Snohomish river wetlands management plan final report

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

SNOHOMISH RIVER WETLANDS MANAGEMENT PLAN

FINAL REPORT

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

Prepared for:

Snohomish County
Department of Planning and Community Development

Funded by:

Washington State Department of Natural Resources and the
Washington State Department of Ecology

Department of Ecology funds were obtained from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
and appropriated for
Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

Prepared by:
Shapiro and Associates, Inc.
The Smith Tower, Suite 1400
506 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104

Property of CSC Libra&y

June 1989

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1

1 2. WETLAND RESOURCE VALUES
2.1 Methodology 4
2.2 Evaluation of Individual Units 10
2.3 Comparison of Wetland Units 29

3. MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS

3.1 Roles of Unit I 37
3.2 Roles of Unit II 38
3.3 Roles of Unit III 38
3.4 Roles of Unit IV 38
3.5 Roles of Unit V 39
3.6 Roles of Unit VI 39
3.7 Roles of Unit VII 39
3.8 Roles of Unit VIII 39
3.9 Roles of Unit IX 40
3.10 Alternative Management Scenarios
and Possible Additional Areas 40

4. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES

4.1 Objectives and Strategies for Unit I 49
4.2 Objectives and Strategies for Unit II 49
4.3 Objectives and Strategies for Unit III 50
4.4 Objectives and Strategies for Unit IV 51
4.5 Objectives and Strategies for Unit V 51
4.6 Objectives and Strategies for Unit VI 52
4.7 Objectives and Strategies for Unit VII 52
4.8 Objectives and Strategies for Unit VIII 53
4.9 Objectives and Strategies for Unit IX 55

5. SITE PLANS
5.1 Unit II 56
5.2 Unit IV 59
5.3 Unit VII 63
5.4 Unit VIII 65

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

6. REFERENCES 74

APPENDIX A: Resource Agency Correspondence

List of Figures

Figure 1 Wetland Units Map 2
Figure 2 Overall Wetland Units Site Plan 35
Figure 3 Site Plan-Unit II 57
Figure 4 Site Plan-Unit IV 61
Figure 5 Site Plan-Unit VII 64
Figure 6 Site Plan-Unit VIII 66
Figure 7 Character Sketch Dike Trail near Boat Launch 68
Figure 8 Interpretative Structure Options 70

List of Tables

Table 1 Unit I Wetland Values 12
Table 2 Unit II Wetland Values 14
Table 3 Unit III Wetland Values 16
Table 4 Unit IV Wetland Values 18
Table 5 Unit V Wetland Values 20
Table 6 Unit VI Wetland Values 22
Table 7 Unit VII Wetland Values 24
Table 8 Unit VIII Wetland Values 26
Table 9 Unit IX Wetland Values 28
Table 10 Comparison of Wetland Values 30
Table 11 Matrix of all Possible and Recommended
Management Roles for the Wetland Units 36

I
I
I
I
a 1. Introduction
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .

1. INTRODUCTION

In a process that began in 1974 with the "i'ediated Agreement"
I ~ ~identifying the Snohomish Estuary as a significant environmental and
cultural resource to be protected and preserved, Snohomish County has
designated nine areas within the estuary comprising approximately 1,400
acres of wetland habitat, for special protection. Based on the mediated
agreement, Governor Daniel J. Evans, in 1975, requested the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps), to conduct a reconnaissance study (1976). Governor
Evans appointed a group of interested citizens to the Interim Snohomish
I ~ ~Basin Coordinating Committee (IBCC) for the purpose of working with the
Corps and other agencies during the reconnaissance study. In 1978, the IBCC
was replaced with the Snohomish Basin Coordinating Council (BCC), formed by
an intergovernmental agreement among the federal government, the State of
Washington, Snohomish County, King County, 13 incorporated cities and towns,
and the Tulalip Tribe.

I ~~~As part of a report prepared by the University of Washington for the
Corps (1981), it was recommended that an appropriate governmental agency
take the lead in implementing the preservation concept described in the
I ~ ~Snohomish Mediated Agreement. The Snohomish County Department of Planning
and Community Development has accepted this responsibility and with a grant
from the Washington Department of Ecology under the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972, a preservation management plan was prepared for the nine
wetland units (Shapiro, 1985).
These units include the mudflats at the mouth of the Snohomish River on
I ~ ~Smith Island (Unit I), the Quilceda Creek wetland (Unit II), North Ebey
Island (divided into Units III, IV, and V), the middle portion of Spencer
Island (Unit VI), Otter Island (Unit VII), the northern portion of Ebey
I ~ ~Island (Unit VIII), and an area adjacent to Highway 2 near the junction of
Snohomish River and Deadwater Slough (Unit IX). Figure I illustrates the
location of each unit as they are presently delineated. The 1985 report,
prepared using resource information for each unit and input from a technical
advisory committee made up of affected landowners, agencies, and interest
groups, updated previous preservation recommendations and developed an
approach to retain the wetland units in their existing and/or enhanced
condition.
Units VI, VII, VIII, parts of Unit V, and a few small parcels of land
I ~ ~outside of the nine wetland units have been recently acquired by Snohomish
.County. With the acquisition of these parcels, the need has been recognized
for a detailed plan to update previous management recommendations for the
wetlands units (Shapiro, 1985) in a manner that identifies and maximizes the
public benefit.
In 1988, Snohomish County and the Washington State Department of
I ~ ~Natural Resources (DNR) entered into an intergovernmental agreement with an
objective ". . . to develop site specific Snohomish River wetland units
management policies and procedures through consideration of unique site
characteristics, wetland enhancement opportunities, compatible public uses,
I ~ ~and appropriate administrative responsibilities." Phase I of the project,

L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W

I ~rSNOHOMISH RIVER :q 4
WETLAND UNITS/<>

MA ~ Priest PoIn't - P '. -. Y

I __~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AMiRMEIO
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A

Figure 1I_

Source: U.S. Army Corps
I ~~of Engineers, 1981.
0 1 250 2500

==~Sa~l'lnfeet

funded jointly by DNR and Snohomish County, was to address site specific
needs of the units owned at the time by Snohomish County. Phase II, not
I ~ ~part of the agreement between DNR and the County and funded separately by
the Washington State Department of Ecology, was to address wetland areas
acquired in late 1988 or proposed for future acquisition by the County.
I ~ ~This report is the combination of the Phase I and Phase II studies, covering
the overall management plan for the Snohomish River wetlands.
Specific goals for various uses of the wetland units have been
I ~ ~established by the Snohomish River Wetlands Citizen Advisory Committee and
Snohomish County. These goals include preservation of wetland habitat and
culturally significant areas, enhancement of wetland habitat where
U ~ ~appropriate, and the opportunity for public use. Public uses considered
include the opportunity for public access, recreation, research, and
interpretive education.
This report addresses what capacity or "role" each wetland unit can
play in fulfilling the management goals as defined by the County and
technical committee. These suggested roles are intended to be used by the
County in determining the management goals for each wetland unit. Decisions
regarding the management roles of each unit may be influenced by the method
of acquisition, as well as the resource values and desired use of the unit
U ~ ~since some funding sources may require purchased land to be used for
specific purposes. For instance, some agencies may provide funds for the
express purpose of preserving wetland habitat. In this case, for any units
U ~ ~purchased with funds from that source, management roles would necessarily be
compatible with preservation of existing habitat.

