system, mitigation requirements, and buffer standards.

Rating System:  Snoqualmie's rating system is similar to King County's:

       Class 1 Wetlands - wetlands assigned the unique/outstanding #1 rating in King County's
       Wetlands Inventory, 1983; or which meet any of the following criteria:
       (1) the presence of species listed by the federal government or state as endangered or
       threatened, or the presence of critical or outstanding actual habitat for those species; (2)
       wetlands having 40 to 60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more
       classes of vegetation; (3) wetlands equal to or greater than 10 acres in size and having
       three or more wetland classes, one of which is open water; or (4) the presence of one or
       more plant species on a landform type which do not often occur in King County.

       Class 2 Wetlands: wetlands assigned the significant #2 rating in the King County
       Inventory or any wetlands which meet any of the following criteria (1) wetlands greater
       than one acre in size; (2) wetlands equal to or less than one acre in size and having three
       or more wetland classes; (3) wetlands equal to or less than one acre that have a forested
       wetland class; or (4) the presence of heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees.

       Class 3 Wetlands: wetlands assigned the lesser concern #3 rating the King County
       Inventory, or uninventoried wetlands that are equal to or less than one acre in size and
       that have two or fewer wetland classes, none of which are a forested wetland class.
       Isolated wetlands are included in the Class 3 category.

Buffer Reauirements: The ordinance requires 100-foot buffers for Class 1 wetlands, 50-foot
buffers for Class 2 wetlands, and 25-foot buffers for Class 3 wetlands.  In addition, a building
setback line of 15 feet is required. There are permitted uses in the buffers and wetland areas,
provided mitigation or enhancement plans are approved by the city. Allowed activities include
stream crossings, stream relocations, trails in buffer areas, landscaping, utilities in wetland or
stream buffer, roads, and other rights of way.

TACOMA

Reaulatory Proram:  In February 1992, the Tacoma City Council adopted a Critical Areas
Ordinance that includes wetlands protection.

Rating System: The Tacoma ordinance includes use of Ecology's four-tier rating system.




                                               41







Buffer Standards: Buffer requirements are 200 feet for Category I wetlands, 100 feet for
Category II wetlands, 50 feet for Category III wetlands, and 25 feet for Category IV wetlands.

TUKWILA

Regulatorv Proaram: On June 10, 1991, the City of Tukwila passed a Sensitive Areas Ordinance
with wetlands protection regulations.

Rating System: The ordinance uses the King County rating system to establish development
standards and criteria.

Buffer Reauirements: Buffer widths for wetlands are 100 feet for Type 1, 50 feet for Type 2,
and 25 feet for Type 3 wetlands.

TUMWATER

Reaulatorv Program:  In August 1991, the City of Tumwater adopted a Conservation Plan as part
of their Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Plan addresses natural resource lands conservation
and critical areas protection, including an element which specifies wetlands regulations.

Rating System:  Tumwater incorporates Ecology's four-tier rating system.

Buffer Reauirements: Tumwater requires 25 to 300-foot buffers based on wetland category.
There are some low intensity uses permitted in the wetland buffer area, for instance: relocation
of electric facilities, natural gas, cable, and telephone facilities; and installation or construction in
improved road rights-of-way.

WENATCHEE

Repulatorv Promram: Effective September 1, 1991, the City of Wenatchee passed a Resource
Lands and Critical Areas Development Ordinance that includes wetlands regulations.

Rating System: The ordinance incorporates Ecology's four-tier rating system.

Buffer Reauirements: Buffer requirements for Category I, II, III and IV wetlands are 250,  150,
75, and 50 feet, respectively. Criteria are provided that allow buffers to be reduced by a
maximum of 50% depending on the adjacent conditions.












                                               42








                                     TABLE 1
                        Adopted' Wetland Buffer Standards

  STATE         Buffer Reauirement  Rating System             Buffer Range

   California           yes               yes                  100 feet
   Connecticut          no                no                   none
  Delaware             yes               yes                  0 to 300 feet
   Illinois             no                no                   none
   Louisiana            no                yes                  none
   Maine                yes               yes                  25 to 100 feet
   Maryland             yes               yes                  25 to 100 feet
   Michigan             no                no                   none
   Minnesota            no                no                   none
   New Hampshire        yes               no                   0 to 100 feet
   New Jersey           yes               yes                 0 to 300 feet
   New York             yes               no                   0 to 100 feet
   Pennsylvania         yes               yes                  300 feet
   Oregon               no                no                   none
   Rhode Island         yes               no                   50 to 100 feet
   Vermont              yes               yes                  0 to 100 feet

   COUNTY        Buffer Reauirement  Rating System             Buffer Range

   Clark                yes               yes (I-V)            25 to 300 feet
   Island               yes               yes (A-C)            25 to 100 feet
   King                 yes               yes (1-3)            25 to 100 feet
   Pierce               yes               no                   100 feet
   Thurston             yes2              no                   0 to 200 feet

   CITY          Buffer Reauirement  RatinR System         Buffer Range

   Anacortes            yes               no                   25 feet min.
   Bainbridge           yes               yes (I-IV)           25 to 150 feet
   Bellevue             yes               yes (Class A-C)      0 to 50 feet
   Bellingham           yes               yes (1-3)            25 to 100 feet
   Bothell              yes               yes (1-3)            25 to 150 feet
   Bonney Lake          yes               yes (I-IV)           25 to 200 feet
   Burlington           yes               no                   25 feet
   Camas                yes               no                   25 to 100 feet
   Des Moines           yes               yes (Sig & Imp)      35 to 100 feet
   Eatonville           yes               yes (I-IV)           10 to 100 feet



I State information includes proposed as well as adopted standards.

2Applied on a case-by-case basis

                                         43







CITY Cont.   Buffer Reauirement   Rating System                Buffer Range

Enumclaw              yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 100 feet
Everett               yes                yes (1-3)             35 to 100 feet
Federal Way           yes                no                    100 feet
Kirkland              yes                no                    50 feet
Lacey                 yes                yes (I-V)             25 to 300 feet
Lynden                yes                no                    25 to 100 feet
Milton                yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 300 feet
Olympia               yes                yes (I-TV)            25 to 300 feet
Port Angeles          yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 300 feet
Puyallup              yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 150 feet
Redmond               no                 no                    none
Seattle               yes                no                   25 feet
Shelton               yes                yes                   25 to 150 feet
Snoqualmie            yes                yes (1-3)             25 to 100 feet
Tacoma                yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 200
Tukwila               yes                yes (1-3)             25 to 100 feet
Tumwater              yes                yes (I-IV)           25 to 300 feet
Wenatchee             yes                yes (I-IV)            50 to 250 feet






























                                        44







                                   TABLE 2
                     Proposed Wetland Buffer Standards

COUNTY        Buffer Reauirement   Rating System               Buffer Range

Clallam               yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 200 feet
Grant                 yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 150 feet
Jefferson             yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 300 feet
Kitsap                yes                yes (I-V)             25 to 150 feet
San Juan              yes                yes (I-IV)            35 to 200 feet
Thurston              yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 300 feet
Whatcom               yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 200 feet

CITY          Buffer Reauirement   Rating System Buffer Range
Auburn                yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 300 feet
Blaine                yes                yes (1-III)           25 to 100 feet
Bothell               yes                yes (I-III)           50 to 200 feet
Edmonds               yes                yes (I-III)           50 to 150 feet
Everson               yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 100 feet
Ferndale              yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 150 feet
Fife                  yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 150 feet
Fircrest              yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 200 feet
Gig Harbor            yes                yes (I-V)             15 to 150 feet
Hunts Point           yes                no                    25 feet
Issaquah              yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 100 feet
Kent                  yes                 No                   50 to 150 feet
Longview              yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 300 feet
Mill Creek            yes                yes (I-IV)             0 to 150 feet
Mt. Vernon            yes                 no                   25 feet
Nooksack              yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 100 feet
Normandy Park         yes                yes (I-II)            35 to 100 feet
North Bend            yes                yes (I-III)           25 to 100 feet
Port Townsend         yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 300 feet
Poulsbo               yes                yes (I-IV)             10 to 100 feet
Redmond               yes                yes (I-IV)             0 to 150 feet
Renton                yes                yes (I-III)           25 to 300 feet
Sedro-Woolley         yes                yes (I-III)           25 to 50 feet
Steilacoom            yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 150 feet
Sumner                yes                yes (I-IV)            25 to 300 feet










                                        45



                                     I



                                     a
                                     I
                                     I
                                     I
                                     I
                                     I
                                   a
                                     I
                                     I
                                     I
                                     I
                                     I
                                     I



46                         '
                                     I
                                     l

                                     !








                         IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

   Wetland buffers are essential for wetlands protection. No scientific study, no government
    agency, and no recommendations made during any communications with wetlands
    specialists nationwide suggested otherwise.

*   Wetland buffers reduce the adverse imnacts of adiacent land uses to wetlands. Wetland
    buffers also provide important habitat for wildlife which utilize wetlands and buffer areas
    for essential life needs. Buffers reduce wetland impacts by moderating impacts of
    stormwater runoff including stabilizing soil to prevent erosion; filtering suspended solids,
    nutrients, and harmful or toxic substances; and moderating water level fluctuations. They
    reduce the adverse impacts of human disturbance on wetland habitat including blocking
    noise and glare; reducing sedimentation and nutrient input; reducing direct human
    disturbance from dumped debris, cut vegetation, and trampling; and providing visual
     separation. They also provide essential habitat for wetland-associated species for use in
    feeding; roosting; breeding and rearing of young; and cover for safety, mobility and
    thermal protection.

ï¿½    Buffer effectiveness increases with buffer width.  As buffer width increases, the
     effectiveness of removing sediments, nutrients, bacteria, and other pollutants from surface
    water runoff increases. However, for incrementally greater sediment removal efficiency
     (e.g., from 90 to 95%), disproportionately larger buffer width increases are required
     (e.g., from 100 to 200 feet).

     As buffer width increases, direct human impacts, such as dumped debris, cut or burned
     vegetation, fill areas, and trampled vegetation, will decrease.

     As buffer width increases, the numbers and types of wetland-dependent and wetland-
     related wildlife that can depend on the wetland and buffer for essential life needs
     increases.

*    AoDroDriate buffer widths are based on four variables:  (1) existing wetland functions.
     values and sensitivity to disturbance: (2) buffer characteristics: (3) land use imDacts: and
     (4) desired buffer functions.

ï¿½    Wetlands with important functions and values or wetlands which are sensitive to
     disturbance will require greater buffers to reduce the risk of disturbance.  Wetland
     functions, values, and sensitivity are attributes that will influence the necessary level of
     protection for a wetland. Those systems which are extremely sensitive or have important
     functions will require larger buffers to protect them from disturbances, which may be of
     lesser threat to a different site. Where wetland systems are rare or irreplaceable (e.g.,
     high quality estuarine wetlands, mature swamps, and bogs) larger buffer widths will
     ensure a lower risk of disturbance.

*    The uolands immediately adiacent to the wetland varv in their ability to reduce adverse
     effects of development. most imoortantlv in relationship to sloDe and veetative cover.
     Buffers with dense vegetative cover on slopes less than 15 % are most effective for water

                                             47







    quality functions. Dense shrub or forested vegetation with steep slopes provide the
    greatest protection from direct human disturbance. Appropriate vegetation for wildlife
    habitat depends on wildlife species present in the wetland and buffer. Effectiveness is
    also influenced by ownership of the buffer.

*    Land uses associated with significant construction and post-construction impacts need
     greater buffers. Construction impacts include erosion and sedimentation, debris disposal,
     vegetation removal and noise. Post-construction impacts are variable depending on the
     land use, but residential land use, in particular, can have significant impacts. Residential
     land use is associated with yard maintenance debris, domestic animal predation, removal
     of vegetation and trampling. Wetland areas and their buffers should not be included in
     residential lots.

*    AnDropriate buffer widths varv according to the desired buffer function(s). Temperature
     moderation, for example, will require smaller buffer widths than some wildlife habitat or
     water quality functions. Buffer widths for wildlife may be generalized, but specific
     habitat needs of wildlife species depend on individual habitat requirements.

*    Buffers of less than 50 feet in width are zenerallv ineffective in Drotectin, wetlands.
     Buffers larger than 50 feet are necessary to protect wetlands from an influx of sediment
     and nutrients, to protect wetlands from direct human disturbance, to protect sensitive
     wildlife species from adverse impacts, and to protect wetlands from the adverse effects of
     changes in quantity of water entering the wetland.

*    In western Washington. wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 200 to
     300-foot buffers based on land use. In eastern Washinaton. wetlands with important
     wildlife functions should have 100 to 200-foot buffers based on land use. To retain
     wetland-dependent wildlife in important wildlife areas, buffers need to retain plant
     structure for a minimum of 200 to 300 feet beyond the wetland. This is especially the
     case where open water is a component of the wetland or where the wetland has heavy use
     by migratory birds or provides feeding for heron. The size needed would depend upon
     disturbance from adjacent land use and resources involved. Priority species may need
     even larger buffers to prevent their loss due to disturbance or isolation of subpopulations.

* Buffer widths effective in Dreventing significant water oualitv imoacts to wetlands are
     aenerallv 100 feet or greater. Sensitive wetland systems will require greater distances and
     degraded systems with low habitat value will require less.
     The literature indicates effective buffer widths for water quality range from 12 to 860 feet
     depending on the type of disturbance (e.g., feedlot, silviculture) and the measure of
     effectiveness utilized by the author.  For those studies which measured effectiveness
     according to removal efficiency, findings ranged from 50 to 92% removal of specific
     pollutants in ranges of 62 to 288 feet. Studies which measured effectiveness according to
     environmental indicators, such as levels of benthic invertebrates and salmonid egg
     development in the receiving water, generally found that 98-foot buffers adjacent to
     streams were effective. These latter buffer distances may be conservative for wetlands
     where lower water velocities and presence of vegetation result in increased sediment
     deposition and accumulation.

                                             48








Buffers from 50 to 150 feet are necessary to Drotect a wetland from direct human
disturbance in the form of human encroachment (e.a.. tramDlinz. debris). The
appropriate width to prevent direct human disturbance depends on the type of vegetation,
the slope, and the adjacent land use. Some wetlands are more sensitive to direct
disturbance than others.

Some state aaencies and many local governments relv unon wetlands ratins systems to
establish buffer widths. These rating systems are typically based upon perceived wetland
value and upon acceptable levels of risk to the wetland from adjacent land uses. Of 16
states surveyed, ten require wetland buffers and eight incorporate wetlands rating, either
adopted or proposed. Of five Washington counties, with adopted wetlands protection
ordinances, all five require buffers and four utilize wetlands rating systems (the fifth is
currently proposing an amendment which incorporates rating).  Of 28 identified cities
with wetlands protection ordinances (or interim ordinances), 27 contain specific buffer
standards and 20 utilize wetlands rating systems. The city without specific standards has
adopted an interim policy statement.

Sr~ecific buffer reauirements vary widely at the state and local level.  This has resulted in
differing buffer requirements and levels of wetland protection that are not necessarily
effective. For example, the buffer requirements of many agencies are less than those that
are reported in the literature to be effective.

State buffer requirements range from 0 to 300 feet; Washington county buffer
requirements range from 0 to 200 feet; and Washington city buffer requirements range
from 0 to 300 feet.
























                                        49



I


I
I
 i
I
U 
I

I 
I 



I

 I

I







                                      REFERENCES

Scientific Literature Review

Adamus, P. R., and L.T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment, Vol.
       1. Federal Highway Administration Rep. No. FHWA-IP-82-23.

Allen, A.W. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mink. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildlife
       Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.61. 19 pp.

Allen, A.W. and R.D. Hoffman. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Muskrat., U.S. Dept.
       Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.46. 27 pp.

Barton, D.R., W.D. Taylor and R.M. Biette. 1985. Dimensions of Riparian Buffer Strips
       Required to Maintain Trout Habitat in Southern Ontario Streams. North American
       Journal of Fisheries Management 5:364-378.

Bertulli, J.A. 1981. Influence of a Forested Wetland on a Southern Ontario Watershed. pp. 33-
       47. In: A. Champagne, (ed.), Proceedings of the Ontario Wetlands Conference.
       Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Dept. of Applied Geography, Ryerson Polytechnical
       Inst. Toronto, Ontario. 193 pp.

Bingham, S.C., P.W. Westerman, M.R. Overcash. 1980. Effects of Grass Buffer Zone Length
       in Reducing the Pollution from Land Application Areas. Transactions of the American
       Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), 23:330-342.

Brazier, J.R. and G.W. Brown. 1973. Buffer Strips for Stream Temperature Control. Research
       Paper no.15, Forest Research Lab, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 9 pp.

Broderson, J. Morris. 1973. Sizing Buffer Strips to Maintain Water Quality. M.S. Thesis,
       University of Washington, Seattle.

Brown, E.R., (ed.). 1985. Riparian Zones and Freshwater Wetlands. Management of Wildlife
       and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington, Part I - Chapter
       Narratives. pp. 57-80.

Brown, M.T. and J.M. Schaefer. 1987. Buffer Zones for Water, Wetland, and Wildlife. A Final
       Report on the Evaluation of the Applicability of Upland Buffers for the Wetlands of the
       Wekiva Basin. Prepared for the St. Johns River Water Management District by the Center
       for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611. 163 pp.

Clark, J.R. 1977. Coastal Ecosystem Management: A Technical Manual for the Conservation of
       Coastal Zone Resources. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.

Corbett, E.S. and J.A. Lynch. 1985. Management of Streamside Zones on Municipal
       Watersheds. pp. 187-190. In: R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. Patton, P.F. Folliott,
       and R.H. Hamre (eds.), Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling

                                             51







       Conflicting Uses. First North American Riparian Conference, April 16-18, 1985,
       Tucson, Arizona.

Darling, N., L. Stonecipher, D. Couch, and J. Thomas. 1982. Buffer Strip Survival Survey.
       Hoodsport Ranger District, Olympic National Forest.

Darnell, R.M., W.E. Pequehnat, B.M. Jones, F.J. Benson, and R.E. Debenbaugh. 1976.
       Impacts of Construction Activities in Wetlands of the United States. EPA Publ. No.
       600/3-76-045. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. 392 pp.

Doyle, R.C., G.C. Stanton, D. C. Wolf. 1977. Effectiveness of Forest and Grass Buffer Strips
       in Improving the Water Quality of Manure Polluted Runoff. American Society of
       Agricultural Engineers, Paper No. 77-2501.

Dunne, T.L. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Co. 799 pp.

Ehrenfeld, J.G. 1983. The Effects of Changes in Land-use in Swamps of the New Jersey Pine
       Barrens. Biol. Cons. 25:353-357.

Erman, D.C., J.D. Newbold, and K.B. Roby. 1977. Evaluation of Streamrnside Bufferstrips for
       Protecting Aquatic Organisms. Technical Completion Report, Contribution #165.
       California Water Resources Center, Univ. of California, Davis.

Gallagher, J.L. and H.V. Kibbey. 1980. Marsh Plants as Vectors in Trace Metal Transport in
       Oregon Tidal Marshes. AJB 67:1069-1074.

Gilliam, J.W. and R.W. Skaggs. 1988. Natural Buffer Areas and Drainage Control to Remove
       Pollutants from Agricultural Drainage Waters. pp. 145-148. In: J.A. Kusler, M.
       Quarnmen and G. Brooks, eds., ASWM Technical Report 3; Proceedings of the National
       Wetland Symposium: Mitigation of Impacts and Losses, October 8-10, 1986. U.S. Fish
       and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of
       Engineers.

Grismer, M.E. 1981. Evaluating Dairy Waste Management Systems Influence on Fecal Coliform
       Concentration in Runoff. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis.

Harris, R.A. 1985. Vegetative Barriers: An Alternative Highway Noise Abatement Measure.
       Noise Control Engineering Journal 27:4-8.

Harris, S.W. and W.H. Marshall. 1963. Ecology of Water Level Manipulations on a Northern
       Marsh. Ecology 44:331-343.

Heifetz, J., M.L. Murphy, and K.V. Koski. 1986. Effects of Logging on Winter Habitat of
       Juvenile Salmonids in Alaskan Streams. North American J. of Fisheries Management
       6:52-58.



                                              52







Horner, Rich, and Mar. 1982. Guide for Water Quality Impact Assessment of Highway
       Operations and Maintenance. Final Report to Washington Department of Transportation.
       Department of Civil Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle.

Josselyn, M.N., M. Martindale, and J. Duffield. 1989. Public Access and Wetlands: Impacts of
       Recreational Use. California Coastal Conservancy. 56 pp.

Karr, J.R. and J. Schlosser. 1978. Water Resources and the Land-Water Interface.Science, Vol.
       201, no. 4352, pp. 229-234.

Leopold, A. 1933. Game Management. Scribner, New York.

Lowrance, R., R. Todd, J. Fail, Jr., O. Hendrickson, Jr., R. Leonard, and L. Asmussen. 1984.
       Riparian Forests as Nutrient Filters in Agricultural Watersheds. BioScience. 34:374-377.

Lynch, J.A., E.S. Corbett, and K. Mussallem. 1985. Best Management Practices for Controlling
       Non-point-Source Pollution on Forested Watersheds. J. Soil and Water Conservation
       40:164-167.

McMahon, T.E. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Coho Salmon. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish
       Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.49.

Milligan, D.A. 1985. The Ecology of Avian Use of Urban Freshwater Wetlands in King County,
       Washington. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.

Moring, J.R. 1982. Decrease in Stream Gravel Permeability After Clear-cut Logging: An
       Indication of Intragravel Conditions for Developing Salmonid Eggs and Alevins.
       Hydrobiologia 88:295-298.

Mudd, D.R. 1975. Touchet River Wildlife Study. Applied Research Section, Environmental
       Management Division, Washington Game Department. Bulletin No. 4.

Murdock, A., and J.A. Capobianco. 1979. Effluent on a Natural Marsh. Journal of the Water
       Pollution Control Feder. 51:2243-2256.

Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, J. Pastor, and C.A. Johnston. 1988. The Potential Importance of
       Boundaries to Fluvial Ecosystems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society
       7:289-306.

Newbold, J.D., D.C. Erman, K.B. Roby. 1980. Effects of Logging on Macroinvertebrates
       in Streams With and Without Buffer Strips. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 37:1076-1085.

Overcash, M.R., S.C. Bingham, and P.W. Westerman. 1981. Predicting Runoff Pollutant
       Reduction in Buffer Zones Adjacent to Land Treatment Sites. Transactions of the
       American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), pp. 430-435.




                                             53







Phillips, J.D. 1989. Evaluation of North Carolina's Estuarine Shoreline Area of Environmental
       Concern from a Water Quality Perspective. Coastal Management, Vol. 17, pp. 103-117.

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991. Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.

Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Brook Trout. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl.
       Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.24.

Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman, R.C. Solomon, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat Suitability
       Information: Rainbow Trout. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.60.

Ranney, J.W., M.C. Bruner, and J.B. Levenson. 1981. The Importance of Edge in the Structure
       and Dynamics of Forest Islands. pp. 67-95 in R.L. Burgess and D.M. Sharpe (eds.),
       Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes. New York, NY; Springer-
       Verlag.

Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Myers. 1979. Wetland Values
       Concepts and Methods for Wetlands Evaluation. Research Report 79-R1, U.S. Army
       Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA.

Riparian Habitat Technical Committee. W.D.A.F.S. 1982. The Best Management Practices for
       the Management and Protection of Wester Riparian Stream Ecosystems. Wester Div.,
       American Fisheries Society, 574.5263/AMERICA.

Rogers, Golden & Halpern, Inc. 1988. Wetland Buffer Delineation Method. Division of Coastal
       Resources, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, CN 401, Trenton, New
       Jersey 08625. 69 pp.

Roman, C.T. and Good, R.E. 1983. Wetlands of the New Jersey Pinelands: Values, Functions
       and Impacts (Section One). In: Wetlands of the New Jersey Pinelands: Values,
       Functions, Impacts, and a Proposed Buffer Delineation Model. Division of Pinelands
       Research, Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies, Rutgers - the State University,
       New Brunswick, NJ. 123 pp.

Schroeder, R.L. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Black Brant. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish
       Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.63.

Shisler, J.K., R.A. Jordan, and R.N. Wargo. 1987. Coastal Wetland Buffer Delineation. New
       Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, Trenton, New
       Jersey. 102 pp.

Smardon, R.C. 1978. Visual-cultural Values of Wetlands. pp. 535-544 In: Phillip E. Greeson,
       John R. Clark, and Judith E. Clark (eds.), Wetland Functions and Values: The State of
       Our Understanding. American Water Resources Association.

Sousa, P.J., and A.H. Farmer. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Wood Duck. U.S. Dept.
       Int., Fish Wildl. Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.43. 27 pp.

                                             54







Stockdale, E.C. 1991. Freshwater Wetlands, Urban Stormwater, and Non-point Pollution
       Control: A Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography. Second Edition. Washington
       State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Thurow, C., W. Toner, and D. Erley. 1975. Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands: A
       Practical Guide for Local Administrations. Rpt. No. EPA 600/5-75-00. U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Design Manual: Constructed Wetlands and
       Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. Rpt. No. EPA-625/1-88-
       022. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
       Washington, D.C.

Vanderholm, D.H. and E.C. Dickey. 1978. ASAE Paper No. 78-2570. Presented at ASAE 1978
       Winter Meeting, Chicago Ill.

Washington Forest Practices Rules and Regulations. W.S.F.P Board. Nov. 1, 1988.

Williams J.D. and C.K. Dodd, Jr. 1978. Importance of Wetlands to Endangered and Threatened
       Species. pp. 565-575. In: Phillip E. Greeson, John R. Clark, and Judith E. Clark (eds.),
       Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding. American Water
       Resources Association.

Wong, S.L., and R.H. McCuen. 1982. The Design of Vegetative Buffer Strips For Runoff and
       Sediment Control. A Technical Paper Developed as Part of a Study of Stormwater
       Management in Coastal Areas Funded by Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program.
       23 pp.