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

I
I
I
I
* 2. Wetland Resource Values
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

2. WETLAND EVALUATION "ETHODOLOGY

In order to accomplish the goal of developing a management plan for the
Snohomish estuary wetland units, the resource values of each wetland unit
I ~ ~have been evaluated. Using information collected from existing literature
(Burrell, 1978; Shapiro and Associates, Inc. 1978), field visits, discussion
with knowledgeable residents and agency staff, and aerial photographic
interpretation, a brief description of the habitats and historical use of
each wetland is given. In addition, values for nine wetland functions have
been determined for each of the wetland units using a methodology developed
by the Army Corps of Engineers (Reppert, et al., 1979). The determination
I ~ ~of the functional values of each wetland unit is intended as a tool to
provide a basis for determining the management goals and objectives for each
unit.

2.1 METHODOLOGY

I ~~~A modification of the system for wetland values assessment developed by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Reppert et al., 1979) was used to identify
the functional values of the nine designated wetland units. Reppert's
I ~ ~methodology evaluates eight wetland functions, including (1) natural bio-
logical function; (2) aquatic study areas, sanctuaries, refuges; (3) hydro-
logic support function; (4) shoreline protection; (5) storage of storm and
flood water; (6) natural groundwater recharge; (7) water purification; and
(8) cultural values. A ninth function, recreational opportunity, has been
added to this evaluation since recreation is a key element in management
decisions to be made regarding the wetland units. The individual functions
and values for which the wetland units were evaluated are described below.
* ~~Natural Biological Function of Wetlands

Wetlands are productive aquatic ecosystems that are comprised of
complex food chains used for nesting, spawning, rearing, and feeding by a
wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial species, many of which are
economically important. Since wetlands form the basis for so many food
chains and habitats, their natural biological functions are assessed by
their food chain production and the general and specialized habitats they
provide.
Food chain production in the Snohomish wetland units can be evaluated
3 ~~according to their net primary productivity, mode of transport, and food
chain support. Primary productivity is defined as the rate at which green
plants assimilate the energy of the sun and store it as potential food
sources. Since those wetlands comprised of marsh habitat produce large
amounts of vegetative biomass faster than other types of wetland plant
communities, they are given a high rating for primary productivity.
Wetlands comprised primarily of shrub and forested swamp are given a
I ~ ~moderate rating. Wetland systems that lack vegetation, such as some lakes
and rivers, are given a low rating.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

Transport of nutrients is strongly based on the hydrologic
characteristics of the particular ecosystem. Wetlands that export more
I ~ ~vegetative material, such as intertidal marshes and swamps, marshes
associated with rivers, and seasonally flooded swamps associated with
riverine systems, are given a high rating for transport of nutrients. A
I ~ ~moderate rating is given to wetlands that consist of uppertidal marsh,
freshwater wetlands adjacent or linked to intermittently flooded riverine
systems, and some lakes. Wetlands that export very little vegetative
material, such as hydrologically isolated lakes and marshes, inland swamps
and bogs, and freshwater wetlands adjacent or linked to ephemeral riverine
systems, are given a low rating.

I ~~~Food chain support refers to the secondary productivity values or the
number of higher organisms, such as ducks and fish, a wetland can support.
Those wetlands supporting a high number and diversity of animals and fish
I ~ ~are given a high rating. A moderate rating is assigned to wetlands with
fewer animals and fish, and a low rating to wetlands with little or no
higher organisms.

I ~~~Wetlands provide habitat, the place where a particular plant or animal
lives, for aquatic and terrestrial species. Some species spend their entire
lives in a single environment, while other species need multiple habitats
I ~ ~with more complex requirements to successfully complete their life cycles.
Wetlands are important as general wildlife habitat, providing single or
multiple habitat requirements for a large number of species. Criteria used
I ~ ~to assess the general habitat value of wetlands include diversity of
habitat types in the wetland, diversity of plant communities, and special
habitat features. Special habitat features include the presence of snags,
downed logs, and banks with cover. These features increase the diversity of
I ~ ~the area and attract a wider range of wildlife species to the area.
Wetlands comprised of three or more habitat types, with special habitat
features, and a diversity of plant and animal species are considered of high
value. Where some, but not all, of these characteristics are present, the
U ~~wetlands are considered to be of moderate habitat value. Where most of
these characteristics are absent, the wetlands are rated as low. Since
wetlands with a monotypic habitat type or plant community tend not to
support a wide diversity of animal species, these areas are generally
considered low in value as wildlife habitat. Monotypic areas that are very
large, however, are considered of moderate to high value since these areas
can serve as habitat to a large number of individuals of a given species
using that habitat type.

Wetlands also can provide specialized habitat. Those wetlands with
specialized habitat values support plant and/or wildlife species that are
either designated as threatened, endangered or sensitive, or species that
are entirely dependent on wetlands. This includes nesting, rearing,
spawning, resting, feeding, and wintering habitat for special wildlife
species. Wetlands that do presently support or have supported these species
in the past are given a high rating. A moderate rating is given to wetlands
I ~ ~that could potentially, but do not now, support these species. A low rating
is given to wetlands that do not offer habitat that could support special
* ~~species.

Wetlands Valued as Aquatic Study
Areas, Sanctuaries, and Refuges
Wetlands throughout the nation have been set aside by federal and
states agencies, and non-profit and other interest groups for scientific
I ~ ~study, education, and the protection of aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
These areas are often used for research due to their specialized flora and
fauna, energy budgets, nutrient cycling, and population dynamics. Many of
these areas are used for public educational centers oriented towards
wildlife observation and nature study. In addition, wetlands provide
wildlife habitat for populations of both migratory and non-migratory species
of birds, mammals, amphibians, and fish. Wetlands that are recognized, or
that possess values that could be recognized, as a study area, refuge, or
sanctuary are rated high.

In determining the scientific, educational, and/or public interest
value of other wetlands, the habitat value, potential for public education,
and ecosystem functioning should be evaluated. For instance, a large
wetland with a variety of habitats that is hydrologically connected to a
river or creek would recieve a higher rating than a small, isolated wetland
with little or no habitat diversity.

* ~~Hydrologic Support Value of Wetlands

Hydrologic support is defined as the role a wetland plays in
maintaining the hydrologic stability and integrity of the entire system to
which it is physically related. Hydrologic periodicity is a measure of the
frequency of inundation by tides, river flow, runoff, or precipitation.
This interaction results in a regular interchange of nutrients, and chemical
I ~ ~and organic constituents between the main water body and the adjacent
wetland. Typically, marine and intertidal wetlands are given a high rating
for periodicity; riverine and lakeshore wetlands a moderate to low rating;
and hydrologically isolated marshes, bogs, and potholes, a low rating.
The extent and degree of flooding that a wetland is subject to is
dependent on the elevation of the wetland. Those wetlands that flood to the
greatest depth or are nearest an associated open water system lend the
greatest hydrologic support to the surrounding areas. A high rating is
given to wetland systems characterized by low gradient and proximity to an
open water system; a moderate rating is given to wetlands that are flooded
less regularly and a low rating to hydrologically isolated systems.

* ~~Shoreline Support Value of Wetlands
Wetlands that lie along shorelines of large bodies of water and rivers
can absorb the initial impact of storm waves. Marsh vegetation causes waves
to break, dissipating wave energy and reducing storm damage by preventing
severe erosion. Three physical characteristics determine the value of
wetlands for shoreline protection. These include vegetation structure and
density, magnitude of fetch, and wetland width.

The taller and more rigid the wetland vegetation, the more turbulence
is caused when waves pass through it resulting in dissipation of wave
I ~ ~energy. Vegetation roots bind and stabilize the shoreline substrate, thus,
the more dense and developed the root systems, the more effective the
erosion control function. Wetlands with dense, woody vegetation provide
I ~ ~more shoreline protection than areas with sparsely growing, flimsy grasses.
The magnitude of fetch, or the distance at which the wind can blow unimpeded
across water, determines the importance of shoreline wetlands. A long fetch
allows high volumes of water and wave energy to batter the shoreline, thus,
a wetland located on a body of water with a long fetch has greater value for
shoreline protection. The amount of shoreline protection a wetland can
provide is also determined by width of the wetland or the distance the
I ~ ~wetland extends from the shoreline. In general, wetlands that extend over
two hundred yards from shore are considered to have a high value for erosion
control, while wetlands extending less than one hundred yards from shore are
I ~ ~considered of low value. The overall value for shoreline protection
afforded by a particular wetland can be determined by considering all three
of these characteristics.

I ~~~The location of the wetland relative to development can modify the
shoreline protection value of a wetland. Nominal shoreline wetlands located
in a highly developed area can provide important erosion control for the
I ~ ~area. Conversely, large and densely vegetated wetlands located along
completely undeveloped shorelines have limited value for shoreline
protection, even though they may provide substantial erosion control.
I ~~Value of Wetlands in Storage
of Storm and Flood Water
I ~~~Many wetlands, especially those hydrologically linked to rivers, may be
important for water storage and flow retardation during periods of flood or
storm discharge. By retaining water that otherwise might be channeled into
I ~ ~open flow systems, wetlands can significantly reduce or modify potentially
damaging effects of flood flows. Depending on the nature and density of
vegetation in the wetland, these areas can decrease the velocity of overland
flows to varying degrees. In most cases, the physical characteristics of a
particular wetland or wetland system must be directly compared with the
flood damage potential in relation to locally developed areas, thus, even
nominal wetlands located in highly developed areas could afford flood
I ~ ~protection. Conversely, very large wetlands in completely undeveloped
watersheds provide limited storm water storage value, even though they may
provide substantial storm water storage. High ratings for flood storage are
I ~ ~given to wetlands greater than 10 acres in size; moderate ratings to
wetlands of 5 - 10 acres; and low ratings to wetlands of less than 5 acres
in size. High ratings for flood retardation are given to wetlands with
greater than 30% aerial coverage of woody vegetation; moderate ratings to
wetlands with 10 - 30% coverage, and low ratings to wetlands with 0 - 10%
coverage.
3 ~~~It should be noted than an important factor in a wetlands ability to
perform storm and flood water storage is its location in the watershed.
Those wetlands located in the upper portions of the watershed have a higher
I ~ ~value for this function. The lower in the watershed a wetland is located,

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

the more reduced the value of its ability to store stormwater. Thus, even
though a wetland may be large with dense, woody vegetation cover, if it is
located at the mouth of a large watershed basin its storm and flood water
storage value would be low.

* ~~Groundwater Recharge Value of Wetlands
The groundwater recharge function of wetlands is determined by a
complex system of interactions between the underlying geology, soils, and
surface topography. Wetland features that provide an indication of the
wetland value for groundwater recharge include the wetland size,
periodicity, and depth of water. Wetlands that are given a high rating for
I ~ ~groundwater recharge are characterized as large wetlands (over 10 acres in
size), and are permanent, open systems with a water depth of several feet.
M~oderate ratings are given to seasonal wetland systems of moderate size (5-
I ~ ~10 acres). Small isolated depressions that are temporarily inundated
provide little or no value as groundwater recharge sites. Generally, tidal
wetlands are not considered to have important groundwater recharge values.

I ~~Water Purification Value of Wetlands
Through a variety of physical, biological, and chemical processes,
I ~ ~wetlands function to naturally purify water by removing organics and mineral
particulate matter from rivers and streams. Wetlands, by recycling
pollutants, may be significant in minimizing some of the harmful effects of
pollutants introduced into natural ecological systems by human activities.
Although it is somewhat difficult to generalize about the water purification
functions that wetlands perform, three key wetland characteristics can be
*used to assess the level of water quality improvement performed. These
characteristics include the wetland type, its areal extent, and geographic
factors of its location.

3 ~~~One measure of the type of wetland is the hydroperiod or rate at which
water flows into and out of a wetland. Regular exposure of bottom materials
to aerobic decomposition processes increases the breakdown of organic
matter. A regularly inundated wetland, such as an estuary or perennial
I ~ ~river, is given a high rating for hydroperiod. A moderate rating is
assigned to lakes and irregularly flooded estuarine systems, and a low
rating is assigned to intermittently flooded rivers, lakes, swamps, and
I ~ ~marshes. The nature and density of plant cover also define the type of
wetland and are important factors in estimating the water purification
function of a particular wetland. High plant density provides a greater
I ~ ~surface area for the processes of water purification. Wetlands with a high
rating for vegetation density have plant coverage greater than 80%. A
moderate rating is given for plant coverage between 50 and 80%; and a low
rating for coverage between 0 to 50%.
Areal and waste loading relationships of a wetland can be estimated by
determining the total wetland size, proportion of water to wetland, and
I ~ ~proportion of runoff retained in the wetland. Since a larger wetland
provides more surface area for water purification processes, a high rating
for wetland size is given to wetlands that are greater than 100 acres in
I ~ ~size. A moderate rating for size is assigned to 10 to 100 acre wetlands;
and a low rating to I to 10 acre wetlands. Too small a proportion of
8

surface water area to wetland area tends to inhibit aeration, while too
large a proportion retards the natural water purification processes. A high
I ~ ~rating for surface water proportion is given to wetlands with 40 to 60%
surface water coverage; moderate rating is given for 60 to 75% coverage; and
a low rating for less than 40% and greater than 75% water coverage. The
I ~ ~greater the proportion of runoff retained in the wetland, the more efficient
that system will be in terms of waste load assimilation; thus, a high rating
is given to wetlands that retain greater than 50% of the total overland
runoff entering the system. Wetlands that retain 25 to 50% of the runoff
are given a moderate rating; and those retaining less less than 25% are
given a low rating.