Young, M.J. 1989. Buffer Delineation Method for Urban Palustrine Wetlands in the Puget Sound
       Region. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.

Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson. 1980. Effectiveness of Vegetated Buffer Strips in
       Controlling Pollution from Feedlot Runoff. J Environ. Qual. 9:483-497.

Zeigler, Bob. 1990. Letter from Bob Zeigler, Washington Department of Wildlife to Sue
       Mauermann.


Aeencv Survev

       STATES

California Coastal Act of 1976.

California Coastal Commission. 1981. "Statewide Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands
       and Other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas." Adopted February 4,
       1981. 27 pp. + Appendices.

                                             55









City of Carlsbad. Agua Hedionda Specific Plan.

City of Santa Barbara. Environmentally Sensitive Draft Report on the Goleta Slough.

Connecticut Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act. 1972.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Model Inland Wetlands and Watercourses
       Regulations. 1989.

Delaware Tidal Wetlands Act. 1973.

Proposed Delaware Freshwater Wetlands Act (Delaware). 1991.

Maine Natural Resources Protection Act. 1988.

Maine Department of Environmental protection. Wetland Protection Rules. 1990.

Maryland Non-tidal Wetland Protection Act. 1989.

Maryland Tidal Wetland Protection Act. 1974.

Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act (Michigan). 1979.

New Hampshire Wetland Act.

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. 1989. New Hampshire Wetlands
       Board Rules.

New Hampshire Fill and Dredge Wetlands Law.

New York Freshwater Wetlands Act. 1975.

Oregon Division of State Lands.

B-Engrossed Senate Bill 3 (Oregon). 1989.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Wetland Rules and Regulations. 1981.

Rhode Island Freshwater Wetlands Act. 1971.

Wetland-Wildlife Evaluation Model (Rhode Island).

Vermont Wetland Resources Board. Vermont Wetland Rules. 1990.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. Federal Manual for Identifying and,
        Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. 1989.

                                             56









"Statewide Interpretive Guideline for Wetlands and Other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
       Areas." (Washington) February 4, 1981.

Chapter 365-190 WAC. "Minimum Guidelines to Classify Agriculture, Forest, Mineral Lands
       and Critical Areas " (Washington).

Department of Ecology (Washington). Model Wetland Protection Ordinance. September 1990.

Element W-4. 1 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan (Washington). 1991.

       COUNTIES

King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance. 1990.

Bainbridge Island Subarea Plan. Policy NS-7. 1989.

Pierce County Grading, Filling and Clearing Ordinance. 1987.

Pierce County Wetland Management Policies. Ordinance No. 88-182 amended Ordinance No. 89-
       162. 1989.

Pierce County. Ordinance No. 91-12853. 1991.

Aquatic Resources Protection Program. (Snohomish) 1990.

Thurston Regional Planning Council Comprehensive Plan. 1988.

       CITIES

City of Anacortes. Non-tidal Wetland Protection, Zoning Ordinance No. 1917.

City of Bellingham. Ordinance No. 10267.

City of Bellevue Comprehensive Plan. 1990.

City of Bellevue Land Use Code. 1990.

City of Bellevue Sensitive Areas Notebook. 1987.

City of Bonney Lake. Ordinance No. 639.

City of Burlington. Ordinance No. 1191.

City of Camas. Ordinance No. 1816.

City of Des Moines. Ordinance No. 853.

                                             57








City of Everett Environmentally Sensitive Areas Policies and Zoning Regulations-Draft.   1991.

Federal Way Zoning Code. Resolution No. 90-18. 1990.

City of Kirkland Zoning Code. Revised 1990.

City of Lacey. Ordinance No. 912.

City of Lynden. Ordinance No. 885.

City of Olympia. Ordinance No. 5004.

City of Port Angeles. Ordinance No. 2655.

City of Puyallup. Ordinance No. (adopted Sept 3, 1991)

City of Redmond. Ordinance No. 1649.

City of Seattle. Ordinance No. 115385.

City of Snoqualmie. Sensitive Areas Ordinance, Ordinance No. 663.

City of Tumwater. Ordinance No. 1278.

City of Tukwila. Ordinance No. 1599.

City of Wenatchee. Ordinance No. 2902.

       OTHER

Brown, Stephen. Preserving Great Lakes Wetlands:  An Action Agenda. The Final Report of the
       Great Lakes Wetlands Policy Forum, (1990).

Metz, E. D. and M. D. DeLapa. 1980. California's Wetland Regulatory Program: Developing
        an Interpretive Guideline for Protecting Significant Natural Resources. pp. 3094-3112. In:
        Coastal Zone '80 Proceedings, American Society of Civil Engineers.

Metz, E.D. and J.B. Zedler, "Using Science in Decision Making: The Chula Vista Bayfront
        Local Coastal Program," Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 5, No. 4:584-
        600.

Onuf, C. P. 1979. "Guidelines for the Protection of the Natural Resources of California's Coastal
        Wetlands," Proceedings of a Workshop on Coastal Wetlands Management Held at
        University of California, Santa Barbara, CA., 24-26 May 1979. Prepared for the
        California Coastal Commission, Headquarters Office, San Francisco, CA. 29 pp. + 2
        Appendices

                                              58








Reilly, W. K. 1991. 'A New Way With Wetlands," Address to the American Farmland Trust, 7
      March 1991, Washington, D.C. 10 pp.

The Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda, The
       Final Report of the National Wetlands Policy Forum. Washington D.C. 69 pp.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1984. "Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation.
      OTA-0-206, March 1984. 208 pp.




















 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~5





I

I
I
I

I
I
i

I
I
I
I
I
I
I


I








                                                       Appendix A







WETLAND BUFFERS - A FIELD EVALUATION OF
  BUFFER EFFECTIVENESS IN PUGET SOUND




                  Prepared for:

         Washington Department of Ecology
  Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program
              Olympia, Washington


                  Prepared by:


               Sarah Spear Cooke
            Pentec Environmental, Inc.
             120 W. Dayton, Suite A7
           Edmonds, Washington 98020






















                       61







                                          Appendix A

                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                           page
I.   INTRODUCTION
       Background......................65
       Purpose .......................65
II.  METHODOLOGY
       Agency Contact and Permit Identification.............66
       Permit File Review and Site Selection..............66
       Field Data Sheet Development ................66
       Field Site Establishment and Assessment .............67I
       Data Analysis .....................67

1II.    RESULTSU
       Site Selection Results...................68
       Field Data Site Summaries .................733

IV.   DISCUSSION
       Buffers, Ecological Requirements and Constraints ..........74
       Buffer Site Functions...................75I
       Components of "Success"..................77

V. CONCLUSIONS.......................85 U

VI. STUDY LIMITATIONS ....................873

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................88

REFERENCES..........................90I

ATTACH4MENTS.........................913















                        62







                                                                                            Appendix A

         'I                                   ~~~~~~~ATTACHMENTS

I        ~~Attachment 1: Sample Buffer Site Field Data Forms
          Attachment 2: Field Form Methodology
          Attachment 3: Species List

          Attachment 4: Buffer Site Completed Field Forms



         *                                     ~~~~~~~~LIST OF TABLES

          Table 1: Buffer Site Locations
          Table 2: Buffer Site Characteristics
          Table 3: Components of Buffer Functioning and Success
          Table 4: The Number of Altered Buffer Sites Versus the Degree of Urbanization/
          Surround ing use
          Table 5: Percentage of Buffer Alterations Over Time



         3                                    ~~~~~~~~LIST OF FIGURES

          Figure 1: Location of Buffer sites in the study area, southern Snohomish
                     and King Counties.






















                                                        63







                                                                                      Appendix A

                                   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                            I

Post-project assessments were carried out on twenty-one sites in King and Snohomish counties to
analyze the effectiveness of required buffer widths and to identify factors which influence
effectiveness.  A protocol was first developed for examining buffer functions and effectivenessU
and selecting the buffer sites to be examined. The status of the buffers were examined in terms
of their ecological functions and effectiveness.

Evaluating the effectiveness of buffers in protecting an adjacent wetland depends on the type of
buffer in place, the type and size of the wetland it is protecting, the type of alteration to the
buffer (type and concentration of disturbance to the surrounding areas), the width of the buffer,I
the time elapsed since the change in land use, and the ownership of the buffer and adjacent
wetland.

Buffers were altered over time; more than 90% of the buffers examined for this study did not
remain in a pristine state after the surrounding land use change was initiated. Of those buffers
altered, 76% were altered in a negative manner.
Buffer functions were found to be most reduced as a result of decreased size of the buffer over
time.  Buffers less than 50 feet in width showed a 95% increase in alteration of the buffer.I
Where the buffer was greater than 50 feet, only 35% showed alteration. Overall, large buffers
reduced the degree of changes to the water quality, the sediment load and the water quantity
entering the adjacent wetland, especially over time.
As a rule, buffers are subjected to a reduction in size over time. Of the 21 sites examined, 18
were shown to have reduced buffer zones between one and eight years later.


















                                                64








                                                                                     Appendix A

                                      I. INTRODUCTION

Background

Wetlands are sensitive to environmental changes that originate outside the wetland boundary.
The degree of wetland sensitivity to these outside influences is dependent on a variety of factors
including the type of wetland being impacted, the type of disturbance influencing the wetland,
and perhaps the most important factor, the amount of non-wet buffered area between the wetland
and the source of the disturbance. This study was requested by the Washington State Department
of Ecology (Ecology) to provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of wetland buffers in reducing
impacts to wetland habitats.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to provide post-project assessments of required wetland buffers.
The assessments provide a means to analyze the effectiveness of required buffer widths and to
identify factors which influence the effectiveness of the buffer in protecting the wetland from
impacts due to human-induced disturbances. Specific objectives of the buffer effectiveness study
*were:

  *    to assess effectiveness of buffers in protecting the integrity of wetlands;
  * to assess the appropriateness of requiring variable buffer widths based on wetland
       vegetation community types and Ecology's four-tier rating system; and
  * to determine qualitatively or quantitatively which ecological characters of the wetland and
       adjacent buffer area appear to significantly affect and/or protect wetland integrity.

To accomplish these objectives the following tasks were completed for each wetland site visited:

  *    a determination of whether the recommended buffer size and type was implemented;
  *    an evaluation of the type and extent of impacts to the buffer over time;
  *    an evaluation of the type and extent of impacts to the wetland over time as they were
       affected by the presence or lack of the buffer;
  *    identification of the important components of buffer functioning;
  *    identification of additional questions to assess effectiveness of buffers; and
  ï¿½    recommendation of priorities to use when designing or maintaining buffer characteristics
       based on interrelationships observed in the field.











                                                65







                                                                                 Appendix A
                                   11.METHODOLOGY

The following methodology was used for data collection and analysis for the buffer study:

AP-encv contact and Permit Identification

Local agency staff were contacted to assist in identification of appropriate sites. Agency staff
provided a list of potential sites identified by permit applications. In addition, a large source of
appropriate buffer sites was obtained from the study assessing the effectiveness of Native GrowthI
Protection Easements performed by King County (Baker and Haemmerly, 1990). Agency and
staff contacts are listed in Attachment 1.

Permit File Review and Site Selection

King County files for short plats, formal subdivisions, commercial permits, and wetlands wereI
reviewed along with the State Environmental Policy Act files from the City of Kirkland and the
404 permit files from the Army Corps of Engineers. Information from Snohomish County files
examined during the course of a previous study was used as well. Over eight years of permit
files were reviewed.

Potential sites were identified based on the following criteria:I

  *   presence of permit requirements for buffers;
  ï¿½ availability and thoroughness of pre-existing site data;U
  *    age of project;
  *    availability of photographic record for the site (optional);
  *    location and accessibility of project; and
   *    agency staff or field personnel knowledge of the site.

Field Data Sheet Develonment 

Data needs for the site specific assessment were identified and individual field data sheets were
developed for buffer sites. These are located in Attachment 2.I

The buffer data sheets were designed to collect consistent information on each site regarding pre-
existing site conditions, permit requirements, design goals and objectives, existing site conditions,I
and qualitative assessments of success and function of the buffer. Data sheets were structured to
collect both permit file and field data in the following general categories of information:

Pre-existina site conditions
Pre-existing conditions present before changes to the buffer area included: plant species
diversity; dominant species; community type; pre-existing wetland type and size; surrounding
land use; and functioning of wetland. Pre-existing conditions information was obtained from
review of the files and/or from personal knowledge of the site by field personnel.


                                             66








                                                                                      Appendix A

Permit reauirements and buffer 2oals
Permit requirements and goals information was obtained from review of files.

Construction/imolementation of oermit reauirements
Details of the surrounding use changes and buffer enhancement details (if required) were obtained
from review of the permit files. Implementation of permit requirements were assessed both from
review of the permit files and from on-site analysis.

Existine buffer and wetland conditions
Site conditions recorded for both the buffer zone and the existing wetlands included: plant
species diversity; dominant species; viability of species; community type; buffer type and size;
wetland type and size; surrounding land use; water quality assessments for sedimentation,
turbidity, and chemical inputs; wildlife presence; and potential wildlife habitat available. This
information was assessed on-site.

Buffer functions
Information gathered regarding functions of the buffer included: achievement of stated goals;
evidence of wildlife use of the area; vigor and/or stability of planted vegetation species; habitat
diversity; and impacts to the pre-existing wetland from various identified sources. This
information was gathered on-site.

Summarv Assessment
The assessment included the identification of probable factors affecting buffer functioning and a
general analysis of the wetland/buffer system.  Summary information was gathered on-site and
was based on site conditions and investigators' knowledge of Pacific Northwest wetlands.

Field Site Establishment and Assessment

Potential sites identified during permit review were field-checked. Actual sites selected for
analysis were a subset of the field-checked sites. Selection of actual sites was based on the
following criteria:

  ï¿½    construction and implementation of the permitted project and buffer requirements;
  I    ability to locate the site;
  *    ability to access the site; and
  ï¿½    availability of pre-existing buffer and wetland conditions information.

Once a site was determined to be appropriate for inclusion in the study, the field assessment was
conducted using the field data forms. Sites were assessed by transversing the area to define and
characterize the buffer, and examine the wetland to determine if there were any impacts to the
wetland as a result of the surrounding land use. A detailed description of the methodology
which explains the basis for the field data form questions is provided in Attachment 3.

Data Analysis

Information collected in the field was reviewed and some simple statistical calculations were
made regarding the different aspects of the data recorded on the forms.


                                                67







                                                                                   Appendix A               I

                                       II!. RESULTS

Site Selection Results

A total of 35 potential buffer sites in King and Snohomish Counties were identified from agency
permit files, Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research sites (Cooke et a].
1989a, 1989b), and from projects identified by agency personnel. Varying amounts of pre-
existing data were available for the sites. Sites were excluded from the analysis for a variety of
reasons. Many sites were excluded because they either could not be located or access was
restricted, or they were implemented within the last year and it was not yet possible to evaluate
the effects of development on the buffer and wetland. A few sites were eliminated because there
was not enough pre-development data available to make a proper assessment of the post-
development effects.

Of the 35 identified potential sites, 21 sites were selected as final data collection sites.I
Approximate locations are shown in Figure I and locations and details of these final sites are
listed in Table 1.

The 21 sites include projects in:

  *    urban areas, commercial or public areas, and rural areas;I
  ï¿½ areas with various degrees of disturbance to the area adjacent to the wetland. A 200-foot
       area adjacent to the wetland was set as the area to be assessed (based on the fact that 200
       feet is the maximum buffer required by any of the implemented projects);
  *    areas with varied types of disturbance to the buffer and wetland including physical
       damage, deposition of garbage, introduction of chemical toxicants, and introduction of
       invasive species; and
   * areas with the size and configuration of the protected wetland varying from less than one
       acre to tens-of-acres.

All 21 sites were located in areas where the degree of surrounding basin development was greater
than 30%. Four sites were located in more rural areas, where the degree of surrounding
development was 50% or less. Nineteen sites were in King County and two sites were in
Snohomish County. Four sites were at least partially adjacent to agricultural lands, while eight
sites had at least 25% second-growth native vegetation.













                                              684



  ~I

                                                                           Appendix A
          FIGURE I Locations of Buffer Sites in King and Snohomish Counties.

I
I
I
I
I
I
10



I
I
I
I
I
I


                                               69
I








                                                                                     Appendix A

TABLE 1. Buffer Study Site Locations.  (Sites are arranged by County from North to
South.)

=  Site # SITE LOCATION              COUNTY   S T R                BASIN              BUFFER
                                                                            IMPLEMENTED

I   4Lh Ave W and 220-224th St SW     Snohomish    /27N/4E         Lake Ballinger       1989-90
2   127 st SW and 155th Ave N         Snohomish    /28/4E          Lake Serene          1987
3   108-112 Ave NE and NE 155-158 St. King          17/26N/5E      Juanita Creek        1989
4   Inglewood Rd and NE 165th St.     King          11/26N/4E      East Lake Wash       1989
5   134-135 Ave NE, and NE 187-190 St King          3/26N/5E       Bear Creek           1986
6   189-196 Ave NE and Snohomish      King          6/26N/6E       Bear Creek           1987
    City line and NE 202 St.
7   NE Novelty Hill Rd and 212 E      King          33/26N/6E      Bear-Evans Creek    1988
    and 220th Ave NE
8   NE 133 and NE 145th and           King          21/26N/6E      Bear Evans           1987
    214-228 Ave NE
9   224 Ave NE and Union Hill Rd      King          9/25N/6E       Evans Creek          1987
10  221st St and 225 Ave NE and       King          28/25N/6E      Evans Creek          1987
     NE 16-20th
11  NE 16 and NE 18th PI, and         King          28/25N/6E      Evans Creek          1987
    225-226 Ave NE
12  E 212 Ave SE and SE 32nd St.      King          9/24N/6E       E.Lk. Sammamish    1983
13  Issaquah Pine Lk Rd.              King          33'22N'6E      E.Lk. Sammamish    1988?
14  E. Lk. Samm. Prkwy SE and SE 40th King          17/24N/6E      E.Lk. Sammamish    1986
     and 204 Ave SE
15  SE Duthie Hill Rd and 260-268 Ave  King         12/24N/6E      Patterson Creek      1985
    SE and SE 32 St.
16  E SR 203 and NE 24-28th St.       King          21/25N/7E      Snoqualmie River    1983
17  Kent Kangley Rd. and Witte Rd.    King          33/22/6        Jenkins Creek        1988
18  SW Auburn Black Diamond Rd        King          13/21N/5E      Soos Creek           1986
    and SE 324 St
19  SE Auburn Black Diamond Rd        King          18/21N/6E      Soos Creek           1987
    and SE 325th PI.
20  124-128 Ave SE and SE 78-89th     King          28,33/24N/5E  May Creek             1987
21  116 Ave SE and SE 76 St.          King          28/24N/5E      May Creek            1987

















                                               70








                                                                                       Appendix A

Buffers were, without exception, heterogeneous in nature, consisting of a mosaic of different
types: paved surfaces; native forest and shrubs; invasive shrubs; mowed lawns; and fences.
Buffer widths varied from 0 to greater than 200 feet. All but one of the buffer zones were not
uniform in width. Of the 21 sites, four had buffers that were at least partially enhanced.
Enhancement consisted of planting other species to increase the density of the existing vegetation,
replacement of the pre-existing community, or widening the pre-existing buffer width. The ages
of the post-development buffers ranged from two to eight years (1983 to 1989).

The types of disturbances affecting the buffers and adjacent wetlands included grading; filling;
removal of vegetation; dumping of yard waste and garbage; inputs of fertilizer, sediment, and
toxic substances; and noise pollution from adjacent roads and houses.

Buffer site characteristics are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2. Buffer Site Characteristics.



Site #    Buffer width   Wetland   Buffer   Age of    Surrounding             Disturbance
  (feet)          Type*1    Type*2   Buffer               Use             Type*3

1    variable   0-200+         1        pv,shi,shn     1   residential, native veg       p,ct,cf,s
                                        fn, f
2    variable    0-20          2        f,gr,fn,shn    2-4 residential,native veg        ct,cn,p,s

3    variable    10-100        3        pv,shi         3   residential,native veg         p,ct,s

4    variable    0-10          2        pv,f,shi       4   agric, native veg,            p,ct,cf,s,
                                                           residential
5    variable    0-50          2        pv,shi,fn       8   native veg,residential       p,ct,cf,s

6    variable    15-50+        3        f,pv,shn       4   residential, native veg       ct,p

7    variable    15-100+       2        gr,f,fn,pv     3   residential                   p,ct,cf,s

8    variable    50-200        2        f,shi,shn,gr   4   residential, native veg       ct,p,cf,s

9    variable    0-100         2        gr,f,shi,fn    4   residential, native veg       ct,cf,p,s









                                                71








                                                                                       Appendix A


TABLE 2. Buffer Site Characteristics. (cont .......)


Site #    Buffer width   Wetland   Buffer   Age of    Surrounding             Disturbance
  (feet)          Type*1    Type*2   Buffer               Use             Type*3


10   variable    0-50          2        f,gr,fn        4     residential                 ct,p,s

11   variable    15-50         2        shn,shi,pv    4      residential, native veg    ct,p,cf,s

12   variable    0-50          1        gr,f,pv,shn    8     residential, native veg    p,cf,s

13   variable    0-35          2        pv,gr, shi     5     residential, native veg    p,cf,ct

14   variable    0-25          2        gr,shi,pv      5     residential, agric          p,ct,cf,s,n

15   variable    0-50          2        pv,f,gr,shn    6     residential, native veg    ct,cf,p,

16   variable    0-130         2        f,shn,gr       8     residential, native veg    cf,p,s,n,

17   variable    0-150         2        f,shi,shn,gr   3     residential,agric,          p,ct,cf,s,

18   variable    0-35          2-3      fn,shi,gr,pv   4     residential, native veg    p,ct,cf

19   variable    25-200        2        f,shn,pv       4     residential,road,creek     p, cf,n,
                                                             native veg
20   variable    0-25          3        pv,fn,gr       3     residential, native veg    p,ct,cf,s

21   variable    0-150         2        shn,gr         4     residential,native veg      p,cf,s
                                                              pasture

* 1 WDOE wetland category            *2 Buffer type               *3 Disturbance type
Category 1                           pv =pavement                 p= physical disturbance
Category 2                           gr=grass,maintained          cf= chemical input fertilizer
Category 3                           shi =shrubs,invasive         ct= chemical input toxics
Category 4                           shn= shrubs natural          s = sediments
                                                                  f= forest,native
                                                                  fn=fence







                                                 72






                                                                                               Appendix A
U'        ~Field Data Site Summaries
         Site information recorded on the field data forms is summarized in Attachment 5. Summaries
         include the following baseline information: pre-existing conditions for both the buffer and
         wetland, permit plan requirements and existing buffer and wetland conditions and approximate
         acreage if available. In addition, each site summary addresses if the wetland buffer width and
         type implemented as required from the easement and general provisions; what the current
         condition of the buffer and adjacent wetland are, and if the buffer appears to be functioning; what
         the critical components affecting functioning of the buffer appear to be; if the buffer goals
         established by the permit were met, and if they were realistic in terms of providing for all the
         potential disturbances that could affect the wetland.















           I~~~~~~~~~~~~~7








                                                                                       Appendix A

                                        IV. DISCUSSION

The primary objective of the field component was to assess the effectiveness of currently existing
buffer zones around wetlands in protecting the wetland from disturbance (of any kind). The
investigation was further expanded to include an assessment of the important factors contributing
to the success of the buffer zones; identification of the sources of disturbance to wetlands; and an
analysis of the apparent response of different categories of wetlands to the disturbances and the
efficiency of different buffer types in protecting the different types of wetlands.

It was necessary to define, or at least list criteria of "effectiveness." Ecological function can
occur on many different levels, and perception of effectiveness may vary considerably from one
scale to another. For example, one function of a buffer may be prevention of human physical
intrusion into a site. A fence may be unattractive, and may allow stormwater drainage to pass
through, but if it is functioning as a physical barrier, it is at least effective on that level.

The data collected was analyzed mostly in a qualitative manner. A series of questions were
developed to determine pre-existing conditions (buffer and wetland), buffer goals, current
conditions (buffer and wetland), and whether the goals were achieved.

A result of this analysis was identification of factors affecting the function of buffers and a
qualitative hierarchial ranking of the factors affecting buffer function and their importance in
terms of wetland protection.

The following section also discusses the appropriateness of existing buffer requirements in terms
of different perspectives of value ( e.g., wildlife habitat, aesthetics, ecological functioning etc),
based on the results of this study.

Buffers. Ecological Reauirements and Constraints

Wetland buffers are physical barriers between a wetland and an external source of disturbance
that act to screen the wetland from that disturbance. "Disturbances" can take the form of
physical disruption (e.g., mowing, digging), chemical disruption (e.g., inputs of toxicants,
fertilizers), competitive disruption (e.g., introduction of invasive species), noise disruption (e.g.,
road noise), and visible disruption (e.g., removing the tree and shrub canopy that provides
screening).

An assessment of potential functions and values of buffers is similar to a list of habitat functions
in general. They include but are not restricted to wildlife habitat, water quality enhancement
through stormwater filtering, flood storage, groundwater recharge and discharge, seed banking,
and aesthetics.

Establishing ecological goals for wetland buffers should include an assessment of the historic,
current, and future disturbances to the wetland, and an evaluation of necessary buffer
requirements to prevent these disturbances from impacting the wetland. As with any natural
system, it is impossible to identify all the ecological factors that could be effected. At the very


                                                 74







                                                                                                 Appendix A
I,        ~~least, the major factors should be considered, and goals for desired wetland functions and buffer
          requirements to maintain these functions should be established.
          Establishing buffer widths may be done as a risk assessment procedure. The more sensitive the
3        ~~~wetland, the greater the risk that the system will be affected by a given disturbance.  If the
          wetland if of little value (usually based on biological functions, but not restricted to that), and the
          land is valuable, than it may be worth the risk to allow a narrow buffer, because there is not so
          much to lose if the buffer doesn't function to stop the disturbance to the wetland. On the other
          hand, if the wetland is a rare system such as bog, or a mature forested wetland, it may not be
          worth the risk that a narrow buffer will not serve its functions, because the wetland is
          irreplaceable.