I ~~~Location factors affecting water purification functions of a wetland
include the number of frost-free days and the location of the wetland
relative to a source of pollution discharge. In general, the rates at which
I ~ ~most chemical reactions occur increase with rising temperature; thus, a high
rating is given to wetlands in locations having greater than 250 frost free
days per year. Wetlands in locations having 175 to 250 frost free days are
given a moderate rating, and those in locations with less than 175 frost
free days are given a low rating.
The location of a wetland relative to a pollution source also is an
I ~ ~important aspect in assessing water purification functions of a wetland. A
high rating is given to wetlands situated below a known source of municipal
waste discharge (because of the wetland's nutrient uptake capabilities) or
above water intakes (because of the wetland's water purification
capabilities). If the wetland is situated below areas of non-point
pollution sources, it is given a moderate rating. A low rating is given
when a wetland is situated below known industrial discharges presumably for
I ~ ~the wetland's limited ability to uptake such discharge. A low rating is
also given to a wetland when it is not in proximity to point and non-point
* ~~pollution sources.
Cultural Values of Wetlands
In addition to their biological and physical functions, many wetlands
I ~ ~exhibit important socio-economic and/or unique cultural values that merit
recognition. The major socio-economic benefits pertaining to wetlands
include commercial fisheries, renewable resources, and agriculture.
I ~ ~Cultural values also include aesthetics such as visual diversity in the
landscape. In addition, some wetlands may have special value as historic
and archeological sites. Due to the numerous variables and subjective
I ~ ~characteristics involved in cultural values, ratings for these values are
difficult to assess. In general, wetlands are assessed on an individual,
site-specific basis in accordance with cultural and social perceptions.

I ~~Recreational Opportunity
Recreational opportunities offered by the Snohomish wetland units are
important to consider in designing a management plan. Bird watching, canoe-
ing, and hiking are examples of passive recreational activities. Tradition-
ally, several of the units are also used for active recreation, such as
hunting. There are several variables which affect the recreational oppor-
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9

tunities for any given wetland within the system. For instance, wetlands
which are large in size, with a variety of habitat types that support a
I ~ ~diversity of plants and animals, and which have visual diversity could
provide opportunities for passive activities. Wetlands with these charac-
teristics may be given a high rating for recreation. Wetlands that already
I ~ ~contain physical elements readily adapted to passive recreation (such as
dikes that would provide walking trails or waterways and channels for
canoeing) and that offer opportunities for hunting, may be considered of
high value in terms of recreation. Correspondingly, wetlands that are
small, with little diversity of plants and animals may be given a low

* ~~~Recreational values may be modified (from what might be initially
expected) upon consideration of surrounding land uses and the effect of
recreational opportunities on other functional values of the wetland. For
example, a small wetland that is located in or adjacent to urban areas may
be considered valuable for recreation, regardless of size or diversity.
Recreation activities would have a greater effect on wetlands rated high for
other functions than on wetlands with low functional ratings. Thus, if
recreational use of a wetland would adversely impact other functional values
with high ratings the recreational value would be reduced.

* ~~~Although some guidelines for determining the recreational value of
wetlands exist, each wetland must be assessed on a case-by-case basis
according to possible recreational opportunities, surrounding land use, and
* ~~other the wetland performs.

I ~~2.2 EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL UNITS
Each wetland unit has been evaluated for the nine wetland functions
described above. A brief description of each wetland unit is presented
I ~ ~below and includes a table listing the values assigned for the various
wetland functions of that unit.
* ~~Unit I -West Smith Island
The wetland area designated as Unit I is located on the western portion
of Smith Island and is approximately 256 acres in size. This area, located
I ~ ~north of the mouth of the Snohomish River and south of the mouth of
Steamboat Slough, has not yet been purchased by Snohomish County as part of
* ~~their wetland management program.
Brackish marsh dominates Unit I with sedge, saltgrass, bentgrass,
silverweed, and aster as the principal plant species. Freshwater marsh
habitat is located higher in elevation between the brackish marsh and the
I ~ ~small area of Sitka spruce swamp on the east-central portion of the unit. A
corridor of broad-leaved deciduous trees exists along the eastern border and
* ~~an open water pond is located at the northeast portion of the unit.
Historically, much of Smith Island has been diked for agricultural
purposes. More recently, timber industry activities have affected upland

areas adjacent to Unit I. Wood product waste treatment ponds were
constructed on the southeast portion of this unit between 1947 and 1955,
U ~ ~resulting in increased sediment deposition along the eastern portion of the
unit. A log storage area presently exists in the southern portion of the
unit. M1udflats on the western end have not been diked, but the shoreline
I ~ ~has been modified through discharge of dredge material to improve access and
log storage. Mudflats also have traditionally been used for log rafting.
In order to determine if the habitats present on Unit I (as well as on all
the other units) have changed noticeably over the last ten years, aerial
photographs dated 1984, 1985, and 1988 were reviewed, as were habitat maps
completed in 1978 (Burrell, 1978). Other than expansion of the log storage
facilities, no observable changes have occurred in the habitats of Unit I
over the past ten years.
The marshes in this unit provide high primary productivity important to
the entire food chain in the estuary. Intertidal flats provide habitat to
invertebrate benthos which in turn feed salmon, shad, other marine fish;
shorebirds such as sanderling, dunlin, and sandpiper; and waterfowl such as
mallard, northern shoveler, and northern pintail. Small mammals, such as
raccoon and vole, feed and nest in the freshwater marsh, as do songbirds
like red-wing blackbird, wren species, and song sparrow. Deer graze along
the edge of the upland woodlands and rest in the upper reaches of the marsh.
I ~ ~Waterfowl use the open water pond and marshes for feeding and resting.
There have been unpublished reports of bald eagles resting in the Sitka
spruce forest. The abundance of waterfowl in the marsh habitat of this unit
has made this a favorite hunting area. Hunters generally hunt the marshes
by tying their boats to pilings or walking the dikes.
Table I shows the value ratings assigned for the wetland functions of
this unit based on the Reppert methodology. Included in Table I is the
basis for the values assigned. Most of the of the wetland functions were
assigned a moderate to high value, with the exception of biological function
I ~ ~which was given a high value, recreational opportunity which was given a
moderate value, and groundwater recharge given a low value. Although the
potential for storm and flood water storage received a relatively higher
value, the actual value of storm water storage would be of low value due to
the location of the unit within the watershed.
Unit II - Quilceda Creek Wetland
Quilceda Creek bisects the approximately 395 acre Unit II which lies to
the west of Interstate 5 and the City of Marysville. This unit is bounded
I ~ ~by 14th Avenue N.E. and 19th Avenue N.E. to the west, Ebey Slough to the
south, and Tulalip Road to the north. Snohomish County has not yet
purchased this unit.
I ~~~In a representative cross-section beginning at the edge of where it
meets open Puget Sound water and extending finally to upland habitat, this
unit represents the only habitat transition of its kind in the estuary where
I ~ ~a brackish marsh merges into a brackish swamp, which merges into a fresh
marsh, which finally merges into uplands. Brackish marsh is dominated by a
variety of plant species including salt tolerant bulrush and sedge,
I ~ ~arrowgrass, silverweed, bentgrass, and saltgrass. Bulrush and cattail