          Another important consideration is the concept of "buffer averaging". Buffers are very seldom
          of uniform consistency or width. A common upland/transition zone of a natural systems may be
          a combination of pasture on one edge, forest on another, and shrub on the remaining edge. Each
          of these areas functions on its own as well as in conjunction with the other areas. Buffer
          averaging allows variable buffer widths around wetlands. Often, little consideration is given to
          the different character of the vegetation communities in the buffer. A grass lawn or a cement
          parking lot do not offer the same functions or values to buffering the wetland as a forested patch.
          A single entrance point is all it takes for physical disturbance or stormwater inputs to effect the
          entire wetland. It is, therefore, important to consider the 'weakest link' in buffer averaging.
          The smallest buffer, or the buffer which affords the least protection, should still be capable of
          maintaining the integrity of the buffer to prevent disturbance to the wetland. Because buffers are
          often constrained by the physical lay of the land, buffer averaging may be reasonable in some
              toeofa vrysteep slope.  There may only be a few feet available for a buffer.

          Wetlands and their surrounding buffers function together; the processes occurring within them are
I       ~ ~~interrelated, and disturbance to any one component of the ecosystem by necessity will effect the
          rest. Removal or change to the vegetation community in a portion of the buffer may have no
          effect to the wetland, but it may also show a compounded affect; a small disturbance may be
I       ~ ~~magnified by the next interaction with the different buffer types and eventually be a large effect
          on the wetland itself. For example, if a small portion of the upland forest is removed, this may
          afford physical access by humans and domesticated pets to the buffer that remains, and
I       ~ ~~subsequently, to the wetland edge itself.
U         ~~Buffer Site Functions

          Some functions and values associated with buffer zones and identified for the purposes of this
           study include stormwater attenuation, water quality improvement, groundwater recharge,
I       ~ ~~discharge, barriers to physical disturbance, and barriers to noise disturbance.  Each of these
           fuinctions is discussed with respect to findings in the 21 study sites.




                                                           75







                                                                                     Appendix A

Stormwater attenuation
Buffer sites that are adjacent to developments are intended to prevent or reduce stormwater
entrance into the adjacent wetland.  The degree to which the buffer succeeds in this function is
related to the topography of the site, to the vegetation in the buffer, and to the effectiveness of
modifications made to the buffer in order to enhance this function.

Buffers can act as enhanced catchments (i.e., retention/detention facilities [R/D]), and/or provide
biofiltration for stormwater, and provide storage of stormwater. The use of the buffer areas for
R/D has variable impacts on both the functions of the buffer, and on the adjacent wetland
systems. Use of the buffer for a stormwater function such as R/D defeats the buffer purpose,
because the area is no longer a barrier system, but is a holding system. Overflows from the R/D
are closer to the wetland and have more of a chance of entering the wetland. One study site
included a sphagnum bog. Here, the change in nutrient balance from incoming stormwater was
adversely impacting the vegetation community within the bog because the water from the buffered
area is directly entering directly the wetland. In contrast, a second site provided for R/D within
a dredged pond, down slope from the mature forested system within the pre-existing wetland.
The flood storage is designed to occur primarily within the pond in the buffer, and no direct
adverse impacts were readily visible within the forested community. No attempt was made to
assess pre-development and post-development conditions within this forested community to
determine species or community impacts.

Water aualitv improvement
Water quality functions of the buffer can be provided by biofiltration of sediments within a
vegetated system, by nutrient uptake within the vegetated system, and by providing a settling
basin for the deposition of suspended solids. Most of the sites contained areas in their buffers
that could perform at least a small part of this function. Inputs of stormwater do not always flow
into areas where the vegetation and buffer width are sufficient to function as removal areas.
Stormwater and surface water was observed to flow through buffer zones and into wetlands in six
of the 21 (28%) sites. These sites demonstrated the greatest observable changes in the wetland
edge vegetation.

Barrier to Dhvsical disturbance
Buffers can provide a barrier against physical disturbance of the wetland.  Some buffers are more
successful at this than others. For example, a 200-foot forested buffer is more effective than a
25-foot paved sidewalk. Fencing is perhaps the optimum physical barrier if the fence does not
have a gate. Fences can also act as visual screens which may afford better protection for wildlife
than shrubs or a lawn. Twelve of the 21 sites had fencing along the edge of the adjacent
property, although most had gates which allowed entrance to the buffer and subsequently to the
wetland. Sixteen of these sites showed evidence of disturbance in the form of disposal of yard
waste, and physical deterioration of the vegetation due to trampling from the gate access point.

Barrier to noise disturbance
This function is especially important when the wetland is essential nesting or breeding habitat.
This function was not a listed as a permit goal for any of the 21 sites examined, but it was a



                                                76







                                                                                                Appendix A
          function that was important for at least two of the sites that were adjacent to busy roads. A
          shrub barrier or forested zone would be more effective as a sound barrier than a grassy lawn.

          Wildlife Habitat
3        ~~Although assessment of wildlife use and habitat availability was limited to one observation from
          each site, a preliminary assessment could be made for these components of wetlands functions.
          Seventeen of the 21 sites listed enhancement of the buffer for wildlife habitat as a goal in the
I      ~ ~permit.  Habitat components that can be provided by the buffer include vegetation species
          diversity, structural complexity, community complexity, and shelter. An important use of the
          buffer for wildlife habitat is to provide shelter and above-ground nesting sites for species that
          utilize both the wetland (often for feeding) and the upland areas. Buffers with low diversity
          benefitted greatly from diverse adjacent wetland habitats. Sixteen of the 21 sites contained
               sufcetspecies and/or community diversity to act as wildlife habitat.  This includes buffers
          with forested and native upland scrub-shrub zones, as well as native or undisturbed grassy areas.
          Sites which were either paved or mown grass offered little habitat for either food or shelter.
I      ~ ~Areas in buffer zones dominated by reed canary grass provide very little species diversity or
          habitat complexity. None of the buffers examined were of uniform type along the wetland
          boundary. This heterogeneous nature enhanced the species diversity component, especially where
          the buffers tended to be paved, or mown grass.
rn       ~~Although it was not always possible to determine, it appeared that many sites were enhanced by
          planting species in the buffer. This added structural diversity to the buffer community that was
          not present previous to the implementation of the change in the surrounding land use.

U        ~~Aesthetics
          A buffer function that is uniquely important to humans is the aesthetic quality of the buffer. This
          function includes values associated with open space and views, opportunities for passive
I      ~ ~recreation (e.g., bird watching, walking on paths), and opportunities for education.  Human
          activities within buffers may include placement of interpretive walks, decks or other structures
          within the buffer, or wetland edge itself, and/or planting non-native ornamental species in the
          buffer rather than native species.
          Only two sites out of the 21 (9%) included buffer enhancement for aesthetic purposes. These
I       ~ ~included planting of ornamental species for color, and attractive blooms, and development of
          interpretive walks, and trails and signs. Although incorporation of trails within buffers and
          wetlands provides the opportunity for human education and recreation, it also encourages
I       ~ ~intrusion into the wetland by humans and domesticated animals.  Trails were found in the buffer
          zones of six of the 21 sites. Without exception, the trails disturbed the buffer vegetation and
3        ~~~gave access to the wetland that resulted in visible deterioration of the wetland edge.

          Comooneuts of "Success"

          A series of questions were asked about the buffers at each site in order to determine if they were
          effective in protecting the adjacent wetland. The intention of this method of assessment was to

           1'                                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~77






                                                                                Appendix A
establish baseline conditions; to determine if the buffer was established as it was required or
designed; and to determine the condition of the buffer over time.  Many of the sites wereI
previously assessed in 1988 as a part of a buffer survival and effectiveness study performed by
King County Building and Land Development (Baker and Haemmerly, 1990).
Where the information was available, pre-existing conditions were evaluated for all sites. The 
same detail of information was not available for all the sites.

Of the 21 sites assessed, 20 were implemented as outlined in the easement conditions, however, 
this was a very subjective assessment due to the lack of detailed description of buffer provisions.

Difficulty in assessing buffer functions made it difficult to respond to the question of whether the 
buffer was functioning. It was first necessary to assess whether the buffer was functioning as
outlined in the bufferleasement requirements, and then to next assess what further functions were
being performed by the buffer, and what other functions should be present in the buffer zone inI
order to protect the wetland from disturbance. Given the general and sometimes vague
description of the easement goals, results of this study were often difficult to determine. This
was compounded by the fact that most of the buffer zones were not "created," but remained fromI
the pre-existing buffer.

All but one of the buffers examined (95%) showed some signs of alteration over time. ThisI
surprisingly high number indicates the need for including easement requirements which reflect
not only current disturbances, but post-development disturbances as well. This level of impact
also suggests a need for monitoring buffers and wetlands after development has occurred in orderU
to identify disturbances before they have adverse impacts on wetlands. This exceeds the 68%
alteration found in the BALD 1988 study.3

Table 3 lists important components of buffer success that were studied for each site and explained
in the following discussion.3

Dep~ree of urbanization
The degree of urbanization surrounding a wetland can have a direct correlation with
the amounts and kinds of disturbances affecting the wetland.  The more developed a basinI
associated with a wetland, the more potential deleterious inputs there are to the wetland. The
Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater research Program is examining this trend in the wetlands
around King and Snohomish Counties, and will have the results of the study ready in 1992.
Table 4 reviews the degree of adjacent urbanization as it compares to the amount of alteration has
occurred in the wetland.  Sites rated as 'highly altered" display characteristics of the water,I
vegetation, wildlife and/or soils have visibly changed and deteriorated in the recent past. Sites
rated as 'moderately altered" show few degradations to the wetland/buffer, although they do not
threaten the wetland. "Low alteration" indicates the buffer has been barely modified.



                                             784







                                                                                                  Appendix A
         TABLE 3: Components of Buffer Success


                  ==                      ~~~~~~Components of Buffer Success

         a.       Degree of urbanization                   Low <  15% adjacent developed
                                                            medium 15 to 45% adjacent developed
                                                            high >45% adjacent developed


*       ~~b.       Surrounding land use                    Urban
                                                                residential
                                                                commercial
             I                                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~public
                                                            Rural
                                                                agricultural
                                                                forested, native growth
         C.       Buffer Size and Characteristics          0-200+ feet of buffer width
                                                            Variable widths for the total length
                                                            Characteristics
                                                                paved surface
             S                                               ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~grass maintained lawn
                                                                shrubs, invasive (blackberry)
                                                                shrubs, native
                                                                forested
          d.       Time                                     elapsed since project implemented


          e.       Implementation components                Buffer left in-tact
            I                                            ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Buffer planted, and/or enhanced

I        ~~f.      Buffer Maintenance                       Prevention of encroachment
                                                            Education of nearby residents










                                                           79







                                                                                      Appendix A

TABLE 4  The Number of Altered Buffer Sites Versus the Degree of Adjacent
Urbanization/Surrounding use



site       level of urbanization %                 surrounding use             altered?
#                                         R S   RM    NV    S

1                    75                   X                   X                  highly
2                    90                   X                   X                  highly
3                    60                   X         X         X                  moderate
4                    50                   X         X                  X         highly
5                    40                             X         X                  moderate
6                    85                   X                                      no
7                    100                  X                                      moderate
8                    95                   X                   X                  low
9                    70                   X                   X                  moderate
10                   100                  X                            X         moderate
11                   70                   X                   X                  low
12                   70                   X                   X                  moderate
13                   85                   X                   X                  highly
14                   100                  X                                      highly
15                   85                   X                   X                  highly
16                   65                   X                   X        X         highly
17                   60                   X         X                            moderate
18                   85                   X                   X                  moderate
19                   50                   X                   X        X         low
20                   85                   X                   X                  highly
21                   35                   X                   X                  highly


RS= residential single family
RM= residential multifamily
NV= native vegetation, usually forested or shrub growth
S= stream







                                                                                 Appendix A

Surroundin2 Use
Human use of the areas surrounding a wetland results in direct impact on the wetland from
associated activities. Logging, and clearing of vegetation up-slope from a wetland can result in
acidification of the surface waters, and release of copper, nutrients, and sediments into the
overland flow.  This type of adjacent activity was observed in ten of the sites studied.  In five
cases, the deposited sediment load was still present in low-lying depressions or in the meander
channels of rivers and streams. Six of 11 sites (55 %) adjacent to developments which use lawn
maintenance systems showed apparent effects of the input of fertilizers on the wetland vegetation.
This was observed as luxuriant growth near the inlet areas, invasion of the wetland edge by
invasive species, and in one case, toxicity symptoms from over-fertilization by nitrogen.

Sites with greater than 60% surrounding area as residential showed varying degrees of
disturbance to the buffers and/or wetland. There were 16 sites that showed the adjacent use to be
50% or greater development as single and multiple family residential.  Figure 2 shows the
breakdown of adjacent use by wetland.


FIGURE 2 Surrounding Land Use for Each Wetland/Buffer Site


                                   ~~
            -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ at
                                -   --                               _g _.


       Ii.jj.Ij 111: 1:: j :=: 


            1  2  3 4  5  6 7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
                      Buffer Site Identification #
          res= residential    nat= native vegetation   agr=agricultural

Buffer size and characteristics
Lack of appropriate vegetation densities and/or species diversity contributed to lower function as
a community in 15 of the 21 sites. The density question is one not often addressed in vegetation
community analysis, but it is important because insufficient densities result in "filling in" with
weedy species such as red alder, black alder, black cottonwood, and Himalayan blackberry.
Species diversity was lacking in 14 of the 21 (67%), buffer areas which were in-tact. The buffer
consisted predominantly as a monoculture, usually Himalayan blackberry, or lawn grass. These
communities offer very little wildlife habitat.

More diverse communities and higher densities of this diverse vegetation is the reason for the
success of the buffer in the remaining six sites. The density component is especially important







                                                                                   Appendix A

when the buffer width is small (less than 50 feet). A buffer of 25 feet worked in only one out of
25 (5 %), where the vegetation was so dense the buffer formed a completely impenetrable barrier.
None of the wetlands had a buffer that was uniform in width. The buffer widths ranged from 0
to greater than 200 feet across the length of a wetland edge. Qualitative observations were made
in the field which indicated that the buffer areas that were 50 feet or greater showed less impacts
to the wetland areas directly adjacent than those areas that were less than 50 feet in width.
Nineteen wetlands (90%) had areas where the buffer was less than 25 feet and disturbance to the
wetland edge would occur at that point.



Figure 3 Buffer Types Surrounding Each Wetland



      ' -ra I~k~ -                                1 i -                         *Il
                   oB-, ~ 11 } ,l || *PV




                    .b ............ ......... ï¿½                            SHN


                                  .... ~j~ ~FN


         1 2 3 14 5' 6' 7 8 9110 111213 141516 1718 19 2021

                   Buffer Site Identification #
 PV=pavement         GR = grass,maintained          SHI =shrubs,invasive
SHN = shrubs natural           F = forest,native              FN = fence


Time
One of the criteria for site selection was sites that had been implemented for more than one year.
The projects at the study sites ranged in age from two to eight years old.

Two components of age are important in the analysis of the buffer efficiency. The first is the age
as it reflects the regulations that were in place at the time of implementation of the project.
Projects dating after 1987 required that the buffers be placed outside of the lots. This
requirement had one of the highest impacts to preservation of the buffers in an unaltered state.
Projects that incorporated the buffer in the lots always resulted in the loss of the natural
vegetation community to lawn over time (i.e., 17 out of 17 eligible sites). Ownership of the


                                               82







                                                                                      Appendix A
       buffer appears to mean to the homeowner that it is acceptable to remove the natural vegetation
       and replace the buffer with a less valuable, mown-lawn  type of buffer.
       The second component of age is the time elapsed since implementation of the buffer. The
       number of alterations to the buffer increase with the time passed since the buffer was established.
       Figure 4 illustrates buffer age compared to the degree of alteration of the buffer. Table 5 lists
       the percentage of buffer alterations over time as indicated by both the 1988 (Baker and
       Haemmerly, 1990) and this study.


       FIGURE 4 Buffer Age Compared to the Degree of Alteration of the Buffer

               7
                  7':        IhI                 A          A

                5:                                1.
           C 6               VI                         I, /!.


3~                 : J    \                      I
                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~or
                                                 . ... ....' ....   hihl
                                                     ....."Xu moderate

                   1  2  3 4 5 6  7  8 910 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
                            Buffer Site Identification #-4-  wet age
                                                                            -!-.- altered













                                                   83






                                                                                     Appendix A

TABLE 5 Percentage of Buffer Alterations Over Time


    year                       % buffers altered             % buffers altered
                              1991 study                    1988 study

    1983-84                   (2/2)  100%                   2/2)   100%

    1985-86                   (4/4)  100%                   (4/7)   57%

    1987-88                   (11/12) 92%                   (7/10)  70%

    1989-90                   (3/3)  100%                       --

    average                    (20/21  95%                   (13/19) 68%





Implementation Comoonents
In general, most of the buffers were, at least initially, implemented as required by the easement
provisions. Unfortunately, buffers seldom require monitoring and buffer zones were altered with
time in over three-quarters of the study sites. Important components of implementation include:
whether the buffer was planted, or existed previous to the development or disturbance; if the
buffer was enhanced or expanded; and the value of certain species or community types found in
the buffer in terms of providing the habitat and functions needed for the buffer.

The higher the density of plants in the buffer the better the protection and the greater the
functions. Densities were described as low (e.g., mown lawns, pavement), medium (e.g., open
thinned forest with no undergrowth, planted shrub in low densities), and high (e.g., fallow native
grasslands [unmown], dense forests with undergrowth, solid shrub layer, either invasive species
 [blackberry species] or native species [Snowberry, salmonberry, or vine maple]). Lack of
 appropriate vegetation densities contributed to lower potential for buffering of the buffer zone.
 Although the determination is subjective, densities as a whole were too low in all the study sites.
 Buffers appeared to decrease in density over time (where it was possible to determine).

 Maintenance Comoonents
 There was no instance of a monitoring requirement for the buffers of the 21 sites examined.
 This lack of maintenance following the implementation (be it leaving the existing community
 alone, or enhancement of the buffer) is associated with alterations to the buffer over time in 20
 out of 21 sites.






                                                84







                                                                                                 Appendix A

                                        V. FIELD STUDY CONCLUSIONS

                wetland   I n    aditioi a necessary to determine what types of functions buffers offer, and to
~~~dtrinw hte these were being met at the study sites.
               Durig te curs ofthe study, it became clear that the goal statements and easement provisions
I     ~      ~were so general and unspecific that only outright removal of the buffer and severe disturbance to
          the adjacent wetland could be interpreted as a failure of the buffer to meet the goals. Goal
          statements, when they existed, were generally written to address a single function of the wetland
          to the exclusion of all the other important functions that occur. Incomplete understanding of the
          types of disturbance that may occur to the wetland and buffer as a result of the implementation of
          a land-use change in the surrounding area is a large factor in the failure of buffer requirements to
I      ~ ~sufficiently protect the wetland.   In addition, none of the easement provisions required
          monitoring, or provided for post-development analysis of success of the buffer to function fully.
          By not addressing components of the wetland that can be measured, (vegetation species numbers,
I      ~ ~densities, and diversity), there is no method of determining if the goals or provisions have been
          met. As a rule, buffers were most affected by a reduction in size over time. Buffers are being
          altered, both in the short term, and definitely in the long term. In no sites with 25-foot buffers
I       ~ ~were the buffers functioning to reduce disturbance to the adjacent wetland, either in the short
          term or long term. In addition, buffers, regardless of size, appear to be continuously reduced
          over time. There is argument therefore to provide for the largest buffer possible so that when
          some of the buffer is lost over time, there is still sufficient buffer to protect the wetland.

          The critical components of successful buffer function depend on the type of buffer in place, the
          type of alteration to the buffer ( and type of disturbance to the surrounding areas), the width of
          the buffer, the surrounding land use, the time elapsed since the change in land use, and the
          ownership of the buffer and adjacent wetland. Buffer efficiency at protecting the adjacent
          wetlands is dependent on the following components:
             *        the number of lots adj-acent to the buffer - the fewer the lots the less the impacts;
I           * ~~~ the size of the buffer - the larger the buffer the more protected the wetland;
             0        the tvne of buffer in olace - vegetation communities which act as; visual screens,
                      physical barriers, sediment filters and chemical filters efficient buffers; and
I           * ~~~ ownershin of the buffer - buffers owned by landowners that understand the purpose of
                      the buffer are less impacted.

I         ~~~Buffer functions were found to be most reduced as a result of decreased size of the buffer.
          Buffers less than 50 feet wide showed a 90% increase in alteration of the buffer (19 out of 21),
          while only 43% (3 out of 7) showed alteration in those buffers where the buffer was greater than
          50 feet. Overall, larger buffers reduced the degree of changes to the water quality, the sediment
          load and the water quantity entering the adjacent wetland.



            *                                              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~85





                                                                                    Appendix A
The findings of this study of a small subset of sites within the central Puget Sound region
suggests that on the whole, buffers are not being regulated or enforced in a way that provides for0
their maximum ability to fuinction. Goals established in easement provisions are inadequate to
prevent the alteration of buffers over time, and consequently, are also inadequate to prevent
alteration to the adjacent wetland. The study illustrates the shortcomings of the regulatory aspect
of wetlands protection from both a biological and a best management policies perspective.
However, an increased understanding of the ecology of wetlands and buffers, the incorporation of
as many site variables as possible, and the mandatory monitoring of characteristics that canI
indicate quantitative changes will result in an increased likelihood of the success of buffer zones
to protect adjacent wetlands from disturbance.














                                                               86~~~~~~~







                                                                                                   Appendix A
                                              V[I. STUDY LIMITATIONS

           This study has provided us with some valuable insights into the functions of buffers and their
           ability to protect wetland. However, inherent in this study and its results are several limitations.

           No attempt was made during this field study to review all available files or to identify all possible
           sites; a small number of sites within a limited field radius was chosen for analysis. As a result,
I        ~    ~~the conclusions which can be drawn from this study are limited. Sizes, types and conditions of
           the sites assessed in this study are a small sub-set of available within the Puget Sound Basin. It
           is the opinion of the field investigators that the sites visited may actually represent a relatively
I        ~    ~~realistic sample of "typical"  sites within this region.  It was outside the scope of this study to
           field check sites located in the major portion of the state of Washington.

I         ~~~Further, sites were visited only once during this study; evaluations of site functions over time are
           speculative, and are based on site conditions during the visit and investigator expertise. Sites
           were assessed during March, when many plant species are still dormant or just beginning to
I        ~    ~~break dormancy.  As a result, ability to assess health of the system, as well as viability and
           robustness of some species was limited. Assessment of the functions of various plant groups
           within the entire wetland was limited and may have been different if the site were visited later in
           the year. For example, shrub functioning may have been underestimated in some wetlands
           because the shrubs were not leafed out. Similarly, the ability to assess the effectiveness or
*          ~~~appropriateness of planting densities may also have been limited by the time of year.
           Finally, most study sites consisted for the most part of younger sites (not greater than 8 years of
           age). This limited the ability to look at site development and functions over time. This age
U        ~    ~~limitation is a reflection of the relative young "science" presented as wetland ecology.  It is the
           opinion of the investigators that many of the sites observed and assessed will be providing more
           complex functional value over time.















            1'                                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~87







                                                                                     Appendix A

                                 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are based on the findings and results of this field study and on
the professional experience of the authors. Although this component was limited to a field
assessment and not a literature search and analysis of the state of buffers, the authors are aware
of other field studies which corroborate the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this
study. Citations of those studies are included within the references for this report.

These recommendations are formulated based on several consistent findings: first, that a pre-
existing conditions assessment is rarely conducted, and, if conducted, is incomplete; and second,
that buffer goals/easement provisions must be based on quantifiable characteristics that allow for
an accurate determination of subsequent alterations to the functions of both the buffer and the
wetland.

Pre-existing Conditions Assessment

This assessment must be conducted for the wetland communities present before the surrounding
land use change comes into affect. A through analysis of the vegetation (at the very least),
functions of the existing wetland and buffer, and wildlife (if time and budgets are available)
should be accomplished.  This provides a reference for future monitoring comparisons.

The assessment must be conducted in a manner that collects quantifiable data on existing wetland
characteristics. Protocols for similar monitoring of water quality and quantity, vegetation, soils,
and wildlife can be found in Horner (1989, 1990), Cooke et al. (1989a, 1989b), and King County
(1988). Monitoring protocols are currently being developed by the Puget Sound Wetlands and
Stormwater Management Research Program and should be available in a draft form in 1992.

Establishing Buffer Goals and Obiectives

The goals and objectives of the buffer must be established in such a manner that success or
failure of the buffer to protect the wetland can be determined. Future disturbances to the wetland
and buffer must be defined in order to incorporate all the functions that the buffer will be
required to perform to prevent impacts to the buffer or wetland.  These goals must be defined in
detail, taking both ecological and aesthetic functions in consideration, and the assessment protocol
must be established before the project is implemented.  Buffer requirements must be established
so that any required enhancements are written into the easement provisions.

Implementation

A wetlands ecologist should be involved in the design and implementation of the project in order
to ensure the required provisions are implemented. Existing functional natural communities
should be used as a model for the buffer if it is determined that the existing buffer will not be
able to function sufficiently to protect the adjacent wetland from the projected disturbances.