Table 1
EXISTING WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION FOR UNIT I, WEST SMITH ISLAND
(BASED ON A MODIFIED REPPERT ET AL., 1979)

Value Basis for Evaluation

1. NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION
A. Food Chain Support
1. Net Primary Production High Marsh and mudflat habitat dominates wetland.
2. Mode of Transport High Tidally influenced with numerous channels, exports
material to Steamboat Slough, Snohomish
River and Possession Sound.
3. Food Chain Support High High productivity and diverse plant species support
a diversity of wildlife.
B. General Habitat High Three habitat types with a diversity of plant com-
munities and wildlife species.
C. Special Habitat High Wintering habitat for bald eagles.

2. AQUATIC STUDY AREAS, Moderate-High Large wetland, hydrologically linked to sloughs,
SANCTUARIES, REFUGES Snohomish River, Possession Sound, diversity of
plant communities.
3. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION
A. Hydrologic Periodicity High Tidally influenced, regularly flooded.
B. Elevation in Basin High Located near base of Snohomish watershed
basin, associated with Snohomish River.
4. SHOREUNE PROTECTION High Long fetch, dense marsh vegetation, large width,
protects industrial area.
5. STORAGE OF STORM AND
FLOOD WATER
A. Flood Storage Factor High Greater than 10 acres in size.
B. Flood Retardation Factor Moderate 10 to 30% coverage of woody vegetation.
(Vegetative Cover)

6. NATURAL GROUNDWATER Low Does not contribute to local groundwater table due
RECHARGE to location within Snohomish estuary.

7. WATER PURIFICATION
A. Wetland Type
1. Hydroperiod High Regularly flooded.
2. Vegetation Density Moderate 50-80% vegetation density.
B. Areal and Waste
Loading Relationships
1. Total Wetland Size High Approximately 265 acres in size.
2. Proportion of Water Moderate Greater than 75% water coverage at high tide, but
to Wetland tidal fluctuation allows regular aeration.
3. Proportion of Runoff Low Less than 25% of runoff retained in wetland.
Retained in Wetland
C. Location Factors
1. Frost Free Days High Over 250 frost free days/year.
2. Location Related to Moderate-High Located downstream from agricultural fields,
Pollution Sources Everett sewage lagoon, and wood waste
treatment ponds.
8. CULTURALVALUES Moderate-High Provides habitat for fisheries resources, used by
(Economics, Aesthetics, the Everett School District as a study area.
Archaeologic Sites)

9. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Moderate Large wetland with diverse plants, traditionally
used for hunting, high to moderate values for other
functions discourage heavy human use.

dominate the fresh marsh plant community and Sitka spruce dominates the
swamp community. An unusual stand of juniper is also found within this
unit. Numerous tributaries of Quilceda Creek and Ebey Slough occur
throughout this unit.

Historically, the center of this unit has remained undisturbed because
the few industrial activities present have occurred only along the unit's
boundaries. The existing land uses include paper and metal manufacturing to
the east, log rafting and an abandoned railroad to the south, residences to
the north, and a boat works operation along the western shore of Quilceda
Creek. The only observed change in the habitat of this unit over the past
ten years is the expansion of the shrub-scrub habitat in the southern end of
I ~ ~the unit farther south. Construction of the new Tulalip Road Bridge and
expansion of industrial facilities to the southeast have also affected the
wetland.
The variety of habitat types in Unit 1I provides food, shelter, and
nesting for a diversity of wildlife species including waterfowl, wading
birds, and fish species. This unit is a favorite hunting area in the
I ~ ~estuary espeialy along the southern shore of the unit and along Quilceda
Creek, due to the abundance of waterfowl in the marshes. Upland habitat
provides food and cover for mammals, such as deer, raccoon, and small
I ~ ~rodents. Intertidal marsh in this unit provides important habitat for the
invertebrate benthos that contribute to the food chain in the estuary,
feeding numerous wildlife species including salmon. Juvenile salmon run
down Quilceda Creek and school in the vicinity of Ebey Slough.
Additionally, the Washington State Department of Wildlife and Washington
Natural Heritage Program have identified this unit as specialized habitat.
This area serves as nesting territory of osprey and supports black lily, a
state sensitive plant species (see Appendix A).
Unit II also has significant cultural values. The salmon runs in this
unit are important to the livelihood and cultural traditions of the Tulalip
Tribes. In addition to the salmon runs, this unit also has archaeological
and cultural significance for the Tulalip.
I ~~~Value ratings assigned for Unit 1I wetland functions are shown in Table
2. This table also gives the basis for those ratings based on the Reppert
methodology. High values were assigned for natural biological function;
I ~ ~hydrologic support function; cultural values; and for aquatic study areas,
sanctuaries, and refuges. Shoreline protection received a moderate rating.
The functions for storage of storm and flood water and water purification
I ~ ~received moderate to high values; however, due to the location of this unit,
the potential for stormwater storage would be of little value. A low to
moderate rating was assigned to recreational opportunity and a low rating
* ~~was assigned to natural groundwater recharge.
Unit III - North Portion of North Ebey Island
I ~~~Unit III, approximately 57 acres in size, is located at the north end
of North Ebey Island immediately adjacent to Interstate Highway 5. This
unit has not yet been purchased by Snohomish County as part of their
wetlands preservation plan.

Table 2
EXISTING WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION FOR UNIT II, QUILCEDA CREEK
(BASED ON A MODIFIED REPPERT ET AL., 1979)

Value Basis for Evaluation

1. NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION
A. Food Chain Support
1. Net Primary Production High Marsh habitat dominates wetland.
2. Mode of Transport High Tidally influenced and associated with Quilceda
Creek, exports material to Steamboat and Ebey
sloughs.
3. Food Chain Support High Diversity of habitats support a diversity of
wildlife.
B. General Habitat High Four habitat types with a diversity of wildlife
species.
C. Special Habitat High Nesting territory of osprey, wintering habitat of
bald eagles, presence of black lily, only example of
brackish marsh to brackish swamp to fresh marsh to
upland zonation in the estuary.
2. AQUATIC STUDY AREAS, High Large wetland, hydrologically linked to sloughs,
SANCTUARIES, REFUGES Snohomish River, Possession Sound, diversity of
wetland and upland habitat.
3. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION
A. Hydrologic Periodicity High Tidally influenced, regularly flooded.
B. Elevation in Basin High Located near base of Snohomish watershed
basin, associated with Snohomish River.
4. SHORELINE PROTECTION Moderate Short fetch, dense marsh vegetation, large width,
protects few developed areas.
5. STORAGE OF STORM AND
FLOOD WATER
A. Flood Storage Factor High Greater than 10 acres in size.
B. Flood Retardation Factor Moderate 10 to 30% coverage of woody vegetation.
(Vegetative Cover)

6. NATURAL GROUNDWATER Low Does not contribute to local groundwater table due
RECHARGE to location within Snohomish estuary.

7. WATER PURIFICATION
A. Wetland Type
1. Hydroperiod High Regularly flooded.
2. Vegetation Density High Vegetation density over 80%.
B. Areal and Waste
Loading Relationships
1. Total Wetland Size High Approximately 395 acres in size.
2. Proportion of Water Moderate Greater than 75% water coverage at high tide, but
to Wetland tidal fluctuation allows regular aeration.
3. Proportion of Runoff Low Less than 25% of runoff retained in wetland.
Retained in Wetland
C. Location Factors
1. Frost Free Days High Over 250 frost free days/year.
2. Location Related to Moderate-High Located downstream from agricultural fields,
Pollution Sources Lake Stevens sewage lagoon, and Marysville
sewage lagoon.
8. CULTURAL VALUES High Provides habitat for fisheries resources important
(Economics, Aesthetics, to the livelihood and cultural traditions of the
Archaeologic Sites) Tulalip Tribes, has archeological and cultural

visual diversity in view from interstate highway 5
and residences to the west.
9. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Low-Moderate Quilceda Creek and numerous channels for canoe
users, wildlife viewing opportunities, large wet-
land with diverse plants, traditionally used for hun-
ting, high to moderate values for other functions
discourage heavy human use.

The dominant habitat in this unit is emergent marsh. A cattail/bulrush
plant community comprises the majority of the wetland with a sedge community
I ~ ~interspersed in the southern portion of the unit. A narrow band of forested
swamp habitat exists on the dike at the south edge of the wetland. Broad-
leaved deciduous trees dominate the tree layer in this habitat, with Sitka
I ~ ~spruce interspersed. Rose dominates the understory layer. Breaks in the
dike at the northeast portion of the unit serve as inlets and outlets for
water entering and exiting the marsh.
I ~~~This unit, the first 'Portion of North Ebey Island to be diked, was
diked and farmed prior to 1875. The area reverted to wetland vegetation
after the dikes were breached in the early 1950s. There have been minimal
I ~ ~changes. Physical changes observed in the habitat of this unit over the
past ten years include several new breaks in the dike along the northern
shore, addition of several new channels along the eastern border of the
I ~ ~unit, and the formation of several small, open water areas within the
wetland.
Marsh habitat in this unit offers high primary productivity to the
area. Plant species observed in this large marsh, including cattail,
bulrush, and sedge, provide food sources for waterfowl and small mammals.
Unvegetated intertidal flats near breaches in these dikes provide feeding
I ~ ~and resting areas for waterfowl and wading birds. Large numbers of
songbirds and small mammals use the habitat on this unit for shelter and
nesting. This unit, in conjunction with with the two other North Ebey
Island units (Units IV and V), comprise the largest single cattail/bulrush
marsh in the estuary.
Table 3 shows the value ratings assigned for the wetland functions of
.1 ~ ~this unit based on the Reppert methodology and includes the basis for the
values assigned. Hydrologic support was the only wetland function assigned a
high value. A moderate to high rating was assigned to natural biological
I ~ ~function, and water purification. Moderate values were assigned for storage
of storm and flood water; cultural values; recreational opportunity; and for
aquatic study areas, sanctuaries, and refuges. Natural groundwater recharge
and shoreline protection were assigned a low value. As with other units,
the stormwater storage function may be moderate-high due to physical
conditions, but is of limited value due to the unit's location.
I ~~Unit IV - Mid-North Ebey Island
Unit IV, approximately 132 acres in size, is located in the middle lobe
I ~ ~of North Ebey Island to the east of Interstate Highway 5. This wetland unit
has not yet been purchased by Snohomish County.
The dominant habitat in this unit is emergent marsh with a mosaic of
I ~ ~two plant communities. These communities consist of a cattail/bulrush
community and a sedge community. A narrow band of forested swamp habitat
exists on the dikes along the periphery of the wetland. Broad-leaved
I ~ ~deciduous trees dominate the tree layer in this habitat, with Sitka spruce
interspersed. Rose dominates the understory layer.

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~15

Table 3
EXISTING WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION FOR UNIT III, NORTH EBEY ISLAND (NORTH)
(BASED ON A MODIFIED REPPERT ET AL., 1979)

I Value Basis for Evaluation

1. NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION
A. Food Chain Support
1. Net Primary Production High Marsh habitat dominates wetland.
2. Mode of Transport High Tidally influenced, exports material to Steamboat
and Ebey sloughs.
3. Food Chain Support High Open water/marsh supports a diversity of
waterfowl.
B. General Habitat Moderate Two habitat types, large cattail marsh.
C. Special Habitat High Wintering habitat of bald eagles.

2. AQUATIC STUDY AREAS, Moderate Large wetland, hydrologically linked to sloughs,
SANCTUARIES, REFUGES Snohomish River, Possession Sound; however, is
in close proximity to interstate highway 5.
3. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION
A. Hydrologic Periodicity High Tidally influenced, regularly flooded.
B. Elevation in Basin High Located near base of Snohomish watershed
basin, associated with Snohomish River.
4. SHORELINE PROTECTION Low No development located in area.

5. STORAGE OF STORM AND
FLOOD WATER
A. Flood Storage Factor High Greater than 10 acres in size.
B. Flood Retardation Factor Low Less than 10% coverage of woody vegetation.
(Vegetative Cover)

6. NATURAL GROUNDWATER Low Does not contribute to local groundwater table due
RECHARGE to location within Snohomish estuary.