                                                88







                                                                                                 Appendix A
          Monitoring/Enforcemnent

          Monitoring of buffers and adjacent wetlands over time is necessary to ensure maintenance of their
           characters and functions. A monitoring program should be established for the buffer and wetland
U       ~ ~which incorporates the quantifiable components of the baseline/pre-existing conditions.  Changes
           in the characteristics, especially vegetation community (e.g., species composition, percent cover,
           species density) can be discovered before the alterations become so great that the wetland is at
I       ~ ~~risk. A timeline should be written into the easement provisions so that monitoring requirements
           can be bonded, There should be some means to ensure the requirements are being met, and that
*         ~~~the buffer requirements are maintained over time.

          Maintenance

U         ~~~Alterations to the buffer should be immediately remediated. Maintenance of the buffer for the
           function goals established should be included in the easement requirements along with the
           monitoring program. Maintenance may include control of non-native invasive species, replanting
I       ~ ~~of species removed, and enhancement of buffer vegetation to improve certain functions that are
           not being met.

I         ~~~To summarize, it is important to look at each new project and define a plan for the
           implementation of the project to avoid impacts to the wetland. This can best be accomplished by
           first, determining the potential sources of impact to the wetland given the surrounding current
           and projected future land use, in conjunction with the type of wetland to be influenced; and
           second, establishing goals wetland functions that consider these sources of potential disturbance,
           and by requiring buffers of sufficient size ( minimum of 50 feet, regardless of the type of buffer)
I       ~ ~~and type that can fulfill these goals, over time.  It is also necessary to establish a quantified
           assessment of the pre-existing wetland and buffer communities in order to establish if the buffers
*         ~~~are functioning to protect the wetland from impacts due to land use changes over time.
















           II                                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~89







                                                                                Appendix A

                                      REFERENCES

Baker, Cindy, and Howard Haemmerle 1990. Native Growth Protection Easements-Survival and
      Effectiveness. King County BALD, King County Conservation District.

Cooke, S.S., R.R. Horner, C. Conolly, O. Edwards, M. Wilkinson, and M. Emers. 1989a.
      Effects of urban stormwater runoff on palustrine wetland vegetation communities -
      baseline investigation (1988). Report to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
       10, by King County Resource Planning Section, Seattle, Wa.

Cooke, S.S., K. Richter, and R.R. Horner. 1989b. Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater
       Management Research Program:  Second Year of Comprehensive Research. Report to
      Washington State Department of Ecology, Coastal Zone Management Program, by King
       County Resource Planning Section, Seattle, Wa.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, R. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of   Wetlands
       and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological  Services, U. S.
       Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, D.C.

Federal Register. November 13, 1986. Army Corps of Engineers; Department of the   Army.
       33 CFR Parts 320 through 330. Regulatory Programs of the Corps of  Engineers; Final
       Rule.

Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of
       Washington Press, Seattle, Wa.

Horner, R.R. 1989. Long-term effects of urban stormwater on wetlands. pp. 451-465 in
       Roesner, L.A., B. Urbonas, and M.B. Sonnen (eds.), Design of Urban Runoff Controls,
       American Society of Civil Engineers, New York. Mitsch, W. and J. G. Gosselink.
       Wetlands. Van Nostrad Reinhold Company. 1986.

Homer, R. 1990. Swamp Creek and Chase Lake Wetlands: Baseline Hydrologic and  Water
       Quality Monitoring Report (July 1989- January 1990). King County    Resource Planning
       Section, Seattle, Wa.

King County Resource Planning Section. 1988. Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater
       Management Research Program: Initial year of Comprehensive Research Report to
       Washington State Department of Ecology, Coastal Zone Management Program, by King
       County Resource Planning Section, Seattle, Wa.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1985. Wetland Plants of the Pacific Northwest.




                                             90








                                                                          Appendix A

Attachment I - AGENCY AND STAFF CONTACTS

The following agencies and staff were contacted to identify potential sites

  KING COUNTY, Building and Land Development
   Technical Services Section
      Tina Miller, Heather Stout, Laura Kaye
   Subdivision Products Section
       Howard Haemmerly

  CITY OF KIRKLAND,
      Joan Brill

  CITY OF BELLEVUE,
      Toni Craemer

  ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
      Michelle Walker





























                                         91







                                                                             Appendix A

Attachment 2 - BUFFER SITE FIELD DATA FORMS

Investigator(s)                                                        Date
                                                      County
                                                           Weather
Site/Project Name                                                                              Site
Location/Address
1.     CONDITIONS ADJACENT TO WETLAND (within 200 feet)
A.     Name of Basin

B.                                      SIZE OF BASIN

                        [IjLarge                    Medium                     Small

  Size of Basin           I                                                      

C.                           LOCATION OF WETLAND IN BASIN

        I                        II ~~~~~~Upper third      Middle third      I     Lower third3

  Location of wetland in basin                I            I 

D.                   CURRENT LAND USE ADJACENT TO WETLAND

I             Zoning                    Use          Percent              Comments/Conditions
  Residential
       single family
       multi family
  Commercial
  Industrial
  Business Park
  Agriculture

  Native Vegetation


E.     Historical Land Use Adjacent to Wetland. How was this assessed?



                                           92








                                                                        Appendix A

2.    EXISTING WETLAND TYPE AND SIZE (non-compensation wetland)


A.                       EXISTING WETLAND TYPE AND SIZE

 Community Type     Percent Total Wetland              Size of Wetland (Acres)

 POW
 PEM
 PSS
 PFO
 PAB

DOE Wetland Category:







B.                         EXISTING WETLAND VEGETATION

 Strata                                 Species (listed by dominance)

 Canopy
 Subcanopy
 Shrubs
 Herbs
 Grasses/Sedges












                                        93







                                                                                 Appendix A

3.      BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS (within approximately 200 feet of wetland edge)


A.                               BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS

                        j Pre-existing              Required                    Current

 Slopes
 Intrusions (i.e.
 humans, runoff, pets)
  Sp. Complexity
  (low, med, hi)
  Comm. Complexity
  (low, med, hi)



B.     Date of Construction or Permit (i.e. age of buffer):



C.                                   BUFFER DIMENSIONS

  Percentage, Condition      Pre-existing               Permit Requirements        Existing
  and Dimension of
  Buffer Type

  Forest
  Shrub
  Pasture
  Landscaping/ Grasses
  Residential
  Business Park
  Industrial
  Paved Surface





                                             94








                                                                              Appendix A

4.   WETLAND AND BUFFER CONDITIONS

A.                              WETLAND/BUFFER CONDITIONS

                             WETLAND  BUFFER

                              Yes    No      Yes    No        Specifics/Comments

 iRunoff
   point source

    non-point source
    chemical

    physical

 Turbidity in Wetland

 Oil/Grease

 Erosion
 Siltation (L,M,H)
 Wildlife Use

    birds

    mammals

    fish
    amphs/repts

    prey species

 Habitat Features
    snags/cavities
    brush/cover

    food species

    veg. complexity

B.       Are there impacts to the installed buffer?  Y / N  Describe:

C.      What was the probable source of adverse impacts to the buffer?


                                            95







                                                                                   Appendix& A

D.      Are there impacts to the wetland?  Probable source:




E.      Are the impacts to the wetland correlated to:

              a)      impacts to the buffer?
              b)      presence/absence of the buffer?
              c)      condition (size/type) of the buffer?

        Describe:



F.      Were the requirements met?  Y / N  Describe:






5.   BUFFER FUNCTIONS

A.                                    BUFFER FUNCTIONS

  Buffer Functions              i Pre-existing             Goal                       Current

  Biofiltration/sediment
  Nutrient Uptake
  Habitat Diversity
  Protection from Intrusion
  Flood Storage
  Wetland and Surficial
  Ground Water Recharge



B.      Are the functional purposes evident?



                                               96







                                                                                             Appendix A

         C.      Were buffer goals appropriate, attainable, realistic?




         7.   SUMMARY

I        ~~A.     What appears to be functioning properly on this site, what does not fuinction on this site?





I        ~~B.      General comments on buffer effectiveness.





I        ~~C.      Suggestions for increasing buffer functioning?






         Additional Comments:









           I~~~~~~~~~~~~~9







                                                                                   Appendix A

Attachment 3 - FIELD FORM METHODOLOGYI

The buffer data sheets were designed to collect consistent information on each site regarding pre-
existing conditions, permit requirements, design goals and objectives, existing site conditions, and
qualitative assessments of success and functioning of the buffer. Data sheets were structured to
collect both permit file and field data, however all portions of the field data sheets were recorded
on site.

Preliminary information was entered into the data sheet before proceeding to the remainder. ThisI
information included investigators name(s), date, site name and site location.

Section I was designed to assess permit requirements and conditions present before theI
surrounding land use was changed (development installed). This information was obtained
primarily from the permit files, however in several cases where the investigator was familiar with
the site, the information was known.
Pre-existing wetland community types were identified (accord-Ing to the Cowardin classification),
as well as the dominant species present in each strata, if known.   This information was obtainedI
from the descriptions of pre-existing site conditions in the permit files.

Sections 2 and 3 were designed to describe the existing buffer and wetland details. Soils, andI
vegetation and structure aspects were described. This information was also obtained from the
permit files.

Section 4 was designed to assess land use within 200 feet of the wetland, and the wetland itself.
Basin information can be obtained from USGS topographic maps. Current land use was
identified by viewing at the surrounding area.

Wildlife habitat features such as snags, logs, beaver dams, brush, and forage were noted. Actual
wildlife use was identified on the basis of observed wildlife, tracks, holes or nests. Some
assumptions regarding wildlife use were made based on site conditions. Additional detail was
provided when needed.

 Section 5 addresses buffer functions past goals for the buffer after implementation of the project,
 and current.

 Several questions in sections 4 and 5 were designed to elicit the opinion of the investigators as to
 the appropriateness of the various aspects of the buffer. This was strictly an assessment based on
 the investigators expertise and site conditions.

 Section 6 is a summary section. Probable factors affecting buffer and compensation wetland
 functioning were identified and a general analysis of the wetland system was given. This section
 provided an opportunity for further comments not solicited from specific questions on the form.


                                               98







                                                                                      Appendix A
I.       ~Attachment 4 - SPECIES LIST


                      Plant SDecies Key

                              Trees
         ACERMACR - Acer macrophyllum - Big Leaf Maple
         ALNURUBR - Alnus rubra - Red Alder
         FRAXLATI - Fraxinus latifolia - Ash
I      ~ ~PICESITC - Picea sitchensis - Sitka Spruce
         POPUTREM - Populus tremuloides - Trembling Aspen
         POPUTRIC - Populus trichocarpa - Western Cottonwood
I      ~ ~PSEUMENZ - Pseudotsuga menziesii - Douglas' Fir
         RHAMPURS - Rhamnus purshiana - Cascara (Buckthorn)
         THUJPLIC - Thuja plicata - Western Red Cedar
         TSUGHETE - Tsuga heterophylla - Lowland Hemlock
                              Shrubs
         ACERCIRC - Acer circinatum - Vine Maple
         BERBNERV - Berberis nervosa - Cascade Oregon Grape
rn       ~~CORNSTOL - Cornus stolonifera - Red Osier Dogwood
         CORYCORN - Corylus cornuta - Hazelnut
         CRAE    - Crataegus spp. - Hawthorne
         CYSTSCOP - Cytisus scoparius - Scott's Broom
I      ~ ~GAULSH4AL - Gaultheria shallon - Salal
         HOLODISC - Holodiscus discolor - Oceanspray
         ILEXAQUI - flex aquifolium - English Holly
I      ~ ~LEDUGROE - Ledum groenlandicum - Bog Labrador Tea
         LONIINVO - Lonicera involucrata - Black Twin-berry
         MENZFERR - Menziesia ferruginea - Fool's Huckleberry
I      ~ ~OEMLCERA - Oemleria cerasiformis - Indian Plum
         PRUNEMAR - Prunus emarginata - Bittercherry
         PYRUFUSC - Pyrus fusca - Ninebark
I      ~ ~RIBEBRACT- Ribes bracteosum - Common Current
         RIBESANG - Ribes sanguineum - Red Current
         ROSAGYMN - Rosa gymnocarpa - Little Wild Rose
I       ~ ~ROSAPTSO - Rosa pisocarpa - Clustered Wild Rose
         RUBUDISC - Rubus discolor - Himalayan Blackberry
         RUBULASI - Rubus laciniatus - Evergreen Blackberry
U       ~ ~RUBUPARV - Rubus parviflorus - Thimbleberry
         RUBUSPEC - Rubus spectablilis - Salmonberry
         RUBUURSI - Rubus ursinus - Dewberry
',       ~~SALILASI - Salix lasiandra - Pacific Willow

                                                    99







                                                                         Appendix A

SALIPEDI - Salix pedicellaris - Bog Willow                                                                 E
SALISCOU - Salix scoulerleriana - Scouler's Willow
SALISITC - Salix sitchensis - Sitka Willow
SAMBRACE - Sambucus racemosa - Red Elderberry
SORBAMER - Sorbus aucuparia - European Mountain Ash
SORBSCOP - Sorbus scopulina -.Cascade Mountain AshI
SPIRDOUG - Spirea douglasii - Douglas' Hardhack
SYMPALBA - Symphoricarpos albus - Snowberry
TAXUBREV - Taxus brevifolia - Pacific YewI
VACCOXYC - Vaccinium oxycoccos - Bog Cranberry
VACCPARV - Vaccinium parvifolium - Red Huckleberry
VACCSCOP - Vaccinium scoparium - Whortleberry
             Ferns/Horsetails
ATHYFELI - Athyrium felix-femina - Lady FernI
BLECSPIC - Blechnum spicant - Deer Fern
DRYOAUST - Dryopteris austriaca - Mountain Woodfern
EQUIARVE - Equisetum arvense - Common HorsetailI
EQUTHYEM - Equisetum hyemale - Common Scouring Rush
EQUITELMA- Equisetum telmateia - Giant Horsetail

              Herbs
ACTERUBR - Actea rubra - Bane Berry
ANAPMARG - Anaphalis margaritacea - Pearley Everlasting
BIDECERN - Bidens cernua - Nodding Beggar-tick
CIRCARVE - Circium arvense - Canada Thistle
CLAYLANC - Claytonia lanceolata - Western Spring Beauty
CONVSEPI - Convolvus sepium - Hedge Bindweed
DICEFORM - Dicentra formosa - Bleeding Heart
DIGIPURP - Digitalis purpurea - Foxglove
EPILANGU - Epilobium angustifolium - Fireweed
EPILWATS - Epilobium watsonii - Watson's Fireweed
GALI    - Galium spp. - Bedstraw
GALITRIF - Galium trifidum - Small Bedstraw
GEUMMACR - Geum macrophyllum - Bigleaf Cinquefoil
GNAPULIG - Gnaphalium uliginosum - Marsh Cudweed
GYMNDRYO - Gymnocarpium dryopteris - Oakfern
HEDEHELI - Hedera helix - English Ivy
HIERNUDI - Hieracium spp. - Hawkweed
HYPEFORM - Hypericum formosum - Western St.Johnswort
HYPEPERF - Hypericum perforatum - Common St.Johnswort
IMPA    - Imaptiens spp.- Touch-Me-Not
IRISPSEU - Iris pseudachorus - Yellow Flag
LEMNMINO - Lemna minor - Water Lentil (Duck weed)

                                         100







                                                                                       Appendix A

N       ~~LICH    -Lichen spp.
        LINNBORE - Linnaea borealis - Twin Flower
        LOTUCORN - Lotus corniculatis - Bird'sfoot Trefoil
I       ~~LUDWPALU - Ludwigia palustris - Water Pursiane
        LYSIAMER - Lysichitumn anmericanum - Western Skunk Cabbage
        MAIADILA - Maianthemnum dilatatumn - False Lily of the Valley
I       ~~MENYTRIF - Menyanthes trifoliata - Bogbean
        MIMUGUTT - Mimulus guttatus - Yellow Monkeyflower
        MONTSIBE - Montia siberica - Western Springbeauty
        MUSC    - Musci spp. - Moss
I     ~    ~MYOSLAXA - Myosotis laxa - Small Flowered Forget-me-not
        NUPHPOLY - Nuphar polysepalum - Yelloy Pond Lily
        OENAS ARM - Oenanthe sarmentosa - Water Parsley
I     ~    ~OPLOHORR - Oplopanax horridum - Devil's Club
        PETASAGI - Petasites sasgittatus - Colt's Foot
        PLANLANC - Plantago lanceolata - English Plantain
I     ~    ~PLANMACR - Plantago macrocarpa - Alaska Plantain
        PLANMAJO - Plantago major - Common Plantain
        POLYGLYC - Polypodium glycyrrhiza - Polypody Fern
I     ~     ~POLYHYDR - Polygonum hydropiper - Marshpepper Smartweed
        POLYMUNI - Polystichum munitum - Sword Fern
S ~~POTANATA - Potarnogeton natans - Floating-leaved Pondweed.
        POTEPALU - Potentilla palustris - Marsh Cinquefoil
        PTERAQUI - Pteridium aquilinum - Braken Fern
        RANUREPE - Ranunculus repens - Creeping Buttercup
U     ~     ~RORI    - Rorippa spp. - Watercress
        RUMECRIS - Rumex crispus - Curley Dock
        SCUTLATE - Scutellaria lateriflora - Mad-dog Scutellaria
        SMIL    - Smilacina spp. - False Solomon's Seal
        SOLADULC - Solanum dulcamara - Deadly Nightshade
        SPAREMER - Sparganium emersum - Simple-stem Bur-reed
I     ~     ~SPAREURO - Sparganiumn eurycarpum - Broad-fruited Bur-reed
        SPHA    - Sphagnum spp. - Sphagnum Moss
        STACCOOL - Stachys cooleyae - Stachys' Horse-mint
U     ~     ~STELMEDI - Stellaria media - Chickweed
        TREAMPL, - Streptopus amplexifolius - Clasping-leaved Twisted-stalk
        TIARTRIF - Tiarella trifoliata - Foarnflower
        TOLMMENZ - Tolmiea menziesii - Pig-a-Back Plant
        TRILOVAT - Trilliumn ovatum - Western White Trillium
        TYPHLATI - Typha latifolia - Cattail
         URTIDIOI - Urtica dioica - Stinging Nettle
        URTILYAL - Urtica dioica var.lyallii - Lyal's Nettle
~~   ~ UTRIMINO - Utricularia minor - Lesser Bladderwort
        UTRIVULG - Utricularia vulgaris - Greater Bladderwort

                                                    101






                                                                    Appendix A
VEROAMER - Veronica amnericana - American Brooklime                                                           4
VEROSCUT - Veronica scutellata - Marsh Speedwell
VIOL - Viola spp. - Violet
            Grasses/Sedges and Rushes
AGROSCAB - Agrostis scabra - Winter Bentgrass
AGROTENU - Agrostis tenuis - Colonial Bentgrass
ALOPAQUI - Alopecurus aquatilis - Common Timothy
ALOPPRAT - Alopecurus pratensis- Water Timothy
CAREAQUA - Carex aquatilis - Water Sedge
CAREARCT - Carex arcta - Clustered Sedge
CAREATHR - Carex athrostachyaI
CARELAEV - Carex Iaeviculmis - Smooth Stem Sedge
CAREOBNU - Carex obnupta - Slough Sedge
CAREPARV - Carex parryana - Parry Sedge
CAREPAUC - Carex pauciflora - Few-flowered Sedge
CAREROST - Carex rostrata -
CARETUMI - Carex tumulicola - Foothill SedgeI
CAREUNIL - Carex unilateralis - One-sided Sedge
CAREVEST - Carex vesicaria - Inflated Sedge
DACTGLOM - Dactylis glomerata - Orchard GrassI
ELEOOVAT - Eleocharis ovata, - Ovoid Spikerush
ELEOPALU - Eleocharis palustris - Common Spikerush
FESTRUBR - Festuca rubra - Red Fescuea
GLYCELAT - Glyceria spp. - Mannagrass
GLYCGRAN - Glyceria grandis - Reed Mannagrass
HOLCLANA - Holcus lanatus - Common VelvetgrassI
JUNCACUM - Juncus acuminatus - Tapered Rush
JUNCBUFF - Juncus bufonius - Toad Rush
JUNCEFFU - Juncus effuisus - Soft RushI
JUNCENSI - Juncus ensifolius - Dagger-leaf Rush
JUNCTENU - Juncus tenuis - Slender Rush
JUNCUNIC - Juncus unicialis - NCNI
LOLIPALU - Lolium palustriis - Perennial Ryegrass
LUZUPARV - Luzula parviflora - Small-flowered Woodrush
PHALARUN - Phalaris arundinaceae - Reed Canary GrassI
PHLEPRAT - Phleum pratense - Timothy
POAPALU - Poa palustris - Fowl Bluegrass
POAPRAT  - Poa pratensis - Kentucky BluegrassI
PUCCPAUC - Puccinellia pauciflora - Small-Flowered Puccinellia
SCIRCYPE - Scirpus cyperinus - Wool-grass
SCIRMACR - Scirpus microcarpus - Small-fruited Bullrush


                                      102



I
                                                                           Appendix A
         Attachment 5 - BUFFER SITE COMPLETED FIELD FORMS

  |  I    (species eight letter codes are found in Attachment 3)
U
I
I
I
1
S
I


I!
1
lb




I
I


I
I
I
I




                                              103

1







                                                                                Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #1   LOCATION:  84th Ave W  and 220-224th St SW                    Snohomish
STR:  /27N/4E          THOMAS BROS. PAGE:  58                  DRAINAGE:  Lake Ballinger


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE:  Created wetland to east.

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS:  Sphagnum bog; some open water; few residences to
west; a road cutting the wetland in half; second half of bog filled. Bog receiving stormwater
runoff from nearby houses.

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  75% single family residential, 25% native vegetation.

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS:  None required; none set by NGPE to protect bog wetland from
runoff from west and east; protect bog wetland from physical disturbance (bog is degrading from
trampling).

BUFFER DIMENSIONS?  Various, 10% PSS 6 to 10 feet, 10% shrubs and garbage.  Along
road (30%) - 0 feet, to west (40%) - 200+ feet, to east - 150+ feet, to north and south - 25 feet

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1989-90

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER:  CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING:  Slopes 4:1; species complexity
high; community complexity medium; filled in portion currently restored to POW/PEM/PSS.
The buffers are functioning as variably as their widths.  There is no buffer along the road.  Road
runoff enters the wetland directly, presumably adding a high heavy metal load and changing the
pH. The buffer to the north is functioning because there is a physical barrier, and stormwater is
diverted to other directions.  The buffer to the west is 500+ feet and is functioning well as there
is very little evidence of disturbance to the wetland from this direction.  The buffer to the south
allows people to enter, and this is has resulted in paths being established in the buffer.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: Two+ acres total, 70%
POW, 10% PEM, 20% PSS.  The bog is dying as a result of past inputs of stormwater.
Category 1 wetland.  There is a heavy Potentilla Palustris infestation of the floating mat, which is
taking over the mat community. It is not known if the new buffer and the created wetland across
the road will help in treating the wetland, help to re-establish the pH, and decrease the heavy
metal content.  The physical disturbance from people entering the wetland from the south is
causing degradation along the foot path. Runoff= point and non-point, chemical, siltation,
turbidity, oil, grease. Wildlife= birds, mammals, amphibians. Habitat= snags, brush/cover,
complex vegetation.  Vegetation= Thujplic, Tsughete, Pinumont, Sali scou, Salilasil Kalmmicr,
Ledugroe, Spirdoug, Potenate, Nuphpoly, Patepalu, Drosrotu, Sphag, Vaccoxyc, Careobnu,
Eriospp, Junceffu.


                                             104







                                                                                        Appendix A

        CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING: Protection from physical disturbance along
        east, north and west sides of the wetland. Protection from stormwater inputs from the residences
       to the west, and the road that bisects the wetlands north/south.

I ~~WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? Partially; variable as the buffer types and widths for the
        most part; the physical disturbance to the north is gone, the disturbance to the south is quite bad
        and the bog community is degrading quite badly. The stormwater inputs from the west are
        probably no longer a problem as they are being treated in the created wetland.


















          I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0







                                                                              Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #2   LOCATION:  127 St SW and 55 Ave W, Snohomish
SThR:  /28 N/4E         THOMAS BROS. PAGE:  48                 DRAINAGE:  Lake Serene?


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE:  Single family residential development

PREEXISTING SITE CONDITIONS:  Diverse vegetation communities, wetland mosaic of
POW, PSS, and PFO. Slopes were steeper 3:1. Upland buffer was less developed and had up to
50% native vegetation.

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  90% single family residential, 10% native vegetation

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: Not located

BUFFER DIMENSIONS?  Various, 0 to 20 feet throughout

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1987-1989

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED?  As far as can be determined, yes.

BUFFER:  CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING:  Slopes 2:1 for 50%, 3:1 for
50%. Human, dogs intrusion into buffer, a structured outlet built into the wetland; species
complexity med to low given many community types, community complexity high.  (5%) yard
waste and debris, (85%) grass lawn fencing and beauty bark, (10%) planted native shrubs;
runoff= fertilizer inputs, oil and grease, small amount of siltation occurring non-point and
physical inputs via landscaping debris; wildlife= bullfrogs, and domesticated animals, little to no
small mammal, few birds, no fish visible; habitat features= snags, brush, and food species
(willows, crab apples).

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: Two to five acres of mixed
POW (40%), PEM (10%), PSS (30%), and PFO (20%); probably a Category 2 wetland;
vegetation= Alnurubu, Thujplic, Tsughete, Spirdoug, Salispp, Pyrufusc, Lemnmino, Ludwpalu,
Scirmicro, Junceffu, Irispseu, Typhlati, Agrospp, Juncensi, Oenasarm, Carerost

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING:  Little or no protection from either physical
disturbance as lawn beckons people to the wetlands edge, or from stormwater inputs as grass acts
little to absorb toxicants and the buffer is fertilized lawn. Overflow from the road enters the
edge directly so siltation is likely a problem during large storm events.  Impacts to the wetland
are apparent from the low species diversity on the edge, algal blooms, siltation, and presence of
garbage around the edge.

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? For the most part, no. The buffer is highly modified
and currently contains debris. The wetland shows some signs of impact which are expected to
get worse.  Impacts are due to impacts to the buffer itself, the lack of buffer in some places, and
the inadequate size of the buffer in others.


                                            106








                                                                               Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #3   LOCATION:  112th Ave NE and 108th Ave NE between 155 and 158th
St. King County
STR:  17/26/5E                 THOMAS BROS. PAGE:  4                    DRAINAGE:  Juanita Creek


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE: Five large single family residential units

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS:  60-year, second growth forest (mixed
deciduous/coniferous) bordering 19 acre scrub/shrub wetland that grades into Lake Washington.

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  Surrounding land use= 60% residential (80% single
family, 20% multi-family), and 40% native vegetation. Site is an abandoned farm.

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS:  50-foot buffer required, allowed development right to edge of
wetland

BUFFER DIMENSIONS:  Various, 10 to 100 feet

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? fall 1989

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER:  CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING:  Not only no buffer, but first
20 feet of wetland are acting as a buffer for the rest of the wetland. Highly impacted. Residents
are cutting down trees for view, yard debris is being deposited, back yards extend into the
wetland; 20% forested, 65% residential, 10% lawns and 5% paved surface; there is a trail that
runs along the margin of the wetland which gives access for humans and pets into the wetland;
species complexity is low to moderate, community complexity is low to moderate; impacts to the
buffer include clearing, invasion by pets, a walkway within the buffer, fill, and storm drain
construction.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 2.5 acres total, 50% PEM,
50% PSS/PFO. Invasive species are out-competing natural vegetation (Rubudisc replacing
COST, Salispp) Vegetation= Alnurubu, Oemlcera, Rubuspec, Rubudisc, Salispp, Spridoug,
Typhlati, Veroamer, Ranurepe, Equiarve, Agrospp, Junceffu, Holcspp, Scirmicro, Phalarun,
Ludwpalu. Runoff= non-point, small chemical and physical disturbance, some turbidity in
water, oil and grease present, high siltation in places.  Wildlife use= low on the south side,
moderate to high for birds, mammals, amphibians. Habitat features= snags, brush/cover, food
species, and vegetation complexity.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING:  Siltation is occurring from the stream
channel at the top of the property. The stream has been channelized and placed through a culvert
into and out of the wetland. There is obvious decreased water quality and habitat complexity
resulting from both lack of buffer and type of buffer, where present (lawn). Fences have been

                                           107







                                                                                    Appendix A

built into the buffer and yard waste thrown over them just out of sight. Access into the buffer
and wetland via the path that runs adjacent to the wetland. This encourages human and pet
intrusion. Wetland and buffer degradation has occurred since 1988.

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? The buffer is acting as biofiltration and nutrient uptake
for part of its length, habitat diversity is maintained for 1/3 of the diameter of the wetland, not
much but some help, physical intrusion is blocked by fences and in thick vegetation zone,
however entrance can occur at other points. Goals to the south along the road were to build a
10-foot grassy walkaway.  In this instance the goal was met, but was unrealistic in terms of
buffering the wetland from any negative impact. Setbacks for the houses should not have been
included in the lots, and trails should not have been built in the buffer.



































                                               108








                                                                                Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #4 LOCATION: Inglewood Rd. and NE 165th St King County

STR:  11/26/4E          THOMAS BROS. PAGE:  3                  DRAINAGE:  East Lake
Washington


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE:  Single family residential, 5 units built

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: A scrub-shrub wetland contiguous to Lake Washington.
The buffer to the south was old growth black cottonwood, willow, and big leaf maple.  The
wetland has been receiving nutrient-rich overflow from an adjacent golf course for many years.

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE: 25% single family residential, 25% multifamily
residential, 25% road edge adjacent to a golf course, 25% adjacent to Lake Washington

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: None set. There were no setback requirements established for
this project.

BUFFER DIMENSIONS: Various, 0 feet along the southern boundary, 5 to 10 feet along the
eastern boundary, the Lake to the west, and 0 feet to the north where there is an existing
multifamily residential unit.

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? Fall 1988, winter 1989

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 25 % open lake, no buffer to
north or south where there are high density single family and multifamily residences. The edge
of the wetland is acting as the buffer to the rest of the wetland. Yard debris and fill is being
deposited, trees are being cut down for a view, invasive vegetation (Himalayan blackberry) is
taking over. The wetland is being mowed and ornamental species are planted in the wetland on
the north side. The road to the east and the ten-foot buffer strip are not large enough to filter
sediments, oil and grease, point and non-point source pollution, and nutrients that come off the
golf course. Wildlife non-existent except for rats.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 9.5 acres. (15%) PEM,
(30%) PFO, (65%) PSS, plus adjacent to Lake edge. Possible Category 2 wetland. There is a
high impact from the residents to the north and south where physical damage is occurring from
cutting down of trees, removal of shrubs, deposition of yard waste, invasion by blackberry. The
shifting of the water table such that ten very large trees fell down within a year of the
development going in. Runoff=chemical inputs, mostly nutrients that come off the golf course,
sedimentation, oil and grease, point and non-point source pollution. Wildlife use= birds,
mammals, amphibians, prey species and possibly fish. Habitat features= few snags, high
brush/cover, high food species, and vegetation complexity. Vegetation= Poputric, Alnurubu,

                                            109







                                                                                Appendix A

Salilasi, Saliscou, Salisitc, Cornstol, Oemlcera, Loniinvo, Rubuspec, Rubudisc, Spirdoug,
Tolmmenz, Ranurepe, Scirmicro, Phalarun, Carespp..

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING:  The wetland is currently functioning as the
buffer to the rest of the wetland. The residents appear to consider the wetland edge their
property for placing debris, and cutting down trees.

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET?  No, because there were no buffer goals established.
There is no buffer for a large portion of the site.






































                                             110








                                                                               Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #5  LOCATION:  134-135 Ave NE, and NE 187-190 St. King County
STR:  3/26N/5E           THOMAS BROS. PAGE:  4                  DRAINAGE:  Bear Creek


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE:  Several units of single family residences.

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS:  Unknown, except that a portion likely was native
vegetation.

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  40% single family residential, 60% native vegetation

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS:  50-foot throughout

BUFFER DIMENSIONS:  Various, 0 to 50

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1986

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: There is minimal species or
community complexity in the 50-foot buffer and no vegetation along the edge of a gravel road
also included in the 50-foot buffer. Runoff= point and non-point, chemicals.  Wildlife use is
moderate to high for birds, and low for mammals. Bush cover habitat is high and there are a
few snags, but food species and vegetation complexity are both low. There has been repeated
dumping of debris, both lawn waste and refuse. There has also been some filling in the buffer.
Portions of the buffer act to trap sediment and nutrients, but this capacity is low, protection from
intrusion is variable and flood storage and groundwater recharge is minimal. Dumping is a
problem.  The development has altered the hydrology and there is lots of tree death.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 15 to 20% POW, 80 to
85% PSS acreage unknown wetland, probably Category 2. There are some definite negative
impacts to the wetland resulting from dumping, filling, landscaping, and allowing runoff to
directly enter the wetland. Runoff= point and non-point source, chemical (nutrients from
fertilizer, road runoff (heavy metals). Wildlife= mammals, fish, amphibians, and prey species.
Habitat features= few snags, many brush/cover possibilities, lots of food species, and the
vegetation complexity is moderate to high. Vegetation= Salispp, Spridoug, Potepalu, Phalarun.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING:  The gravel road along the edge of the
wetland offers no real buffering capacity. The wetland is receiving runoff with elevated nutrient
contents directly from the lots. Species richness in the buffer is lacking and the back side of a
few of the lots no longer has the 50-foot buffer left. The lots have claimed the area for lawn and
now mow the area constantly. The variable buffer width and the type of buffer implemented
seem to be the cause for the non-functioning of the buffer. Stormwater and physical disturbance


                                            111







                                                                                   Appendix A

are reaching the wetland via the sections of the buffer that are non-existent or greatly reduced, or
are of less capacity for functioning as a buffer (gravel road).

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? Some of the buffer goals were met initially, but over
time these have been limited and it is projected that the buffer functioning will decrease even
more over time, as increased urban pressure is met.  A 50-foot buffer was not maintained over
time. The wetland looks good despite the many limits to the buffer. Enforcement of buffers
would really help here as well as policing the dumping. Some of the buffer should be increased
in size, or made into more protective buffer communities (e.g., shrub).  NGPE should be taken
out of private hands. The plat requirements were in conflict with resource protection
requirements.































                                                            112
                                                              112~~~~~~~








                                                                             Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #6           LOCATION:   189-196 Ave NE and Snohomish City line and
NE 202 St. King County
STR: 6/26N/6E THOMAS BROS. PAGE 5 DRAINAGE: Bear/Evans Creek


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE:  Construction of many single family lots

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS:  Old second growth forested almost 100%

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND  USE:  85 % single family residential, 15 % native vegetation.

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 50+ feet, oil separators and R/D ponds not in the buffer.

BUFFER DIMENSIONS:  Various, greater than 50 feet in general.  50+ feet in forested area,
with 15% of the buffer 15-foot paved road setback.

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1987

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: The species and community
complexity is moderate to high. There is runoff into the buffer from street. The buffer looks
intact and not impacted to a large degree. No visible debris, but there is cutting of trees.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 80% PSS, 20% PFO
wetland is approximately 2 acres in size, a Category 3 wetland. The wetland is healthy and
shows little impact from surrounding development. Runoff is point source from stormwater
placed through a culvert. Wildlife use= moderate bird, small mammal, and amphibian use.
Habitat features include snags, brush/cover, food species, and vegetation complexity.
Vegetation= Thujplic, Alnurubu, Rubuspec, Pyrufusc, Loniinvo, Gaulshal, Potenate, Ranurepe.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS  OF FUNCTIONING:  The buffer is functioning for biofiltration,
nutrient uptake from adjacent lots, habitat diversity, and protection from intrusion. Flood storage
is not really an issue, but the wetland is a basin and could act in this capacity, too. One factor
which may contribute to of the lack of debris is the high cost of the homes, and the point that
most houses appear to have landscaping services that remove the debris to off-site locations.

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET?  Yes.  They were not only met, but are providing the
best protection seen for this study. There has been no visible degradation since the 1988 study.






                                          113







                                                                              Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #7 LOCATION: NE Novelty Hill Rd. and 212 E and 220th Ave NE,
King County
STR: 33126N/6E          THOMAS BROS. PAGE:  11                 DRAINAGE:  Bear-Evans Creek

TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE: High density single family residences

PRE-EX[STING SITE CONDITIONS: 100% forested, old, second growth with moderate to
high species and community complexity.

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  100% single family homes, small lots

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 30 feet

BUFFER DIMENSIONS: Various, 15-foot beauty bark setback from the wetland edge and
road, low species or community complexity.  Zero to 100 feet in areas that are landscaped, 0 to
50 feet on the back of the residential lots.

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1988

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: Sediment entrapment, few
domestic animals, but no signs of wildlife, no birds, amphibians, or small mammals.  Where
there is vegetation in the buffer, the species are complex. The buffer has been removed in some
places, or the underbrush has been removed and beauty bark placed in its stead.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 100% PFO, mixed conifer
and deciduous wetlands restricted to thin corridors. Runoff= point and non-point source
carrying nutrients and stormwater, siltation is high. Wildlife use is limited to a few birds, and
dogs and cats. Habitat features in the wetland are a few snags, some brush for cover, and low
species complexity. Vegetation= Thujplic, Tsughete, Alnurubu, Rubuspec, Gaulshal, Oemlcera,
Lysiamer, Ranurepe, Oenasarm, Scirmicr.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING: The buffer is failing to function because it
does not exist for a large portion of the area surrounding the wetland. Biofiltration is low,
nutrient uptake is low, habitat diversity is low, no protection from intrusion, flood storage is
good because located in a basin. There is no noise screening from the Novelty Hill road and
wildlife doesn't appear to use the site. There is physical damage due to deposition of debris and
garbage. There is nutrient input into the wetland from lawn fertilizer service.

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? No. The requirements set by the NGPE were too small
to adequately protect the wetland from the density of the lots. Many of the lots had the buffer
incorporated into the back of the lot. These have since been made lawn and are now included
into the property. Much wetland area has been lost since the 1990 inventory. The lots are

                                            114







                                                                                    Appendix A

located on steep banks that are adjacent to the wetland edge. Lack of a buffer and steepness of
slope has made erosion a problem, so siltation is high. Cement trucks have cleaned out into the
wetland in two areas. There is a need for enforcement after construction, and an inspector on
site during development. Comparison to 1988 study shows continued heavy siltation, continued

removal of buffer, because very few of the houses were in at the time.




















 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1







                                                                              Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #8 LOCATION: NE 133 and NE 145th and 214-228 Ave NE, King County
STR:21/26N/6E          THOMAS BROS. PAGE:  12                 DRAINAGE:  Bear Creek

TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE: Phased of units of single family residences, medium
density.

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Medium age second growth forest, some newly logged,
(late 70s interspersed with wetlands (BBC 25,26,27), some large, some small.

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE: 95% single family, 5% native vegetation, near phase I
of the development.

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 50 feet, fences off the lots abutting the water, and an educational
brochure to be given to residents explaining the wetlands and their value.

BUFFER DIMENSIONS: Various, 50 to 200 feet

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1987

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: The buffer does not receive
runoff. It does offer a diverse vegetation community so there is habitat for birds, small mammals
and limited amphibian populations.  There are a few snags, and lots of brush for cover.  The
buffer is cleared in some places to the lakes' edge. There are deposits of yard debris along the
bottom of many lots. There is a path that has been cut throughout the buffer edge around the
lake. This enables people and pets to access the wetland directly.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: BBC27= 80% POW, 20%
PSS, 16.5 acres in size. The wetland is a likely a Category 2 wetland.  There is impact in the
wetland due to runoff problems, siltation, turbidity, etc. Runoff= point and non-point source
inputs of nutrients and stormwater. There is some siltation, and a minor amount of turbidity,
although both have been a problem during the different construction phases.  Wildlife use
includes birds and some amphibians. There are a few snags, and shrubs, and there are many
food species growing in the wetland. Vegetation complexity in the wetland is low because so
much of the area is open water.  Vegetation= Alnurubu, Oemlcera, Rubuspec, Ranurepe,
Scirmicro.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING:  There is biofiltration, nutrient uptake,
habitat diversity from diverse community left, flood storage because the wetland is in a basin.

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET?  Not for stormwater intrusion and sedimentation, but yes
for everything else. Prevention of intrusion would be hard to do even given a 200-foot buffer.
The only solution would be to fence off the wetland from access.

                                            116








                                                                              Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #9 LOCATION: 224 Ave NE and Union Hill Rd., King County
STR: 9125N/6E          THOMAS BROS. PAGE:  17                  DRAINAGE:  Evans Creek


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE:  Construction of many lots of single family residential units.

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS:

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE: 70% single family residential units, 30% native
vegetation (young second growth).

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 50 feet

BUFFER DIMENSIONS: Various, 0 to 100 feet

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1987

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Mostly yes. There were a few small areas where the
NGPE was cleared but mostly as planned.

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: The buffer varies from lawns
to multi-canopy communities. Forested, shrub and residential areas are all included in the buffer.
There is some landscaping debris left all over the site. The buffer receives point and non-point
source runoff which is nutrient and road runoff laden. The buffer is mowed for about 25% of its
length. There are signs of domestic animals, birds and small mammals. There is a diverse
habitat with many snags, brush for cover and food species.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 70% PFO mixed conifer
hardwoods, 15% PEM cattail, enhanced R/D pond, 15% PSS. The buffer has been removed in
some areas and there is no buffer left between the wetland and the houses.   The presence of
simple lawn buffers does little to fulfill many of the attributes. Lawns abut the wetland and
landscaping debris is thrown into the wetland. The R/D pond receives too much nutrient laden
water from the commercial lawn care companies and it is loaded with algae.  Vegetation=
Thujplic, Alnurubu, Tsughete, Acermacr, Rubuspec, Oemlcera, Loniinvo, Ribespp, Typhlati,
Veroamer, Oenasarm, Scirmicr.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING: The buffer is currently functioning to act
as biofiltration and nutrient uptake for most of the stormwater that passes into the wetland. This
does not work for those areas where the buffer has been removed. It also acts for flood storage

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? The goals were met but they were too simplistic.
There is little community complexity to offer diverse habitat for wildlife. The buffers were
placed in the lots and over time many of the homeowners have leveled the buffer and made more
lawn out of the area. The rest of the buffer looks good. The RID ponds look sufficiently large
to contain large storm events. Water quality has improved since 1988 after construction. The
amount of siltation has decreased.

                                           117








                                                                             Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #10 LOCATION: 221St and 225 Ave NE, and NE 16-20th St.,
King County
STR:  28125N/6E    THOMAS BROS. PAGE:  23                     DRAINAGE:  Evans Creek

TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE:  High density single family residences

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS:

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  100% small lot single family residences

)BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 50-foot

BUFFER DIMENSIONS:  Various, 0 to 50-foot buffer

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1987

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER:  CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING:  There are steep slopes (60 to
80 degree), low species complexity, and moderate community complexity. Forested, grass
landscaping and residential areas to buffer. Erosion is a factor because of the steepness of the
slopes. The forested areas has some wildlife habitat value because of a few snags, and some
brush for cover.  The buffer has been impacted by removal over time of that portion which was
included in the lots. Portions are now grassy lawn.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 100% PFO. Acreage less
than 10 acres and is a Category 2 wetland.  The wetland has been impacted over time by
channelizing the stream that flows through it. Vegetation species complexity has been lost as a
result of the loss of buffer. The wetland is now completely surrounded by homes.  Much
landscaping debris has been deposited into the wetland over time.  Vegetation= Thujplic,
Tsughete, Acermacr, Rubuspec, Cornstol, Acercirc, Spirdoug, Sambrace, Vaccparv.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING:  The buffer no longer acts for biofiltration
or removal of fertilizer amendments. There is marginal habitat diversity, and the protection from
intrusion is afforded only by the steepness of the slope, not the buffer itself. There are no flood
storage or recharge functions.

 WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? Yes, but these goals were not sufficient to ensure
 maintenance of the wetland in an unaltered state. The wetland was in effect "hidden" behind the
houses. There should have been an additional 50 to 100 feet of buffer left beyond the lots.





                                            118








                                                                             Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #11   LOCATION:  NE 16 and 20th, and 221-225 Ave NE, King County
STR:  28/25N/6E          THOMAS BROS. PAGE:  23                  DRAINAGE:Evans Creek


TYPE  OF LAND USE CHANGE:  Construction of multiple single family residences

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS:  100% upland forest (mixed coniferous/deciduous)

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE: 70% single family residential, 30% native vegetation
(40 year old second growth)

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 50 feet

BUFFER DIMENSIONS:  Various, 5 to 50 feet

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1987

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER:  CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING:  There are moderate to level
slopes. The species and community complexity are moderate to high. The 50-foot buffer has
been maintained for most of the length around both wetlands.  There are a few places where it
disappears; one is along a road that accesses the wetland where it is simply a paved surface.
There is debris along the lot edges that abut the wetland.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 2 wetlands; Evans Creek
28, 29; both are likely to be Category 2 wetlands. Runoff= point and non-point source inputs
of road runoff and fertilizer laden water. There are physical disturbances to certain access points
in the wetland, wildlife common, especially birds, and many small mammal indicators as well as
amphibians. Habitat potential high= snags, shrubs for cover, food species and vegetation
complexity. Vegetation= Tsughete, Thujplic, Acercirc, Sambrace, Rubuspec, Oemlcera,
Cornstol, Spirdoug Polymuni, Urtidioe.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING: The functions of biofiltration and nutrient
uptake occur in the R/D ponds and grass-lined swales that are located prior to discharge to the
wetland and buffer zone. Habitat value overall is high although in a few places the buffer breaks
down and is very small.

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? Yes, and they appear to have held up better than most
over time, and perform better than the goals stated they needed to.





                                           119







                                                                             Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #12   LOCATION:  E 212 Ave Se and SE 32nd St., King County
STR: 9/24N/6E  THOMAS BROS. PAGE:  24                     DRAINAGE:  East Lake Sammnamish


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE: Construction of single family residential units

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: 80% forested upland, 20% agriculture fields

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  70% single family residences, 30% native vegetation

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 25 feet

BUFFER DIMENSIONS: various, 0 to 50 feet

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1983

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: The buffer has been reduced
and fences established along the back of all lots examined. The buffer was incorporated within
the fenced lots. Most (90%) of the buffer areas have been altered over the time this project has
been in. The attitude of the owners interviewed is that it is their property to do with what they
want.  There was very'little dumping of yard waste.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 54 acres. King County
inventoried as wetland #ELS 30. Possibly Category I wetland. 60% PEM (Typhlati Phalarun),
30% PSS (Rubudisc, spirdoug), and 10% BOG.  Bog portion looks like it is being encroached by
Typha and spirea. There are minimal inputs of point and non-point stormwater. There is
fertilizer input from some of the lots near the bog and PEM zone. Siltation is high in some
areas. Wildlife use high for birds, medium to high for mammals, and medium (potential) for
amphibians. There are many snags and much brush vegetation for cover. There are food species
present, vegetation complexity overall high but low in some areas. Also, edges at access points
are solid Himalayan blackberry. Vegetation= Alnurubr, Thujplic, Tsughete,

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING: There is no prevention of stormwater input
which is causing degradation of bog and an increase in size of Typha/Phalaris PEM zone.  Most
of the buffer acts as a physical barrier, noise reduction is achieved from most of the
development, visible screening good, high habitat value in some places for upland habitat.

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? Yes, for physical and visible barrier, but not for
stormwater input.




                                           120








                                                                               Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #13  LOCATION:  Issaquah Pine Lake Rd, King County
STR:           THOMAS BROS. PAGE: 30                    DRAINAGE: East Lake Sammamish


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE:  Construction of many single family residential units.

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Open space, agricultural.

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  85% single family residential (with 50% pavement
buffer, and 35% houses adjacent buffer
grass) and 15% native vegetation.

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 100-foot consisting of grassy swales.

BUFFER DIMENSIONS: Various, 0 to 35 feet

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1986

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: The buffer has landscaping
debris deposited and the species complexity and community complexity are both low.  Much of
the buffer consists of mowed lawn combined with a paved portion that abuts to the residential
lots. The wildlife value is low but there are still birds and small mammals. There are signs of
domestic animals present. There are a few snags and brush for cover present, and there are food
species present. The buffer was installed but is currently being mowed along with the
landscaping so that the shrubs are cut off.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 90% POW, 5% PEM, 5%
PSS. 1.5 acres compensation, and four acres original wetland. Possible Category 2 wetland.
There is debris deposited into the wetland, mostly as a result of landscaping activity. Runoff=
point and non-point source including heavy fertilizer inputs. There is a small amount of siltation
currently present although during construction this was a problem. Bird use is high and small
mammal use is moderate to low. There are no snags or brush in the wetland, but food species
are present and vegetation complexity is low to moderate.  Vegetation= Thujplic, Alnurubu,
Tsughete, Pyrufusc, Cornstol, Salispp, Rubuspec, Loniinvo, Oemlcera, Sambrace, Typhlati,
Junceffu, Scirmicr, Phalarun, Veroscut, Carespp, Oenasarm, Lysiamer.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS  OF FUNCTIONING:  The functions of the buffer are limited.
There is little to no biofiltration or nutrient uptake functions present. In fact, the presence of
lawns increase the rate of fertilizer input to the wetland.  Habitat diversity is low and there is no
protection from intrusion. The edge of the open water zone is too steep for a good emergent
community to develop.


                                           121







                                                                                 Appendix A
WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET?  No, the vegetation for the buffer was planted but is
being subsequently mowed for viewing purposes. The goals could be achieved and if the
mowing is discontinued it will perhaps function in the future if replanted, but it is not currently
functioning.  There is no monitoring and no enforcement of the buffer requirements set with the
plat.




































                                             122
                                                            122~~~~~~~








                                                                              Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #14   LOCATION:  E. Lk. Sammamish Prkw SE and SE 40th and 204 Ave
SE, King County
STR:  17/24N/6E        THOMAS BROS. PAGE  29   DRAINAGE:  East Lake Sammamish


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE: Construction of multiple units of single family residential

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS:  An old farm site. Grass pasture, blackberries, orchard
and a small area with hemlock, cedar forest near the current wetland.

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  100% single family residential

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS:  15 feet from top of stream bank and 25 feet from the centerline
of the stream or swale

BUFFER DIMENSIONS:  Various, 0 to 25 feet

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1986

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: The NGPE is outside the lots,
but there is no buffer on most of the wetland proper. Where it exists, it is so narrow that it
functions only as a visual screen. There is yard waste in the wetland off the back of lots one to
seven; animal scat and physical disturbance from humans. Runoff enters the wetland directly
from the site. There are a few snags and brush for cover present, and there are food species
present. Physical damage has resulted in the buffer that does exist as a result of human
intrusion.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 95% PFO, 5% PSS. 1.5
acre wetland; likely a Category 3 wetland. Runoff= point and non-point source including
fertilizer inputs.  Physical damage has occurred in wetland as a result of human paths that cross
the wetland. It is a long-linear wetland and is easily impacted from either side. Bird life is
present in large numbers, but diversity is low. The wetland is an expanded riparian corridor.
Vegetation= Alnu rubu, Thujplic, Tsughete, Poputric, Ssali site, ZRubuspec, Rubudisc,
Rubulasi, Spirdoug, Oenasarm, Lysiamer, Athyfeli, Phalarun

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING:  The buffer is basically not functioning
because it is not present for most of the length of the wetland. It is acting as a visual barrier
only in the few areas where there is a little bit of vegetation left.

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? No, because there was no buffer installed and there was
a 15 to 25-foot requirement.