7. WATER PURIFICATION
A. Wetland Type
1. Hydroperiod High Regularly flooded.
2. Vegetation Density High Vegetation density over 80/0%.
B. Areal and Waste
Loading Relationships
1. Total Wetland Size Moderate Approximately 57 acres in size.
2. Proportion of Water Moderate Greater than 75% water coverage at high tide, but
to Wetland tidal fluctuation allows regular aeration.

Retained in Wetland
C. Location Factors
1. Frost Free Days High Over 250 frost free days/year.
2. Location Related to Moderate-High Located downstream from agricultural fields,
Pollution Sources Lake Stevens sewage lagoon, and Marysville
sewage lagoon.
8. CULTURAL VALUES Moderate Provides habitat for fisheries resources and
(Economics, Aesthetics, waterfowl, provides visual diversity in view
Archaeologic Sites) from interstate highway 5.

9. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Moderate Existing dikes could serve as trails, numerous
channels for canoe users, wildlife viewing
opportunities, large wetland with diverse plants,
high to moderate values for other functions
discourage heavy human use.

Historically, this area was diked sometime after 1911. These dikes
were breached between 1950 and 1963, and the area reverted to wetland vege-
I ~ ~tation. Overall, there has been little change in the habitat on Unit IV
over the past ten years. The only observed change appears to be the forma-
tion of several small, open water areas within the wetland. Most of these
I ~ ~open water areas are connected to numerous channels that occur within the
wetland and serve as inlets and outlets to the marsh at breaks in the dike.
The high productivity of marsh habitat in this unit provides food
I ~ ~sources for waterfowl and small mammals. The variety of waterfowl that use
this area attract hunters who hunt the interior of the unit by boat. Large
nmbers of songbirds and small mammals use the marsh habitat for shelter and
ne s ig This unit, in conjunction with with the two other North Ebey
Island units (Units III and V), comprise the largest single cattail/bulrush
marsh in the estuary.
Value ratings assigned for Unit IV wetland functions are shown in Table
4. The Table also gives the basis for those ratings based on the Reppert
methodology. High values were assigned for hydrologic support and water
purification functions. Natural biological function and aquatic study
areas, sanctuaries and refuges were assigned moderate to high values.
Functions for storage of storm and flood water; cultural values; and
I ~ ~recreational opportunities were all assigned moderate values. A low value
was given to natural groundwater recharge and shoreline protection. As with
other units, the stormwater storage function may be moderate-high due to
I ~ ~physical conditions, but is of limited value due to the unit's location.
Unit V - South Portion of North Ebey Island
I ~~~Unit V, approximately 116 acres in size, is located at the south end of
North Ebey Island just north of Otter Island between Steamboat and Ebey
Sloughs. Parcels 1-002 and 1-005, totaling approximately 20 acres, in the
I ~ ~southern end of Unit V, have been jointly purchased by Snohomish County and
the Washington Department of Natural Resources as part of the wetlands
preservation program.
I ~~~Overall, the southern portion of North Ebey Island is dominated by
cattail marsh, with bulrush intermixed. Sitka swamp dominates the southern
tip of Unit V and forms a corridor, with scattered broad-leaved deciduous
I ~ ~trees, along the eastern border of the unit. Shrub swamp habitat, inter-
spersed with spruce swamp, also is present on this unit. Numerous channels
within the wetland occur throughout the northern portion of the unit, with a
I ~ ~few channels opening onto Steamboat and Ebey Sloughs where the unit's
peripheral dikes have been breached.
Aside from the gradual spreading of the Sitka swamp in the southern
I ~ ~portion, there have been no significant changes in the habitat in this unit.
This unit, like other portions of North Ebey Island, was diked sometime
after 1911. The dikes in Unit V were breached between 1941 and 1947, before
I ~ ~breaching of dikes in Units IV and III located farther to the north on the
island.

Table 4
EXISTING WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION FOR UNIT IV, NORTH EBEY ISLAND (MIDDLE)
(BASED ON A MODIFIED REPPERT ET AL., 1979)

Value Basis for Evaluation

1. NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION
A. Food Chain Support
1. Net Primary Production High Marsh habitat dominates unit.
2. Mode of Transport High Tidally influenced, exports material to Steamboat
and Ebey sloughs.
3. Food Chain Support High Open water/marsh supports a diversity of
waterfowl.
B. General Habitat Moderate Two habitat types, large cattail marsh.
C. Special Habitat High Wintering habitat of bald eagles.

5. STORAGE OF STORM AND
FLOOD WATER
A. Flood Storage Factor High Greater than 10 acres in size.
B. Flood Retardation Factor Low Less than 10% coverage of woody vegetation.
(Vegetative Cover)

6. NATURAL GROUNDWATER Low Does not contribute to local groundwater table due
RECHARGE to location within Snohomish estuary.

7. WATER PURIFICATION
A. Wetland Type
1. Hydroperiod High Regularly flooded.
2. Vegetation Density High Vegetation density over 80%.
B. Areal and Waste
Loading Relationships
1. Total Wetland Size High Greater than 100 acres in size.
2. Proportion of Water Moderate Greater than 75% water coverage at high tide, but
to Wetland tidal fluctuation allows regular aeration.
3. Proportion of Runoff High 50% of water retained in wetland.
Retained in Wetland
C. Location Factors
1. Frost Free Days High Over 250 frost free days/year.
2. Location Related to Moderate-High Located downstream from agricultural fields and
Pollution Sources Lake Stevens sewage lagoon.

8. CULTURAL VALUES Moderate Provides habitat for fisheries resources and
(Economics, Aesthetics, waterfowl, provides visual diversity in landscape
Archaeologic Sites) for residences to the east.

This unit, along with Units III and IV, comprise the largest single
cattail/bulrush marsh in the estuary. This habitat provides high primary
I ~ ~productivity, supplying nutrients and a food source for the wetland and
surrounding areas. Nesting waterfowl, wading birds, songbirds, and small
mammals find shelter and food in the marshes. The spruce swamp and shrub
I ~ ~swamp provide habitat for a diversity of wildlife, including wood duck,
raptors such as red-tail hawk and marsh hawk, songbirds, deer, muskrat, and
other herbivores. Unit V also is located within the nesting territory of
bald eagles that have established a nest in the area and serves as
specialized habitat for this species. Traditionally known as 'Big 40' or
Big Marsh' by hunters, this unit is a popular area for waterfowl hunting
3 ~~when hunting pressure on Units I and II is heavy.