                                           123







                                                                               Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #15  LOCATION:  SE Duthie Hill Rd. and 260-268 Ave., King County
STR:  12/24/6E           THOMAS BROS. PAGE  24                    DRAINAGE:  Patterson Creek


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE: Construction of many units of single family residential

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Forested young second growth, area logged in 1974

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  85% residential single family units, 15% native
vegetation young second growth

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS:  50-foot buffer, monitoring central wetland

BUFFER DIMENSIONS: Various, 0 to 50 feet

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1985

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: Slope 1:4; the vegetation
species complexity is low to moderate, and the community complexity is low (where the lawns
have taken over the buffer).  Stormwater enters the wetland.  Runoff flows through culvert in the
buffer to the wetland so the buffer does not act as biofilter or nutrient uptake. There are a few
birds in the forested area, and there is a small amount of brush for cover in the shrub area.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 15% PEM, 65% PSS, and
20% PFO. 10+ acres in size; possible Category 2 wetland. The permit allowed stormwater to
enter wetland.  There is some erosion.  Runoff= point and non-point source so that fertilizer rich
water enters the wetland. Physical disturbance is high to wetland because of the lack of buffer.
Wildlife is high for birds, although species diversity is low, and a few small mammals. There
are prey species in the wetland.  There are a few snags and brush cover is good for habitat.
Vegetation= Alnurubu, Acermacr, Acercirc, Tsughete, Thujpllic, Sambrace,
Rubuspec,Rubudisc, Rubulasi, Oemlcera, Cornstol, Spirdoug, Carespp, Phalarun, Ranurepe,
Oenasarm, Junceffu, Scirmicr.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING: Buffer is missing or is now lawn so
biofiltration and nutrient uptake as well as physical barrier protection are all limited.  Habitat
diversity is low so wildlife potential is also low. Flood storage is being performed by the
wetland so the buffer does not need to provide this.

WERE THE  BUFFER GOALS MET?  Initially yes, but over time the buffers that were
incorporated into the lots have disappeared into more lawn space. Wildlife, water retention, and
open space are in natural condition. Monitoring should have been done so all the changes could
be documented.  Now, a fence should be put up as a barrier, and a dense shrub layer planted to
prevent further invasion into the wetland.


                                            124








                                                                               Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #16   LOCATION:  East side of SR 203 and NE 24-28th St., King County
STR:  21/25N/7E  THOMAS BROS. PAGE  72                       DRAINAGE:  Snoqualmie River


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE: Construction of single family residences, low density

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Pasture land and some young second growth forest

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  Residential 65%, native growth 35%

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 25 feet in areas away from the Creek, and 100 feet adjacent to
the Creek.

BUFFER DIMENSIONS:  Various, 0 to 130 feet. (25% along SR 203 missing)

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1985

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: The buffer is route 203 for a
section which means there is no buffer and the road runoff flows directly into the wetland. The
buffer has been mowed extensively, excavated/or bulldozed in some areas, and trampled in
others. The portion that backs onto lots appears to be in the best shape.  Only one instance of
yard waste was seen. The areas with thick buffer are diverse and healthy and show lots of
wildlife, especially birds.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 15+ acres, 70% PEM,
10% PSS, 15% PFO; probably a Category 2 wetland. Banks of the Creek are disturbed
physically and chemically (oil residue).  Banks of the creek have been highly disturbed by shoes,
tires from OTV's. Erosion and sedimentation is occurring in the creek. Vegetation has been
trampled in many places (worse than in 1988). Water was clear in 1985, but is now somewhat
turbid in places. The stream is salmonid habitat (home owner).  Vegetation= Typhlati,
Phalarun, Junceffu, Juncensi, Juncaccu, Careobnu, Scirmicr, Oenasarm, Spirdoug, Poputric,
Thujplic, Alnu Rubu, Sali Scou, Sali Sitch, Rubuspec, Rubudisc, Oemlcera, Loniinvo, Pyrufusc.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING: Biofiltration occurs for half of the buffer
at least along areas where buffer is forested and/or is greater than 50 feet wide (see from
presence of invasive species and lack of sediment).  Nutrient uptake occurs in areas off back side
of lots, but not along SR203. Habitat diversity in forested buffer areas that are thick (greater
than 25 feet), but not very diverse off areas that are typha, Phalaris PEM type wetlands that are
adjacent to SR203.  The buffer is also not aesthetic along SR203.  Vegetation community is
lacking in the buffers along the road, and in areas north of the PEM pasture. It is good in
forested area. Physical disturbance is high in many places within the wetland. The buffer is
therefore not functioning in preventing physical disturbance.

                                            125







                                                                                 Appendilx A

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET?  For the most part. The worst problem is the lack of
buffer along SR203 where the worst source of point and non-point stormwater inputs. There is
also a lot of physical disruption around the wetland and buffer zone. This was also a problem in
T988 Aduring the last buffer :analysis.








                                                                               Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #17   LOCATION:  Kent Kangley Road and Witte Rd. SE, King County
STR:  33/22N/6E  THOMAS BROS. PAGE:  57, 58                        DRAINAGE:  Jenkins Creek


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE:  Construction of a golf course to the south and a club house
on the hill above the wetland to the east. Plus several multifamily residential units to the east.

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS:  Uphill was a forest, to the south was forest, and more
of a native vegetation zone (now golf course)

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  10% Golf course, 25% single family residential, 35%
multifamily residential, and 10 % agricultural.

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 50 feet

BUFFER DIMENSIONS: Various, 0 to 150 feet

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1983 to 1988, with most of
the work occurring in 1988

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 50% is 25 to 150-foot forest
buffer, 30% is 0 to 50-foot shrub buffer, and 20% is 0 to 50-foot landscaping grasses. Intrusions
consist of physical invasion including erosion and a minor amount of siltation and chemical
including point and non-point runoff. The wildlife habitat potential is good.  There are many
birds, small mammals, and amphibians. The vegetation complexity for both species and
community in the intact areas is high.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 15% PEM (carex, grass),
20% PSS (willow, spirea) and 65% PFO (cedar hemlock); 28 acres; possible Category 2
wetland.  Runoff= point and non-point source pollution including heavy metals loadings, oil and
grease from road runoff and siltation. Wildlife use is high for birds, small mammals, and
amphibians and the prey species numbers is low although is increasing with the new lots above
the wetland.  Habitat features are excellent for all, snags, brush/cover, food species, and
vegetation complexity. Vegetation= Tsughete, Thujplic, Alnurubr, Poputric, Oemlcera,
Rubuspec, Loniinvo, Smabrace, Menzfere, Oplohorr, Salilasi, Saliscou, Spridoug, Phalarun,
Carespp, Scircype, Ranurepe, Athyfeli, Polymuni, Glycgran.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING: The buffer functions for upland wildlife
habitat, as a protective barrier to physical intrusion. The wetland is so large that any deficient
buffer areas are still buffered by the first few feet of the wetland itself. There is no buffer along
the road, and in fact the road crews bulldoze the wetland edge every year causing physical
damage to the wetland. There is road runoff that has been shown to result in high heavy metals

                                            127







                                                                                    Appendix A

loadings in the vegetation. Biofiitration and sedimentation is occurring in the RID pond built
adjacent to the buffer along the NE edge of the wetland. In effect, loss of buffer along the
periphery has resulted in loss of 50 feet of wetland around the perimeter.


WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? Various. The permittee was required to renew the
vegetation along the logging road along the eastern border of the wetland and it has never been
done. Loss of functions along the south where the golf greens maintenance abuts the wetland in
places so mowing and fertilizer input is high to the wetland. The road along the eastern border
has cut into the buffer and so is now directly adjacent to the wetland in places allowing runoff
and physical intrusion into the wetland. Goals were attainable but were not all attained because
of human activities.


































                                               128








                                                                               Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #18   LOCATION:  SW Auburn Black Diamond Rd, and SE 324 St.,
King County
STR:  13/21N/5E   THOMAS BROS. PAGE:                    DRAINAGE:  Soos Creek


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE: Single family residences, multiple units

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Forested, scrub-shrub wetland with surrounding
medium age second growth forest, few
residences.

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE: 85 % single family residences, 15 % native vegetation.

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 25 feet, 50-foot building setback

BUFFER DIMENSIONS:  Various, 0 to 35 feet

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1987

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: There are areas cleared of
vegetation to the north. The wetland to the east goes off the property and there is no buffer
there. There is a lot of dumping (tires, refuse). Yard waste dumping is the worst on this site of
any studied; huge mounds of grass and wood clippings. There is spraying of herbicides along
the road directly adjacent to the wetland. There has also been some clearing along the road.
Physical damage is perhaps the greatest threat.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: Wetland is 3 acres:
Possibly a Category 2 or 3 wetland.  15% PEM (Phalarun,Juncensi), 65% PSS (Salispp), 20%
PFO (Alnurubr). The wetland is also located off the plat and is receiving most of the disturbance
from there. There is also horse activity in the wetland which is affecting water quality. There is
obvious siltation input as well as turbidity mostly due to fecal material and trampling from
horses. There are a few snags and shrub cover (willows) is extensive. The density of bird life is
great, but not sure about diversity.  There are a few snags, and brush cover is high. The
wetland is mostly emergent reed canary grass meadow, but does have a little PSS and PFO. The
overall wetland is diverse. Vegetation= Alnu rubr, Sali lasi, Salisitc, Spirdoug, Symphalba,
Oemlcera, Athyfeli, Urtidioe, Phalarun, Junceffu, Carespp.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING: Biofiltration of road runoff and lot runoff
is not happening to the extent it should.  Pesticides used to kill a section of the buffer are also
entering the wetland. Habitat diversity is minimal because of the narrow width of the buffer.
There is no buffer along the road to stop noise or afford an aesthetically pleasing view of the
wetland.

                                            129







                                                                               Appendix A

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET?  Yes, but they were not appropriate. The wetland edge
was mistakenly marked and so the buffer was not as large as was thought. The site adjacent has
no buffer at all and there are some problems with human and horse intrusion into the wetland.












































                                             130








b                                                                                            Appendix A

      BUFFER SITE #19 LOCATION: SE Auburn Black Diamond Rd., and SE 325 PI.
      King County
       STR:  18/21N/6E         THOMAS BROS. PAGE:                  DRAINAGE  Soos Creek


      TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE: Construction of single family residential

      PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Auburn Black diamond rd, Covington Creek (class 1
       stream), forested (20%) and pasture (25%).

       CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  50% residential units, 20% native vegetation (mixed
       coniferous/deciduous and shrubs), 30% Auburn Black Diamond rd and Covington Creek.

       BUFFER REQUIREMENTS:  50 foot plus 15-foot building setback, home owners to form an
       association to monitor the wetland and buffer.

       BUFFER DIMENSIONS:  Variable, 25 to 200

       WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1987

       IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? As best as can be determined

       BUFFER:  CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING:  There is some road gravel that
       is now running a path within 25 feet of wetland CC19. Some of buffer is forested. Vegetation=
       PSEUMENZ, ACERCIRC, ALNURUBR, ROSA SPP., SALISCOU,SAMBRACE,
       RUBUPARV, RUBUSPEC, GAULSHAL, RUBUURSI, DICEFORM, POLYMUNI,
       PTERAQUI, URTIDIOE.

       WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: Covington Creek 19
       CLASS 2, 10+ acres. Covington Creek is a Class 1 stream. Runoff= point and non-point.
       Signs of domestic animals in wetland, so no nesting birds or small mammals. Vegetation=
       RUBUSPEC, SPIRDOUG, ALNURUBR, POPUTRIC, THUJPLIC, TSUGHETE, RUBUDISC,
       SALILASI

       CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING:  Wildlife habitat, physical protection from
       owners, noise block from Auburn Black Diamond Rd., drainage block from source and non-point
       pollution, fertilizer from houses, flood storage, habitat diversity

       WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? Mostly, the road through the buffer was not addressed
       in the requirements. One owner heard nothing about a home owner's booklet or discussions to
       preserve the buffers and wetlands.




                                               131







                                                                              Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #20   LOCATION:  124-128 Ave SE and SE 78-89th St., King County
STR; 28,33/24N/5E  THOMAS BROS. PAGE 28                             DRAINAGE:May Creek


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE: Multiple units of high density single family residences

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: 30+ year old second growth forest,

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  85% high density, single family residents (65% lots,
15% paved, grassy sidewalks), 15 % young second growth native vegetation.

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 25 feet

BUFFER DIMENSIONS: Various, 0 to 25

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1987 to 1989

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? Yes

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: The buffers were established at
25 feet in 1987, but have been lost to the back of lots, or for sidewalk area since then. It even
looks like a sidewalk was being used for the buffer in a few places. There is lots of yard waste
along the buffer/wetland edge.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: 10% PEM (mostly reed
canary grass), 80% PSS (spirea, some willow), and 10% PFO (alder cedar); probably Category 3
wetland.  The wetlands on the site are small Category 3 type, mostly PSS, low diversity with lots
of invasive species. Runoff= point and non-point source with definite nutrient loadings, and
possible road runoff. Wildlife potential is low for birds (crows and robins) because of lack of
habitat.  There are a few snags and some brush areas that are suitable habitat, but the wetlands
are so small that not many creatures can survive. Vegetation= Thujplic, Tsughete, Alnurubr
Poputric, Acercirc, Rhampurs, Salix spp, Spirdoug, Rubuspec, Loniinvo, Junceffu, Phalarun,
and Ranurepe.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING: The encroachment into the buffer on so
much of the site means there is very little left for buffering functions of any kind.  A 25-foot
strip does not leave much for noise control let alone cover, food, biofiltration, nutrient uptake.
Invasive species of blackberry are taking over these areas.

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? Perhaps the first year, but not currently.





                                           132








                                                                            Appendix A

BUFFER SITE #21 LOCATION: 116 Ave SE 76 St., King County
STR: 28/24N/5E THOMAS BROS. PAGE: 28                             DRAINAGE: May Creek


TYPE OF LAND USE CHANGE: Construction of multiple single family residences

PRE-EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Forested, 30+ years old second growth, pasture, and
low density residential.

CURRENT ADJACENT LAND USE:  35% single family residential, 15% agricultural fields,
50% native vegetation (30+ years second growth).

BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: Variable. 50 feet on wetland (Class 2, King Co.), 200 feet on
creek (class 5)

BUFFER DIMENSIONS: Various, 0 to 150, and within the 25-foot floodplain

WHEN WAS THE LAND USE CHANGE IMPLEMENTED? 1987

IMPLEMENTED AS PLANNED? As far as can be determined

BUFFER: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: Biofiltration, nutrient uptake
on lots adjacent to wetland, habitat diversity limited because they cut down much of the
vegetation and replanted with ornamental shrubs, flood storage since uphill from the stream, and
protection from intrusion where buffer is intact.

WETLAND: CURRENT CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONING: Wetland is medium size
greater than 1 < 10 acres, Class 2 (King Co.); forested and scrub/shrub, adjacent to Class 5
stream.  It functions as flood storage from stream, diverse habitat availability.  Runoff= point
and non-point.  Fertilizer inputs affecting wetland in areas adjacent to two lots where invasive
species are present (JUNCEFFEU, and PHALARUN). There is no buffer by road near entrance
so wetland edge is highly disturbed. Cement truck washout into wetland and ranurepe, and junc
effu only there. Vegetation= THUJPLIC, ALNURUBR, POPUTRIC, RHAMPURS,
RUBUDISC, RUBULASI, OEMLCERA, PRUNEMAR, LYSIAMER, OENASARM,
RANUREPE, MAIADILA, STACCOOL, SCIRMICR, CARESPP, PHALARUN, JUNCEFFU,
JUNCENSI.

CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF FUNCTIONING: There is limited biofiltration for nutrients
and sediment. (stream murky in places where buffer is missing), habitat diversity, visual screen,
flood storage actually quite good for stream.

WERE THE BUFFER GOALS MET? Some yes, some no. Did not ascribe buffer as NGPE
and residents who abut wetland and stream have included the buffer into their lots and mowed
much of the buffer. Also, there was no buffer left on wetland that abuts the entrance road and
there is extreme disturbance to wetland there. Buffer is functioning where it is intact, but
disturbance is occurring where there is no buffer.

                                          133




                  Appendix A

                                I
                                I
                                I
                                I.
                                I
                                I.
                                I
                              a
                                I
                                I
                                I
                                I
                                I
                                I

134

                                I








                                                                                  Appendix B

The following sources of information were utilized in the literature search:

A. Computer Search Programs.

     AFSA; Enviroline; Water Resources; NTIS; Pollution; Life Sciences; AGRICOLA; and
     Biosis.

B. On-Line Library Collections.

      University of Washington libraries: Natural Sciences; Fisheries; Forestry; Engineering;
     and Architecture.

C. Existing Bibliographies.

     King County Sensitive Areas Ordinance Bibliography (1990); "Wetland Buffers: An
      Annotated Bibliography (Castelle et al., 1991a); "Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
      Replacement Ratios: An Annotated Bibliography (Castelle et al., 1991b); "Wetlands
      Protection" (USEPA Bibliographic Series, 1988).

D. Research Centers.

      Natural Resources Research Institute (Duluth, MN); Center for Wetlands (University of
      Florida, Gainesville); School for Oceanography (Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge);
      College of Forest Resources (University of Washington, Seattle); College of Forestry
      (Oregon State University, Corvallis).

E. Washington State Agencies.

      Department of Ecology; Puget Sound Water Quality Authority; Department of Fisheries;
      Department of Transportation.

F. Federal Agencies.

      Federal Highway Administration; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Soil Conservation
      Service; U.S. Forest Service; Environmental Protection Agency; and the U.S. Army Corps
      of Engineers.

G. State Agencies.

      California Department of Fish and Game; Oregon Department of Transportation; Idaho
      Transportation Department; Maryland Department of Natural Resources; Delaware
      Department of Wetlands & Aquatic Protection.

H. County Planning Departments.

                                             135







                                                                                 Appendix B

     King; Kitsap; Pierce; San Juan; Snohomish; Thurston; Whatcom.

I. City Planning Departments.

     Auburn; Bellevue; Bellingham; Des Moines; Everett; Federal Way; Kirkland; Redmond;
     Renton; Tukwila.

J. Professional Organizations.

     Association of State Wetland Managers; Environmental Law Institute Society of Wetland
     Scientists.

K. Environmental Organizations.

      Audubon Society; Conservation Foundation; Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation.

L. Individuals Contacted.

     J. Hoffmann, URS Consultants, Cleveland, Ohio; G. Rollins, California Dept. of Fish and
      Game; P. Dykman, Oregon Dept. of Transportation; D. Evans, City of Eugene Public
      Works; R.B. Tiedemann, Idaho Transportation Dept.

























                                             136










h  CURT SMTCH

                                           STATE OF WASM-I*TON
                                      DEPARTMENT OF WILDUFE
                        60 Capitol Way North a Olynpia, Washington 98501-1091   (206) 753-5700


          FINAL DRAFT:
          FEBRUARY 12, 1992

                             BUFFER NEEDS OF WETLAND WILDLIFE



















          p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.Ar


















           HABITAT MANAGEMENT DIVISION








                                                   p  3


                                                 137






                                                        Appendix C

The Fragment Connection by William Stolzenburg, Nature                                         4
Conservancy, July/August 1991:
"Fragmentation entails a biological fallout more complicated than
an arithmetic reduction of living open space might intuitivelyI
suggest. Ecologists have lately begun to see more clearly what
happens when, say, a big forest suddenly becomes a small forest
squeezed by development. From the isolated remnant disappear the
wide roamers--the bears, big cats and wolves.  The same goes for 
the deep forest specialists, types like the hooded warbler, the
goshawk and the marten.  Flooding in from the outside are theI
generalists, the common species of the edge--the starlings and
cowbirds, the opossums and raccoons. Like an onion peeled by the
layers, there comes a point when the core becomes nothing but theI
edge, a place where the generalists rule.' Page 20.
"According to population theory, the fewer the individuals, the
more potentially devastating the purely random forces of nature. A
roll of the demographic dice can leave a small population with too
many old, too few females, too little genetic variability--too littleI
internal rebound to survive. Natural catastrophes, like fires,
storms, droughts and disease--blows that might dent a big
population--can crush a small one.' Page. 20.









                                              138~~~~~~~~








                                                                        Appendix C

WETLANDS - PROVIDE FOOD, WATER, SHELTER FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE

Wetlands and their buffers are essential for wildlife. The complex interface of land and water is
used to meet life needs by 85% of terrestrial wildlife species in the State (Brown, 1985; Thomas,
1979).

One value provided by wetlands is production and maintenance of the public's fish and wildlife
resources.  If there is to be no-net-loss of wetland area and function, it is essential that wetland
protection measures and buffers be planned to protect fish and wildlife.

WETLAND SYSTEMS = WETLANDS + ADJACENT UPLANDS

Wetlands and the uplands adjacent to them form a physical, hydrologic, chemical and biologic
system.  Native fish and wildlife populations have evolved with this system and take advantage of
interactions.

Large numbers of wetland dependent wildlife need not only the wetland but also the adjacent
upland to meet essential life needs: food, water, shelter from climatic extremes and predators,
structure and cover for reproduction and rearing of young. For example, waterfowl feed
primarily in wetlands but most species nest on dry ground where nests will not be flooded.  In
the Columbia Basin, heavy grazing next to wetlands removed buffer vegetation and reduced
waterfowl production by 50% (Foster et al. 1984). A wetland may be preserved but if the
waterfowl nesting habitat in the adjacent upland is lost, a component of the wetland's function is
lost.

DISTURBANCE AND LOSS OF WILDLIFE FUNCTION

A person approaching heron or a flock of waterfowl can agitate and flush them even at distances
greater than 200 feet. In 1976-7, Department of Wildlife found migratory bird use increased
30-50 fold on three Columbia Basin wetlands where parking lots and access were relocated to
areas 0.25 to 0.5 mile from the wetlands (Foster et al. 1984). Conversion of farm lands to office
park along North Creek in King and Snohomish counties, significantly reduced the function of
the areas wetlands for migratory waterfowl although the wetlands remain.

Many of the wet pasture areas that provide waterfowl feeding are frequently not scored high in
wetland rating systems because of low diversity of plant life. If there is to be no-net-loss of
wetland wildlife function, even these will need sufficient buffers.

HABITAT FOR MOST SPECIES = PLANT STRUCTURE OVER DISTANCE

Animals evolved with different plant communities and hydrology in and around wetlands.  They
depend upon plant communities and their associated physical structures both inside and outside
the wetland. To retain full complements of wetland dependent wildlife, the plant structure in
adjacent uplands needs to be retained for sizable distances from the wetland edge.

                                             139







                                                                        Appendix C

Wetland dependent wildlife such as salamander, waterfowl, beaver, and mink use the adjacent
uplands to meet essential life needs. They are dependent on both the wetland and the adjacent
uplands. The buffer zones are areas where animals have needed separation and interspersion to
reduce competition and maintain populations. The more narrow the buffer left around a wetland
when land use changes, the more susceptible the wetland becomes to loss of habitat function and
productivity.  Remaining wetland wildlife are more concentrated and more vulnerable to disease
and predation.

WETLAND BUFFERS - ALSO ESSENTIAL FOR WETLAND-RELATED WILDLIFE

Natural vegetation next to wetlands moderates extreme environmental conditions. Plant structures
provide microclimates that keep water and surface temperature cooler in summer and warmer in
winter than surrounding areas.

Lush and divergent vegetation in wetland buffers provides food and cover for many species
ranging from large mammals such as deer and elk, to small ones such as voles and shrews.
These areas are used for rearing of young. They receive heavy use by animals that concentrate
near wetlands but are not necessarily wetland dependent.  In Grant County loss of wetland
buffers and the cover they provide significantly reduced pheasant populations to 20% previous
levels.

Wetland buffers provide nutrients and cover for aquatic systems and their organisms. Large
organic debris has been shown to be essential for native fish populations. It provides for pool
development and fish hiding cover. Also important is small organic debris, the leaf litter from
trees and shrubs. Ninety percent of the biological energy in some aquatic systems comes from
leaf litter. Buffers help to maintain existing fish and aquatic invertebrate levels. They also
maintain water quality by filtering sediments and pollutants.

WETLANDS WITH OPEN WATER COMPONENTS - NEED LARGER BUFFERS

Brown (1985) reports that 50 vertebrate species use the water-shrub edge for primary breeding or
feeding; 46 use the water-forest edge, 98 use the riparian zone of herbaceous wetland, and 85 use
ponds. Medin and Clary (1990-1991) found more than 3 times the bird biomass and species
richness and mammal density and biomass in beaver ponds wetland complex than in adjacent
riparian areas. USFWS reports show that wetland dependent species, dependent in part on open
water, needed large buffers.

EVEN SMALL WETLANDS NEED BUFFERS

Size is not the main determinant wetland value to wildlife and need for
protection. A Columbia basin study (Foster et al. 1984) showed that there was an inverse
relationship between wetland size and waterfowl production. Highest density of ducklings were
observed on wetlands of five acres or less in size and were particularly abundant on wetlands


                                              140








                                                                         Appendix C

from 0.1 to 1.0 acre. In this study 68% of nests were within 100 feet of water and all but six of
the rest were within 300' of the water.

Many amphibians achieve their highest densities in small wetlands (McAllister and Leonard,
pers. observation). Long-toed salamander is one example.  It cannot survive in the presence of
healthy fish populations.  It breeds in small temporary ponds.  In small headwater streams of the
Pacific Northwest, amphibians are the dominant vertebrates. Their numbers and biomass in these
small streams are often greater than that of coldwater fishes in their optimal
habitat (Bury et al. 1991).

Small wetlands are frequently very sensitive to impacts.  For   example, when stream gradient is
greater than 4%, most beaver pond wetlands are less than 2 acres in size. They are very
sensitive to silting and increased stream flows from logging in a watershed. They suffer greater
losses from 'blowouts' in high flow events. They may lose their soils and all vegetation in such
an event.

DRY CLIMATES CONCENTRATE WILDLIFE USE

Influence of the water table on the landscape and vegetation is often reduced on the eastside of
the state with more abrupt wetland-upland edges. Wildlife use tends to be concentrated closer to
water in drier climates. Hall (1970) showed more narrow beaver use on streams in eastern
California than had been reported in the literature (100' vs. 328'). Mudd (1975) showed
minimum riparian area for maximum pheasant and deer use to be 75 feet in one eastern
Washington study.

SUMMARY

To retain wetland dependent wildlife in important wildlife areas, buffers need to retain plant
structure for a minimum of 200-300 feet beyond the wetland.  This is especially the case where
open water is a component of the wetland or where the wetland has heavy use by migratory birds
or provides feeding for heron. The size needed would depend upon disturbance from adjacent
land use and resources involved.

In western Washington wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 300' upland
buffers for high impact (urban) land uses and 200' upland buffers for low impact (rural) land
uses. In eastern Washington wetlands with important wildlife functions should have 200' upland
buffers for high impact land use and 100' buffers for low impact land uses.

Priority species or especially sensitive animals or wetland systems such as bogs/fens or heritage
sites may need even larger buffers wetlands to prevent disturbance or isolation of subpopulations
or other loss of wetland function or value. See Attachments 1, 2, and 3 for buffer ranges.




                                              141



                  I
                  I l
       Appendix C        I


                  I 
                  I
                  I
                  I
                  I1

                  I

                  I

                  I
                  I
                  I
                  I
                  I
                  I
142

                  I



I

I

I

I
I
I
I

I

I
I
I

I

I
I


I



                                 I
             Appendix C
                               i
                                 I
                                 I
                                 I
                                 I
                                 I
                                 U

                                 I
                                 I
                                 U
                                 I
                                 I
                                 U
                                 I
144                             q
                                 N








                                                                      Appendix C

WETLAND DEPENDENT SPECIES USE OF NON FORESTED BUFFERS TO WETLANDS

Wildlife Needs in Herbaceous Vegetation Next To Wetlands:


Blue-winged teal
Literature: Sousa, Patrick
J. 1985. USFWS HEP Model.
Select grassy vegetation for
establishment of nest sites
(Bellrose 1976). They need 3
acres of upland for each acre of
wetland for breeding. The annual
loss of untilled upland nesting
cover is a major factor
contributing to suppressed duck
production, regardless of water
conditions (Higgins, 1977).
Blue-winged teal nests in North
Dakota averaged 840 feet from
water (Duebbert and Lokemoen, 1976).
Optimum nest cover values are
assumed to occur at less than 820
feet from any wetland other than
ephemeral wetlands.





                                          Great Blue Heron
                                          Literature: Short, H. L. and
                                          R. J. Cooper, 1985. USFWS HEP
                                          Model. Great blue heron
                                          tolerate human habitation and
                                          activities about 328 feet
                                          from a foraging area and
                                          occasional, slow moving,
                                          vehicular traffic about 164
                                          feet from a foraging area.





                                              145






                                                                     Appendix C
WETLAND DEPENDENT SPECIES USE OF NON FORESTED BUFFERS TO WETLANDS
(cont.) 
Wildlife Needs in Shrub Vegetation Next To Wetlands:

Beaver
Literature:  Allen, Arthur W.
1983-. USFWS HEP Model.
HEP Model models on 600'
from wetland edge.  Trees                                       ..                     .;                           i
and shrubs closest to water                                                                              ',,
are used first (Bradt, 1938).            L                            ,
Majority of beaver feed
within 328 feet of water. Study
;in dry environs: 90% beaver
feed 100' from water (Hall, 1970).


                                                                                                       I




                                                                                                       l
                                                 Belted Kingfisher
                                                 Literature:  Prose,                                          I
                                                 Bart L. 1985. USFWS HEP Model.
                                                 Broods use shrub cover along
                                                 water for concealment (White,
                                                 1953. Roosts were 100 to 200
                                                 feet from water.





                                                                                                      I



                                              146






                                                                      Appendix C

WETLAND DEPENDENT SPECIES USE OF NON FORESTED BUFFERS TO WETLANDS
(cont.)

Wildlife Needs in Either Shrub Or Herbaceous Vegetation in Buffers:

Red-winged Blackbird
Literature: Short, Henry L.
1985. USFWS HEP Model.
Red-winged blackbirds nest in
wetlands. Only foraging sites
within 656 feet of wetlands
that contain nest sites are
assumed useful to blackbirds.


                                          Lesser Scaup
                                          Literature: Allen, Arthur W. 1985. USFWS HEP
                                          Model.  The majority of lesser scaup nests have been
                                          recorded within 33 feet of the water's edge. They have
                                          been found up to 1300 feet from water. The most
                                          preferred nesting habitat for lesser scaup is assumed to
                                          occur when a 164 foot zone surrounding permanently
                                          flooded intermittently exposed, and semipermanent
                                          wooded wetlands with 30% to 75% canopy cover of
                                          herbaceous vegetation. Lesser scaup most frequently
                                          are observed on wetlands with at least half of the
                                           shoreline bordered by trees and shrubs.

Gadwall
Literature:  Sousa, Patrick K.,
1985. USFWS HEP Model.
The average distance from nest
sites to water was less than 150
feet in several studies of
gadwalls: Miller and Collins,
1954; Gates, 1962; Vermeer, 1970.
But gadwall nests in North Dakota
averaged 1150 feet from water,
Duebbert and Lokemoen (1976).
Gadwalls typically select the
tallest, densest, herbaceous or
shrubby vegetation available in
which to nest.





                                              147







                                                                  Appendix C

WETLAND DEPENDENT FOREST SPECIES USE OF WETLAND FOREST BUFFERS


Wood Duck
Literature: Sousa P.J. and A. 
Farmer. 1983. USFWS HEP model.
Limiting features: open
water, marsh or shrubs & snags: 
 14 inch tree minimum but best
nest in 24-30 inch dbh.
Distance 0-1149 feet from 
water but 262' average,
(Gilmer, 1978).  Most
nests within 600' of water 
(Grice and Rogers, 1965).

                                      -       ~Mink
                                              Literature: Allen, Arthur W.
                                              1981. USFWS HEP Model.
                           __.=~~..       ~      Limiting features: cover
                                              surface water.
                                              Mink use forest 600' from
                                              open water (Melquist, 1981,
                                       K ?      j and Linn and Birks, 1981).
               *,ï¿½~~ ;  ~2 !  .  ,                  Most use is within 328' of
               , ,' 'U~ A .                    ~    wetland edge.  Mink cover
               i                      ,; ':_~' ~":' ~requirements: 75-100% forested.
               ':~.~ ~    ; ' ', '    "'   'Den sites in Idaho were placed
                 'A!--~~~~~ ~up to 328' from wetland edge.
Beaver
Literature: Alien, Arthur W.
1983. USFWS HEP Model.  Beaver
feed up to 600' from wetland edge.
Trees and shrubs closest to water
are used first (Bradt, 1938).                                 ,  /
Majority of beaver feed within 328'                             ..,.
of water.  Study in dry environs:                            t;J  

90% beaver feed 100' from water                             .'
(Hall, 1970).                                                      ',          +       ;

Lesser Scaup
Literature: Allen, Arthur W. 1986
USFWS HEP Model.
Nest up to 165' from water 
in herbaceous layer. 



                                          148







                                                            Appendix C

WETLAND RELATED SPECIES USE OF FORESTED BUFFERS OF WETLANDS




Pileated Woodpecker
Literature: Schroeder, 1983: 
USFWS HEP Model.
Pileated's nesting within
492' of water.  Most
nest within 164' of water.

   I~~~~~ ,





                                          Marten
                                          Literature: Allen, Arthur W.
                                          1982. USFWS HEP Model.
                   . '  .kTimber harvest decimates
                                          marten populations (Yeager,
                Ax'~:i~~  ~ ~l~   G1950). In Wyoming no use of
                                          harvested timber stands for 1
                        *  I.   _ ks _ ~year (Clark and Campbell,
           3w  _     w~~~-                           1976). In Maine, no use of
                                          clear-cut for 15 years
                             VT~~ ~           (Soutiere, 1979).
                                          WDW Management Recommendations:
                                          no harvest recommended within
                                          200' of riparian (Spencer,
                                          1981).











                                     149







                                                                      Appendix C

Literature

1. Allen, Arthur W. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mink. U.S. Dept. of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OSB-82/10.61.

2. Allen, Arthur W. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Beaver. U.S.
Dept. of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OSB-82/10.30.

3. Allen, Arthur W. 1986. Habitat Suitability Models: Lesser Scaup
(Breeding). U.S. Dept. of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OSB-82?10.117.

4. Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America. Stackpole Books,
Harrisburg, PA. 540 pp.

5. Bradt, G.W. 1938. A Study of Beaver Colonies in Michigan. J. Mammal. 19:139-162.

6. Brown, Reade E. tech. ed. 1985. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of
Western Oregon and Washington, Part 1 and 2. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Region.

7. Bury, Corn, Aubry, Gilbert, and Jones. 1991. Aquatic Amphibian Communities in Oregon
and Washington. Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-Fir Forests. pp. 353-362.

8. Buskirk, S.W., S.C. Forest, M.G. Raphael, and H.J. Harlow. 1989. Winter Resting Site
Ecology of Marten in the Central Rocky Mountains. Journal Wildlife Management 53 (1):
191-196.

9. Clark, T.W. and T.M. Campbell, III. 1976. Population Organization and Regulatory
Mechanisms of Martens in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming.  Proceedings of the First
Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, U.S.D.I. Natl. Park Serv., Trans. Proc.
Series 5. Vol I. pp. 293-295.

10. Duebbert, H.F. and J.T. Lokemoen. 1976. Duck Nesting in Fields of
Undisturbed Grass-legume Cover. Journal of Wildlife Management 40 (1):39-49.

11. Duebbert, H.F. and J.T. Lokemoen. 1980. High Duck Nesting Success in a
Predator-reduced Environment. Journal of Wildlife Management 44 (2)):428-437.

12. Foster, J.H., W.E. Tillett, W.L. Meyers and J.C. Hoag.  1984. Columbia Basin
Wildlife/Irrigation Development Study. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation. REC-ERC-83-6.

13. Gates, J.M. 1962. Breeding Biology of the Gadwall in Northern Utah. Wilson Bull. 74
(1): 43-67.


                                             150








                                                                     Appendix C

14. Gilmer, D.S., I.J. Ball, L.M. Cowardin, J.E.W. Mathisen and J.H. Riechman. 1978.
Natural Cavities Used by Wood Duck in North-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 42 (2): 288-298.

15. Grice, D. and J. P. Rogers. 1965. The Wood Duck in Massachusetts. Final Rep. Fed. Aid
Proj. W-19-R, Mass. Div. of Fish and Game.

16. Hall, J.G. 1970. Willow and Aspen in the Ecology of Beaver in Sagehen Creek,
California. Ecology 41 (3):484-494.

17. Higgins, K.F. 1977. Duck Nesting in Intensively Farmed Areas of North Dakota.  Journal
of Wildlife Management 41 (2): 232-242.

18. Jones, L.L.C. and M.G. Raphael. 1990. Ecology and Management of Marten in
Fragmented Habitats of the Pacific Northwest. Unpublished Progress Report, USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA.

19. Krapu, Gary L. 1974. Foods of Breeding Pintails in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife
Management 38 (3):408-417.

20. Ledever, R.J., W.S. Mazeu, and P.J. Metropulos. 1975. Population
Fluctuation in a Yellow-headed Blackbird Marsh. West. Birds 6 (1) 1-6.

21. Linn I.J. and J.D.S. Birks. 1981. Observations on the Home Ranges of Feral American
Mink (Mustela vision) in Devon, England. Pages 10881102 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley,
eds. Worldwide Furbearer Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1. Frostberg, MD.

22. Medin, Dean E. and Clary, Warren P. 1990. Bird Population in and Adjacent to Beaver
Pond Ecosystem in Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-432. Ogden UT:  U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station.

23. Medin, Dean E. and Warren P. Clary. 1991. Small Mammals of a Beaver Pond Ecosystem
and Adjacent Riparian Habitat in Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-445. Ogden UT: U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

24. Melquist, W.E. and J.S. Whitman, and M.G. Hornocher. 1981. Partitioning and
Coexistence of Sympatric Mink and River Otter Populations. Pages 187-220 in J.A. Chapman
and D. Pursley, eds. Worldwide Furbearer Conference Proceedings, Vol 1. Frostberg, MD.

25. Miller, A.W. and B.D. Collins. 1954. A Nesting Study of Ducks and Coots on Tule Lake
and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge. California Fish and Game 40:17-37.

26. Mudd, David R. 1975. Touchet River Wildlife Study. Applied    Research Section,
Environmental Management Division, Washington Game Department.  Bulletin No. 4.



                                            151







                                                                       Appendix C

27. Prose, Bart L. 1985 Habitat Suitability Index Models: Belted-kingfisher. U.S. Dept. of
Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OSB-82/1O10.87.

28. Schroeder, Richard. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Pileated Woodpecker. U.S.
Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-82110.39.

29. Schroeder, Richard L. 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models:
Yellow-headed Blackbird.  U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-82110.26

30. Short, Henry L. 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Red-winged Blackbird.  U.S.
Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/BR-82/10.95
31. Short, H.L. and R.J. Cooper: Habitat Suitability Index Models: Great Blue Heron. U.S.
Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/BR-82(10.99).

32. Sousa, Patrick J., and Adrian Farmer. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Wood
Duck. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.43.

33. Sousa, Patrick J. 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Blue-winged Teal. U.S. Dept.
of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.117.
34. Sousa, Patrick J. 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Gadwall
(Breeding). U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/BR-82/10.100.

35. Soutiere, E.C. 1979. Effects of Timber Harvesting on Marten in Maine. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 43 (4):850-860.

36. Spencer, W.D. 1981. Pine Marten Preferences at Sagehen Creek, California. Phd
Dissertation. University of California Berkeley.

37. Swanson, G.A., M.I. Meyer, J.R. Serie. 1974. Feeding Ecology of Breeding
Blue-Winged Teals. Journal of Wildlife Management. 38 (3): 396-407

38. Tobalske, Bret W., Raymond C. Shearer and Richard L. Hutto.  1991. Bird Populations in
Logged and Unlogged Western Larch/Douglas-fir Forest in Northwestern Montana. Res. Pap.
INT-442. Ogden UT: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station.

39. Veermer, K. 1970. Some Aspects of the Nesting of Ducks on Islands in Lake Newell,
Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 34 (1):126-129.

40. White, H.C. 1953. The Eastern Belted-kingfisher in the Maritime Provinces. Fish. Res.
Board. Can. Bull. 97.44 pp.

41. Yeager, L.E. 1950. Implications of Some Harvest and Habitat Factors on Pine Marten
Management. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Conf. 15: 319-334.

                                             152






                                                                                   Appendix C

p       Attachment 1: Buffer Size

        The question is always asked: How big do buffers need to be and what is the
        minimum size buffers can go down to? However, the question we need to ask is:
        What is needed to maintain a healthy wetland habitat system over time so that
        functions of that wetland are retained in changing rainfall pattern, in drought periods, in high
        rainfall events, in times of plant and animal diseases? The narrower the vegetated upland
        adjacent to wetland, the more susceptible wetland wildlife are to stresses and disturbances. Also
        the narrower this zone is, the more susceptible the area is to loss of habitat function and
        productivity through natural changes or human induced impacts. The following is a summary of
        buffer needs of selected species.

        Buffer Zone Needs of Fish and Wildlife:

             600 feet or larger:
                bald eagle nest, roost, perch, feeding - forest;
                cavity nesting ducks (wood duck, goldeneye, bufflehead, hooded
                merganser) - forest;
                heron rookery - forest;
                woodland caribou - forest;
                Western pond turtle - forest/nonforest;
                American white pelican nest colonies;
                sandhill crane nest and feeding - forest/nonforest.

            450 feet:
                 common loon nest sites;
                pileated woodpecker.   High use in wetland forest buffer zones.

            300-330 feet:
                beaver - forest/shrub;
                dabbling duck nesting (mallard, teal, redhead, etc.) - forest;
                mink - forest/shrub;
                gray wolf-forest;
                distance (disturbance free) to preserve heron feeding in wetland;
                distance from shoreline development to preserve black brant
                feeding in eelgrass beds.

            200 feet:
               (height of tallest tree in Western Washington):
                Columbia-white tailed deer in agriculture/forestry environment;
                trout and salmon influence zone (Western Washington)
                Beller's ground beetle - forested/nonforested;
                Hatch's click beetle - forested/nonforested;
                long-horned leaf beetle - forested/nonforested;
                moose in agricultural/forestry environments;
                spotted frog (Western Washington).

            165 feet:
                     lesser Scaup nesting - forested/nonforested;
                     harlequin duck - forested/nonforested.


                                                        153





                                                                          Appendix C

    100 feet:
       (potential height of tallest tree in Eastern Washington)
       trout and salmon food source, shade and undercut banks;
       trout and salmon influence zone (Eastern Washington) and
       source of large organic debris - forested;
       spotted frog (Eastern, Washington) - forested/nonforested;
       Van Dyke's Salamander - forested.

    30 feet:
        muskrat feeding and denning.

We know from the existing body of scientific literature that many of the wetland dependent
species have some critical life needs met in both the aquatic area adjacent to the wetland and
upland areas adjacent to the wetland. From these studies we can obtain a picture of the depths of
the buffer zone needed. We estimate what functions could be expected to be retained over time
with different size buffers. For example:

300 foot buffers    -   waterfowl breeding and feeding retained;
forested                diversity of mammal habitat including beaver,
                        mink, muskrat, deer if connected via stream
                        corridors or vegetation to other habitats.
                        Much of the habitat for cavity nesting ducks.
                        Diverse bird habitat including raptors,
                        woodpeckers and song birds.

200 foot buffers    -   waterfowl breeding but some reduced numbers.
forested                Most components but some reduction of mammal
                        populations. Most forest interior species as
                        well as forest edge species on larger
                        systems. Some of the mink and beaver remain.
                        Total complement of large organic debris
                        for salmonid fishes, and amphibians.
                        Minimum size for high level wildlife use in
                        western Washington.

100 foot buffers        waterfowl nests such as mallard but reduced
forested                populations.  Salmonid and nonsalmonid fishes
                        but reduced large organic debris in some
                        systems. Diverse song bird populations.
                        Reduced populations of beaver especially on
                        low gradient streams in western Washington.
                        May eliminate mink and marten except in
                        larger forested wetland systems. Minimum size for
                        high level wildlife use in
                        eastern Washington.

50 foot buffers         warm water fishes; muskrat and small
                        mammals only mammals represented.
                        Reduced song bird use.




                                               154






                                                                             Appendix C

Attachment 2: Priority SDecies Identified bv WDW  PHS Proaram

Buffer requirements listed in Rodrick, E. and R. Milner. 1991 Management Recommendations for
Washington's Priority Habitats and Species, Washington Department of Wildlife:

Priority species are wildlife species of concern due to their population status and their sensitivity to
habitat alteration.

Bald Eagle - design Management Plan to meet needs:
      nest - 1300; roost- 1300-2600; perch - 160-1000'; feeding - 1500'.

Common Loon
      nest - 450'

Priority Fish Species - Buffers on streams:
      Cutthroat trout                        50-200'
      Dolly varden (Bull trout)              50-200'
      Mountain sucker                        50-200'
      Mountain whitefish                     50-200'
      Pygmy whitefish                        50-200'
      Rainbow trout and steelhead            50-200'

Dunn's salamander
      Type 4 and 5 stream                    25-69'

Great Blue Heron
      colony or rookery                      820-981'

Harlequin duck
      nesting streams                        165'

Mountain caribou                             1300' on lakes and fens > 1/4 Acre.

Osprey
 nest                                         130-660'
 water bodies with nest                      200' on entire water body.

Yellow billed cuckoo
      riparian areas > 4 acres               300'

Mule Deer
      fawning in riparian
            unforested                       600'
            forested                        tall stands of conifers > 5 acres.

Sandhill crane
      nest                                   1300'
      feeding                                2600'

Van Dyke's salamander                        90-150' Forested wet talus edge

Western Pond turtle nest                     660' around wetlands.



                                                  155





                                                                         Appendix C

Attachment 3: Use Of Veaetated Wetlands by Fish for Breedin2. Feediniz. Predator Avoidance- Thermal
Protcion:

Estuarine, Habitats:j
Wetland Use,
Sources:                                        Brown (1985)                Simenstad, C.A.
                                                                     et al.
                                                                     1991. Estuarine
                                                                     Habitat
                                                                     Assessment
                                                                     Protocol. EPA
                                                                     910/9-91-037

F is-h es                                            Activit                Structure, UsedI

Pacific herring                                      Breed                  Eelgrass
tube snout                                           Breed/feed             Eelgrass
threespine stickleback                               Breed/feed             Marsh
bay pipefish                                         Feed                   Eelgrass
walleye,                                             FeedI
shinner perch                                        Feed                   Eelgrass
striped seaperch                                     Feed                   Eelgrass
saddleback gunnel                                    FeedI
black rockfish                                       Feed
prickly sculpin                                      Feed                   Marsh
buffalo sculpin                                      Breed/feed             Marsh
Pacific staghorn sculpin                             Breed/feed             Eelgrass/marsh
starry flounder                                                             Eelgrass/marsh
chum salmon                                                                 Eelgrass/marsh
                           chinook salmon  Marsh~~~~~
chinok salmon                                                               Marsh
cutthroat trout                                                             Marsh
crescent gunnel                                                             Eelgrass
kelp perch                                                                  Eelgrass
lingcod                                                                     Eelgrass
penpoint gunnel                                                             EelgrassI
snake prickleback                                                           Eelgrass
northern anchovy                                                            Eelgrass
eulachon                                                                    Eelgrass/marshI
surfperches                                                                 Eelgrass

Freshwater Habitats (From WDW)1

cutthroat trout                                 feeding                     marsh/pond/streanm/
                                                                      wet pasture/forestI
cohio salmon                                    feeding                     marsh/pond/stream

Olympic mudminnow                               feeding/breeding            wet pasturea/foest
                                                                      pasture/forest.

                                               156                                                          4






                                                                                 Appendix C

P     From Brown (1985) Appendix 10:

     Fishes                                         Activity                   Veetation/water

     shinners                                       feeding                    stream vegetation
     tench                                          feeding/breeding           stream/lake/marsh
     bullheads                                      breeding                   pond/lake/stream
     threespine stickleback                         breeding                   pond/lake/stream
     black crappie                                  breeding                   pond/lake/stream
     yellow perch                                   breeding/feeding           pond/lake/marsh
                                                                             stream.
     From Brown (1985) Appenxix 2:

     Loss of adjacent forest vegetation through forest practices are expected to
     impact 51 species of fish in waters adjacent to the forest practice and 29
     species of fish off site.

     Buffers Recommendations on Both Sides of Stream for Fish:

       Priority Species                             USFWS Habitat               Erman, D.C.,
       Management                                   Suitability Index           J.D. Newbold,
       Recommendations                                                          K.B. Roby. 1977.
                                                                             Evaluation of
                                                                             Streamside
                                                                             Bufferstrips for
                   br~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~Protecting
                                                                             Aquatic
                                                                             Organisms. Cal.
                                                                             Water Resource
                                                                             Center

     Provide L.O.D.                                 Erosion control &           Maintain stream
                                                   undercut banks             sediments and
                                                                             fish food chain.

        50-200'                                        100'                        100'















                                                      157






                                                                          Appendix C

Attachment 4: Western Washington Wetland Associated Snecies

Condensed from Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests
of Western Oregon and Washington, E. Reade Brown, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, June 1985:

208 terrestrial species dependent upon structure for primary breeding or feeding in wetland systems and
type of structure needed:

M - Dependent on only mature forested wetland and/or wetland and
   upland for a primary breeding or feeding function. Therefore
    these species are dependent on mature forest structure. Trees in
    Mature Forest average a minimum of 21 inches dbh.

 O - Dependent on only old growth forested wetland and/or upland for a
    primary breeding or feeding function. Old-growth dependent.

 XX - Species has primary breeding and/or feeding listed only in
    wetland. This demonstrates a strong wetland association.

Prioritv SDecies (Underlined are Wetland Associated Priority Species.)

*(State and Federal Concern Species) SE-State Endangered; FT-Federal
  Threatened; ST-State Threatened; FC2-Federal Candidate Category 2;
  FC3-Federal Candidate Category 3; FP-Federal Proposed; SC-State
  Candidate; SM-State Monitor).

                                                      Herbaceous    Shrub           Tree
AMPHIBIANS
Northwestern salamander                                    x             x            x
long-toed salamander                                      x              x            x
Pacific giant salamander                                                              x
Olympic salamander                                                                    x
Dunn's salamander *(SC)                                                               x
Western red-backed salamander                                                         xM
rough-skinned newt                                        x              x            x
western toad                                              x              x
Pacific tree frog                                         x              x            x
tailed-frog                                                                           x
red-legged frog                                            x             x
Cascades frog                                              x             x            x
spotted frog *(SC)                                        x              x            x

REPTILES
painted turtle                                             x             x
western pond turtle *(ST,SC,FC2)                           x             x
western skink                                              x             x
 sharptail snake *(SM)                     "                                            x
ring-necked snake *(SM)                                                  x
 gopher snake                                               x             x

                                                 158






                                                                            Appendix C

                                                       Herbaceous    Shrub             Tree

western terrestrial garter snake                                           x
common garter snake                                         x              x

BIRDS
American bittern                                            x
rt blue heron *(SM)                                          XX                           XX
green-backed heron *(SM)                                                   XX
Canada goose                                                 XX
wood duck                                                    x                            xM
green-winged teal                                            XX
mallard                                                      XX
northern pintail                                             XX
blue-winged teal                                             XX
cinnamon teal                                                XX
northern shoveler                                            XX
gadwall                                                      XX
Eurasian wigeon                                              XX
American wigeon                                              XX
harlequin duck                                                                            xM
Barrow's goldeneye                                                                        xM
bufflehead                                                                                xM
hooded merganser                                                                          xM
common merganser                                                                          xM
turkey vulture *(S)                                          x                            x
osprey *(SM)                                                                              XXO
black-shouldered kite                                        x                            XX
bald eagle *(ST, FT)                                                                      x
northern harrier                                             XX
sharp-shinned hawk                                                                        x
Cooper's hawk                                                                             x
red-tailed hawk                                                                           x
rough-legged hawk                                            x
merlin *(SM)                                                 XX             XX
American kestrel                                             x                            xM
gyrfalcon *(SM)                                              XX
ring-necked pheasant                                         XX
ruffed grouse                                                                             x
Virginia rail                                                XX
sora                                                         XX
American coot                                                x
 sandhill crane *(SE)                                         XX
killdeer                                                     XX
 spotted sandpiper                                            XX
 common snipe                                                 XX
 least sandpiper                                              XX
 marbled murrelet *(SC, FP)                                                                xO
band-tailed pig eon                                                         x             x
 mourning dove                                                x                            x
common barn owl                                              x


                                                  159





                                                                          Appendix C

                                                     Herbaceous          ShrUb       Tree

western screech owl                                        x              x             xM
great-horned owl                                                                        xM
barred owl *(SM)                                                                        xM
long-eared owl                                             x              x             XX
short-eared owl                                            XX
northern saw-whet owl                                                                   XXM
common nighthawk                                           x
Yaux's swift *(SC)                                         x              x             xO
chipping sparrow                                                          x
savannah sparrow                                           XX
fox sparrow                                                               x
song sparrow                                               x              x
Lincoln's sparrow                                          XX             XX
red-breasted sapsucker                                                                  XX
downy woodpecker                                                                        x
northern flicker                                                          x             xM
olive-sided flycatcher                                                                  x
western wood-pewee                                                        x             xM
willow flycatcher                                                         XX
Anna's hummingbird                                         x              x             x
rufous hummingbird                                         x              x             x
yellow-breasted chat                                                      XX
western tanager                                                           x             xM
black-headed grosbeak                                                     x             x
lazuli bunting                                                            x
rufous-sided towhee                                                       x
hermit warbler                                                                          xM
common yellowthroat                                        XX             XX
MacGillivray's warbler                                                    XX            XX
Wilson's warbler                                                          x             x
 Bohemian waxwing                                                          XX
 cedar waxwing                                                                           x
 northern shrike                                            XX             XX
 European starling                                          x                            x
 Hutton's vireo                                                            x
 warbling vireo                                                                          x
 red-eyed vireo                                                                          x
 yellow warbler                                                            x
 black-throated warbler                                                    x
 Townsend's warbler                                                                      xM
 black-capped chickadee                                                    x             xM
 chestnut-backed chickadee                                                               xM
 red-breasted nuthatch                                                                   xM
 white-breasted nuthatch                                                                 xM
 Bewick's wren                                                                           x
 house wren                                                                              x
 winter wren                                                                             xM
 marsh wren                                                 XX
 golden-crowned kinglet                                                                  xM


                                                  160






                                                                          Appendix C

                                                      Herbaceous         Shrub        Tree

rubv-crowned kinelet                                                      x             x
western bluebird *(SC)                                     x              x
Swainson's thrush                                                                       x
hermit thrush                                                                           x
American robin                                             x              x
varied thrush                                                                           xM
water (American) pipet                                     x
tree swallow                                               x              x             xO
violet-green swallow                                       x              x             xM
northern rough-winged swallow                              XX
cliff swallow                                              x
barn swallow                                               x
gray jay                                                                  x             xM
Steller's jay                                                                           x
American crow                                              x              x             xM
common raven                                               x              x             xM
Hammond's flycatcher                                                                    xM
western flycatcher                                                                      xM
black phoebe                                               XX             XX
purple martin *(SC)                                        XX             XX            XXM
golden-crowned sparrow                                                    x
white-crowned sparrow                                                     x
dark-eyed junco                                            x              x
red-winged blackbird                                       XX
yellow-headed blackbird                                    XX
Brewer's blackbird                                         x              XX
brown-headed cowbird                                                      x             x
northern oriole                                                                         xM
pine grosbeak                                                                           xM
purple finch                                                                            x
red crossbill                                                                           xO
pine siskin                                                                             xM
lesser goldfinch                                           x              x
American goldfinch                                         x              x
evening grosbeak                                                                        x

MAMMALS
Virginia opossum                                           x                            XX
Pacific water shrew *(SM)                                                               x
dusky shrew                                                                             x
Pacific shrew                                                             x
water shrew                                                                             XX
Trowbridge shrew                                                                        x
vagrant shrew                                              x
shrew mole                                                                x             x
broad-footed mole                                          x
coast mole                                                 x              x
Townsend's mole                                            x
pallid bat *(SM)                                           x                            x


                                                 161





                                                                          Appendix C

                                                     Herbaceous        Shrub         Tree

big brown bat                                              x             XX            xM
silver-haired bat                                                                      xO
hoary bat                                                                x             xM
California myotis                                                                      xO
long-eared myotis *(SM)                                                                xO
Keen's myotis *(SM)                                        x             x
little brown bat                                           x             x             xO
fringed myotis                                             x             x
long-legged myotis *(SM)                                                 x             x
Yuma myotis                                               x              x             xM
Townsend's big-eared bat *(SC,FC2)                                                     x
coyote                                                     x             x
black bear                                                 x             x
raccoon                                                    x             x             x
wolverine *(SM, FC2)                                                                   x
river otter                                                              XX            XX
marten                                                                                 xM
striped skunk                                             x              x
ermine                                                                                 x
mink                                                      XX             XX            XX
spotted skunk                                             x              x
bobcat                                                     x             x
elk                                                        x             x             x
mule and black-tailed deer                                 x             x
Columbian white-tailed deer                                       x             x      x
mountain beaver                                                          x
yellow-pine chipmunk                                                     x
beaver                                                                   XX            XX
bushy-tailed woodrat                                                                   x
dusky-footed woodrat                                                                   x
 deer mouse                                                 x             x
 western harvest mouse                                      x
 southern red-backed vole                                                               xM
 geray-tailed vole *(SM)                                   XX
 long-tailed vole                                          x              x
 montane vole                                              x
 creeping vole                                             x              x
 water vole                                                 XX
 Townsend's vole                                            x
 northern bog lemming *(SM)                                 x
 Western jumping mouse                                      x
 Pacific jumping mouse                                     x              x
 porcupine                                                  x             x             x
 nutria                                                    XX
 brush rabbit                                               x                           x
 eastern cottontail                                                       x





                                                 162







                                                                             Appendix C

78 Other species listed in Brown as having primary breeding and/or feeding in
wetland systems without reference to structure:

Cope's giant salamander*(SM) riparian to springs and creeks.
Van Dyke's salamander *(SC)          wet meadows, marshes, bogs, swamps.
ensatina                             riparian forest/shrub to sloughs.
bullfrog                                     riparian ponds and wetlands.
racer                                        riparian to flowing systems.
common     loon *(SC)                        herb/grass riparian on lakes.
pied-billed grebe                    ponds, lakes and marsh and riparian.
homed grgim *(SM)                            lakes and estuary.
red-necked g       *(SM)                     estuary.
eared grebe                          estuary, lakes and marshes.
western/Clark's grge  *(SM)                  lakes and estuary.
double-crested cormorant                     estuary.
great egret *(SM)                            beach, marsh, lakes and ponds.
black-crowned nijghl heron *(SM)    sloughs, lakes, ponds, marshes.
tundra swan                          beaches, lakes, and wet meadows.
trumpeter swan                               beaches, lakes and wet meadows.
greater white-fronted goose                  grass, wet meadow, estuary.
snow goose                                   wet meadow, estuary.
brant                                        estuary.
canvasback                           estuary, lakes and sloughs.
redhead                              estuary, lakes, ponds.
ring-necked duck sloughs, ponds, lakes.
greater scaup                        estuary, lakes.
lesser scaup                         estuary, lakes, ponds.
oldsquaw                              saltwater.
ruddy duck                           estuary, lakes, ponds, marshes.
black-bellied plover                         estuary, beach, wet meadow.
lesser golden plover                         estuary and beach.
snowy plover                                 saltwater beach.
semipalmated plover                          saltwater beach and estuary.
greater yellowlegs                           estuary, lakes, ponds, marsh, meadow.
lesser yellowlegs                    estuary, lakes, ponds, marsh, meadow.
solitary sandpiper                   riparian stream, lakes, ponds, marsh.
willet                                       freshwater beaches.
wandering tattler                     saltwater beaches.
whimbrel                             riparian grass on saltwater beaches.
long-billed curlew *(SM)                     ponds, marsh.
marbled godwit                               saltwater and freshwater beaches.
ruddy turnstone                              saltwater beach.
black turnstone                       saltwater beach.
surfbird                                     saltwater beach.
red knot                             estuary and saltwater beach.
sanderling                           estuary and saltwater beach.
semipalmated sandpiper                       estuary beach and riparian and marsh.
Baird's sandpiper                            beach, lakes, ponds, and wet meadows.
pectoral sandpiper                           beach, pond, marsh, wet meadow.
sharp-tailed sandpiper                       marsh.
rock sandpiper                               saltwater beaches.


                                                  163





                                                                             Appendix C

dunlin                                       estuary, beach, grass and wet meadow.
buff-breasted sandpiper                      beach and marsh.
short-billed dowitcher                       beach and grass.

Wilson's phalarope                           estuary/beach, pond/marsh, wet meadow.
red-necked phalarope                         estuary.
Franklin's gull                              lake, pond, beach.
Bonaparte's gull                     estuary and lakes.
Heerman's gull                               estuary and beach.
mew gull                                     estuary, beach, river.
ring-billed gull                     estuary, beach, wet meadow.
California gull                      estuary/beach, river, lake/wet meadow.
herring gull                                 estuary, beach, river, lake.
Thayer's gull                                estuary, saltwater beach.
western gull                                 estuary and beach.
glaucous-winged gull                         estuary and beach.
glaucous gull                                estuary and beach.
Caspian tern *(SM)                           estuary and beach.
common tern                                 estuary, beach and river.
black tern *(SM)                             ponds, marsh, grass and wet meadow.
rock dove                                    saltwater beaches.
belted kingfisher                    estuary, stream, lake, marsh, pond.
horned lark                                  saltwater beaches.
American dipper                             riparian beaches, river and stream.
red fox                                     wet meadow.
grizzly bear *(SE, FT)                      wet meadow.
long-tailed weasel                   wet meadow.
mountain lion                        stream and spring riparian.
harbor seal *(SM)                            estuary, beach, river.
Nuttall's cottontail                 wet meadow.

Note: Other priority species dependent upon vegetated wetlands include:
cackling Canada goose, dusky Canada goose, Olympic mudminnow*(SC,FC2),
sandroller*(SM), cutthroat trout, Beller's ground beetle*(SC,FC2), Hatch's click beetle*(SC, FC2),
long-horned leaf beetle *(SC, FC3), Oregon silverspot butterfly*(ST, SC, FT).

Other species of special concern associated with wetlands: Olympic
 salamander*(SM), great egret*(SM), Aleutian Canada goose*(SE, FE);
yellow-billed cuckoo*(SC); pileated woodpecker*(SC); Lewis' woodpecker*(SC);
ash-throated flycatcher*(SM).












                                                   164






                                                                          Appendix C

Attachment 5: Eastern Washington Wetland Associated Soecies

Condensed from Thomas, Jack Ward. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests -
the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553:

Wetland type
 m - marsh (cattail, rush or sedge)
 d - deciduous trees and shrubs
 s -  flowing waters (streams, rivers and sloughs)
 I -  standing waters (ponds, lakes and reservoirs)

Trees
 M - Mature (80-159 years) plus Old Growth (160+ years)

 Priority Soecies (Underlined are both in Thomas and WDW Priority
               Species)

*(State and Federal Concern Species) FE-Federal Endangered; SE-State
 Endangered; FT-Federal Threatened; ST-State Threatened; FC2-Federal
 Candidate Category 2; FP-Federal Proposed; SC-State Candidate;
 SM-State Monitor)

266 Species with primary breeding and or feeding in wetland systems:

                                Wetland and/or Buffer Components

                                      Wetland Type          Herbaceous        Shrub         Tree
AMPHIBIANS
tiger salamander*(SM)                      m/d                    x
long-toed salamander                       m/d                    x                            x
tailed frog *(SM)                           s                     x
Great Basin spadefoot toad                 m                      x             x              x
western toad                               m/d                    x             x              x
Woodhouse toad *(SM)                        m/d                   x             x
Pacific treefrog                           m/d                    x             x              x
spotted frog *(SC)                         m/d                    x             x              x
leopard frog                               m/d                    x

REPTILES
painted turtle                             s/p                    x             x
western skink                               s/l                   x             x              x
ringneck snake *(SM)                       d                      x             x              x
common garter snake                        m/d                    x             x       x
side-blotched lizard                       s/i                    x             x
yellow-bellied racer                        s                     x             x              x
gophersnake                                s/l                    x             x
western terrestrial garter snake           m/d                    x             x              x
western rattlesnake                        m/d                    x             x              x
rubber boa                                 s                      x             x              x



                                                165





                                                                          Appendix C

                            Wetland and/or Buffer Components (cont.)I

                                      Wetland Type           Herbaceous       Shrub      T    ree
BIRDS
eared grebe                                 m                     x
pied-billed grebe              In                                 x
double-crested cormorant                    s                     x
American bittern                            mi/d                  x              x
Canada goose                                m                     x              x              x
mallard                                     m                     x              x              x
gadwall                                     mid                   x              x              x
pintail                                     m                     x              x
green-winged teal                           mid                   x              x              x
blue-winged teal                            m                     xI
cinnamon teal                               m                     x
American wigeon                             mid                   x              x              x
northern shoveler                           m                     x
redhead                                     m                     x
ring-necked duck                            mid                   x              x              x
lesser scaup                                m                     x              x
harlequin duck                              s                     x              x              xI
ruddy duck                  In                                    x
sandhill  crn *S)m                                                x              x
Virginia rail                               d                     x              x              x
sora                                        d                                    x              x
American cot                                mid.                  x              x       
snowy plover *(SE, FC2)                     m                     x                                           4
killdeer                                    m                     x
common snipe                                m                     x
long-billed curlew *(SM,FC2)                m                     x              xI
spotted sandpiper                           m                     x
willet                                      m                     x
American avocet                             m                     x
Wilson's phalarope                          m                     xI
California gull              In                                   x              x
ring-billed gull                           nm                     x              x
 Franklin's gull                   M                     
 Forster's tern *(SM)                        m                     x              x
black tern *(SM)                            m                     x
 dipper                                      s                     xx                            x
 winter wren                                 s                                    x              x
 long-billed (marsh wren)                    M.                    x              x
 northern waterthrush                        d                     x              x
 common yellow throat                        m                     x              x
 turkey vulture *(SM)                        s/i                   x              x
 prairie falcon                              m/d                   x
 peregrine *(SE, FE)                         mi/d                  x              x              x
 rock dove                                   s                     x
 black swift                                 Mid                   x              x
 white-throated swift                        s/I                   x              x


                                                 166





                                                                       Appendix C

                           Wetland and/or Buffer Components (cont.)

                                    Wetland Type         Herbaceous       Shrub         Tree

Say's phoebe                             s/l                  x             x              xbarn
swallow                                  m/d                  x
cliff swallow                            m                    x              x             x
common raven                             s/I                  x              x             x
marsh hawk (northern harrier)            m                     x             x
blue grouse                               s                    x             x             x
ruffed grouse                            d                                   x             x
sharp-tailed grouse*(SC, FC2)            s                     x             x
sage grouse *(SC, FC2)                   s                     x             x
bobwhite                                 d                     x             x             x
California quail                         d                     x             x             x
mountain quail                           s/l                   x             x             x
gray partridge                            s                    x
red-necked pheasant                      m/d                   x             x             x
upland sandpiper *(SE)                    m                    x
short-eared owl                          m                     x             x
hermit thrush                             s/I                                              xM
veery                                    d                                   x             x
water (American) pipet                   m                     x
Wilson's warbler                         d                                   x             x
bobolink                                  m                    x             x
western meadowlark                        m/d                  x             x
dark-eyed junco                           s                                  x             x
poorwill                                  m                                  x             x
Townsend's solitaire                     s/l                   x             x             x
orange-crowned warbler                   d                                   x             x
Nashville warbler                        d                                   x             x
Lincoln's sparrow                        d                     x             x             x
black-crowned night heron*(SM)            d                    x             x             x
 solitary sandpiper                       d                     x             x             x
black-chinned hummingbird                d                     x             x             x
 calliope hummingbird                     d                     x             x             x
 eastern kingbird                         d                                   x             x
 willow flycatcher                        s/i                                 x             x
 gray flycatcher                          s/I                   x             x             x
 black-billed magpie                       m/d                  x             x             x
 gray catbird                             d                                   x             x
 sage thrasher                            d  x
 American robin                           m/d                   x             x             x
 Swainson's thrush                        s/l                                 x             x
 loggerhead shrike *(SC)                  d                     x             x             x
 MacGillivray's warbler                   d                                          x
 Treeyellow-headed blackbird              m                     x             x
 red-winged blackbird                     m/d                   x             x
 Brewer's blackbird                       m/d                                 x             xx
 brown-headed cowbird                      m/d                  x             x             x


                                                167





                                                                          Appendix C

                            Wetland and/or Buffer Components (cont.)

                                     Wetland Type          Herbaceous       Shrub         Tree

lazuli bunting                            d                     x              x             x
lesser goldfinch                          d                     x              x
green-tailed towhee                       d                     x                     x      x
rufous-sided towhee                       d                                    x             x
sage sparrow *(SC)                        d                                    x             x
chipping sparrow                          d                     x              x             x
Brewer's sparrow                          d                     x              x             x
white-crowned sparrow                     d                     x              x             x
fox sparrow                               s/l                                 x              x
song sparrow                              d                                   x              x
yellow-billed cuckoo *(SC)                d                                    x             x
dusky flycatcher                          d                                   x              x
bushtit                                   d                                    x             x
yellow warbler                            d                                    x             x
yellow-breasted chat                      d                                    x             x
American goldfinch                        d                     x             x              x
cedar waxwing                             d                                   x              x
American redstart                         d                     x             x              x
northern oriole                           d                                   x              x
house finch                               d                     x              x             x
western flycatcher                        d                                    x             x
olive-sided flycatcher                    d                     x             x              x
 golden-crowned kinglet                    s/l                                 x              x
 ruby-crowned kinglet                      d                                                  x
 yellow-rumped warbler                     d                                                  x
 black-throated gray warbler               d                                    x             x
 Townsend's warbler                        d                                                  x
 western tanager                           d                                    x             x
 red crossbill                             d                                                  xM
 goshawk *(SC)                             d                                   x              xM
 sharp-shinned hawk                        d                                   x              x
 Cooper's hawk                             d                     x             x              x
 merlin*(SM)                               d                     x             x              xM
 mourning dove                             d                     x             x              x
 long-eared owl                            d                     x             x              x
 rufous hummingbird                        d                     x             x              x
 western kingbird                          d                     x             x              x
 Hammond's flycatcher                      d                                   x              x
 western wood pewee                        d                                   x              x
 Steller's jay                             d                     x             x              x
 common crow                               d                     x             x              x
 varied thrush                             s/I                                 x              x
 solitary vireo                            d                                                  x
 red-eyed vireo                            d                                   x              x
 warbling vireo                            d                                   x              x
 black-headed grosbeak                     d                     x                            x


                                                  168






                                                                         Appendix C

                            Wetland and/or Buffer Components (cont.)

                                     Wetland Type          Herbaceous      Shrub          Tree

evening grosbeak                          d                                   x              x
purple finch                              d                     x             x              x
Cassin's finch                            s/l                   x             x              x
pine siskin                               d                     x             x              x
great blue heron                          m/d                   x                            xM
red-tailed hawk                           d                     x             x              x
golden eagle *(SC)                        m/d                   x             x              x
bald eagle *(ST, FT)                      mid                   x             x              xM
osprey *(SM)                              s/l                   x             x              xM
great horned owl                          m/d                   x             x              x
common flicker                            d                     x             x              x
pileated woodpecker *(SC)                 s/l                                                xM
Lewis' woodpecker *(SC)                   d                     x             x              x
yellow-bellied sapsucker                  d                                                  x
Williamson's sapsucker                    d                                                  xM
hairy woodpecker                          d                                                  x
downy woodpecker                          d                                                  x
red-breasted nuthatch                     s                                                  xM
pygmy nuthatch                             s                                                 xM
wood duck                                 d                     x              x             xM
Barrow's goldeneye                        d                     x              x             xM
bufflehead                                 d                    x              x             xM
hooded merganser                          d                     x              x             xM
common merganser                          d                     x             x              xM
American kestrel                          d                     x             x              xM
barn owl                                  m/d                   x              x             xM
(western) screech owl                     d                     x             x              xM
pygmy owl                                 d                     x              x             x
barred owl                                d                     x             x              xM
saw-whet owl                              d                     x             x              x
Vaux's swift *(SC)                        m/d                                                xM
ash-throated flycatcher *(SM)             s                     x             x              xM
violet-green swallow                      d                                   x              x
tree swallow                              d                     x              x             x
black-capped chickadee                    d                                                  x
mountain chickadee                        d                                                  x
chestnut-backed chickadee                 d                                                  x
brown creeper                             d                                                  xM
house wren                                d                     x              x             x
western bluebird *(SC)                    d                     x              x             x
mountain bluebird                         d                     x              x             x
 starling                                  m/d                   x             x              x
house sparrow                             d                     x              x             x
burrowing owl                              s                    x              x             x
 belted kingfisher                         s/l                   x              x             x
 bank swallow                              m/d                   x              x



                                                 169





                                                                       Appendix C

                           Wetland and/or Buffer Components (cont.)

                                    Wetland Type         Herbaceous      Shrub         Tree

rough-winged swallow                     m/d                  x             x

MAMMALS
western jumping mouse                    mid                  x             x             x
small-footed myotis *(SM)                m/d                  x             x
western pipistrelle *(SM)                m/d                  x             x
western big-eared bat                    m/d                  x             x             x
yellow-bellied marmot                    s/I                  x             x
bushy-tailed woodrat                     d                                  x             x
puma (cougar)                            d                    x             x             x
bobcat                                   m/d                  x             x             x
opossum                                  d                    x             x             x
snowshoe hare                            s                    x             x             x
whitetail jackrabbit                     s                                  x
wolverine *(SM, FC2)                     m/d                  x             x             x
elk                                      s                    x             x             x
mule deer                                s/l                  x             x             x
white-tailed deer                        m/d                  x             x             x
porcupine                                s/I                  x             x             x
western gray squirrel *(SC)              d                                                x
hoary bat                                d                    x             x             x
 little brown myotis                      m/d                  x             x             xM
 Yuma myotis                              m/d                                              xM
 long-eared myotis *(SM)                  m/d                  x             x             xM
 long-legged myotis *(SM)                 m/d                  x             x             xM
 California myotis                        m/d                  x             x             xM
 silver-haired bat                        m/d                  x             x             xM
 big brown bat                            m/d                  x             x             xM
 eastern fox squirrel                     s/i                                              xM
 northern flying squirrel                 s/l                                              x
 raccoon                                  m/d                  x             x             xM
 fisher *(SC)                             s/I                                              xM
 vagrant shrew                            m/d                  x             x             x
 dusky shrew                              s/I                                              x
 Merriam shrew *(SC)                      s                    x             x
 coast mole                               s/I                  x             x            x
 pygmy rabbit *(ST, ST)                   s                    x             x
 yellow pine chipmunk                     d                                  x             x
 Townsend ground squirrel                 s/I                  x             x             x
 W. ground squirrel *(SM)                 s/l                  x
  Columbian ground squirrel                s/l                  x             x            x
  G.-Mantled ground squirrel               s/I                  x             x             x
  northern pocket gopher                   d                    x             x             x
  Great Basin pocket mouse                 s/l                  x             x            x
  western harvest mouse                    s/I                  x             x             x



                                                170






                                                                           Appendix C

                            Wetland and/or Buffer Components (cont.)

                                      Wetland Type          Herbaceous       Shrub          Tree

deer mouse                                 m/d                   x             x              x
n. grasshopper mouse *(SM)                 s/l                   x             x              x
heather vole                               s/1                   x             x              x
mountain vole                              s/I                   x             x              x
long-tailed vole                           s/I                   x             x              x
coyote                                     m/d                   x             x              x
gray wolf *(SE, FE)                        m/d                   x             x              x
red fox                                    m/d                   x             x              x
black bear                                 m/d                   x             x              x
short-tailed weasel                        d                     x             x              x
long-tailed weasel                         m/d                   x             x              x
badger                                     d                     x             x              x
striped skunk                              m/d                   x             x
northern water shrew                       s/l                   x             x              x
beaver                                     d                     x             x              x
water vole                                 d                     x             x              x
muskrat                                    m/d                   x             x              x
nutria                                     m/d                   x             x              x
mink                                       mid                   x             x              x
river otter                                mid                   x             x              x

Other eastside wetland associated Priority Species include silver-bordered bog
fritillary, sandroller, westslope cutthroat trout, black-necked stilt,
green-backed heron, great egret, Clark's grebe-Western grebe, horned grebe,
pied-billed grebe, trumpeter swan, moose, mountain caribou, pygmy shrew.

Other species of special concern associated with wetlands: Tiger
salamander*(SM), great egret*(SM), Aleutian Canada goose*(SE, FE);
pileated woodpecker*(SC); Lewis' woodpecker*(SC); ash-throated flycatcher*(SM).



















                                                 171