Table 5 shows the value ratings assigned for the wetland functions of
Unit V and gives the basis for those ratings based on the Reppert
I ~ ~methodology. High value was assigned to hydrologic support. A moderate to
high rating was given to natural biological function; aquatic study areas,
sanctuaries, refuges; and water purification. Cultural values and
recreational opportunity were assigned moderate ratings. The remaining
functions, natural groundwater recharge, shoreline protection; storage of
storm and flood water; were assigned a low rating. As with other units, the
stormwater storage function may be moderate-high due to physical conditions,
but is of limited value due to the unit's location.
Unit VI - Mid-Spencer Island

Unit VI, located in the middle portion of Spencer Island, is approxi-
mately 87 acres in size. Recently, about 83 acres of this unit have been
jointly purchased for wetlands preservation by Snohomish County and the
I ~ ~Washington Department of Natural Resources. The area purchased excludes the
northernmost and southernmost lobes of Unit VI as defined in the Snohomish
River Wetlands Units Preservation Management Plan (Shapiro, 1985).
Freshwater marsh, dominated by cattail and bulrush, covers the majority
of this wetland unit. Forested habitat of broad-leaved deciduous trees,
scattered Sitka spruce, and rose (in the understory) occurs along the dikes
surrounding the unit. Numerous channels and shallow ponds occur throughout
the central portion of the unit in the marsh and adjacent to the dikes.
3 ~~Forested swamp dominates the northwestern lobe of this unit.

No major changes in habitat have been noted for Unit VI over the past
ten years. Historically, this area was diked in the late 1800's and early
I ~ ~1900s. By 1969, the dikes were breached and the area reverted to wetland.
In addition, a channel was dredged from Steamboat Slough to Union slough
between 1955 and 1963, dividing the southernmost three acres from the
remainder of the unit.
The highly productive marsh habitat in this unit, interspersed with
open water channels and ponds, provides feeding, nesting, and resting
I ~ ~habitat for waterfowl species. Heron and shorebirds feed along the breached
dikes and shoreline of the unit. Forested habitat along the dikes provide
3 ~~feeding and resting habitat for raptors and nesting and feeding habitat for

Table 5
EXISTING WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION FOR UNIT V, NORTH EBEY ISLAND (SOUTH)
(BASED ON A MODIFIED REPPERT ET AL., 1979)

Value Basis for Evaluation

1. NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION
A. Food Chain Support
1. Net Primary Production High Marsh and forested swamp dominate unit.

and Ebey sloughs.
3. Food Chain Support High Habitat can support diversity of animals.
B. General Habitat High Three habitat types, large cattail marsh.
C. Special Habitat High Nesting territory and winter habitat of bald eagles.

2. AQUATIC STUDY AREAS, Moderate-High Large wetland, diversity of habitats, hydrologically
SANCTUARIES, REFUGES linked to sloughs, Snohomish River, Possession
Sound.
3. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION
A. Hydrologic Periodicity Moderate-High Regularly flooded.
B. Elevation in Basin High Located near base of Snohomish watershed
basin, associated with Snohomish River.
4. SHORELINE PROTECTION Low No development located in area.

5. STORAGE OF STORM AND
FLOOD WATER
A. Flood Storage Factor High Greater than 10 acres In size.
B. Flood Retardation Factor Moderate Between 10-30% coverage of woody vegetation.
(Vegetative Cover)

6. NATURAL GROUNDWATER Low Does not contribute to local groundwater table due
RECHARGE to location within Snohomish estuary.

7. WATER PURIFICATION
A. Wetland Type
1. Hydroperiod Moderate-High Regularly flooded.
2. Vegetation Density High Vegetation density over 80%.
B. Areal and Waste
Loading Relationships
1. Total Wetland Size High Greater than 100 acres in size.
2. Proportion of Water Moderate-High 60-70% water coverage at high tide,
to Wetland tidal fluctuations.
3. Proportion of Runoff Moderate 25-50% water retained In wetland.
Retained In Wetland
C. Location Factors
1. Frost Free Days High Over 250 frost free days/year.
2. Location Related to Moderate-High Located downstream from agricultural fields and
Pollution Sources Lake Stevens sewage lagoon.

8. CULTURAL VALUES Moderate Provides habitat for fisheries resources and
(Economics, Aesthetics, waterfowl, provides visual diversity in landscape
Archaeologic Sites) for residences to the east.

9. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Moderate Existing dikes could serve as trails, some channels
for canoes, wildlife viewing opportunities, large
wetland with diverse plants, traditionally used for
hunting, high values for other functions discourage
heavy human use.

small mammals and songbirds. This area also serves as specialized habitat.
It provides habitat for wintering bald eagles and is located within the
I ~ ~nesting territory of a bald eagle nest. Known as 'Hole in the Wall',
waterfowl hunting is popular in this unit when hunting pressure on Units I
and 1I is heavy.
Value ratings for Unit VI, along with the basis for those ratings, are
shown in Table 6. A high value was assigned to natural biological function
and hydrologic support for this unit. Aquatic study areas, sanctuaries, and
refuges; storage of storm and flood water; and water purification were given
a rating of moderate to high. Shoreline protection; cultural values; and
recreational opportunity received a rating of moderate. The remaining
I ~ ~function, natural groundwater recharge, received a low rating. As with
other units, the stormwater storage function may be moderate-high due to
physical conditions, but is of limited value due to the unit's location.
Unit VII - Otter Island
Wetland VII is the 164-acre Otter Island, bounded by Ebey and Steamboat
Sloughs between Ebey and North Ebey Islands. This area has been purchased
by Snohomish County as part of the wetlands preservation plan.

3 ~~~Forested swamp, dominated by Sitka spruce, covers approximately half of
Otter Island and occurs along the western portion and around the periphery
of this unit. Rose dominates the understory in the forested swamp. The
I ~ ~remaining wetland habitat, located in the central portion of the unit, is
comprised of marsh habitat and is dominated by cattail and bulrush. Shrub
swamp interspersed in the marsh habitat, is dominated by rose.

I ~~~There has been minimal change in the habitat on Otter Island over the
past ten years, however, it appears that marsh areas in the central portion
of the island are slowly succeeding to shrub swamp. Approximately four
I ~ ~acres of shrub swamp exist on the southwest edge of this unit, where an
apparently unsuccessful attempt to use the area for agriculture was made
many years ago. Several ditches, located along the perimeter of the
abandoned agricultural area, and some larger natural channels, on the west
and north sides, serve as inlets and outlets to tidally influenced river
water within this wetland.
I ~~~The diversity of the marshes and swamps on the island provides an
abundance of nesting, breeding, and feeding habitat for a wide variety of
birds and mammals. Marsh habitat on the unit serves as feeding and nesting
I ~ ~habitat for a variety of marsh birds including red-wing blackbirds,
bitterns, rails, and waterfowl. These areas also provide food for muskrats
and small rodents. Hawks, owls, and minks use the marsh for hunting
grounds. The mature Sitka spruce swamp is considered sensitive habitat
since regrowth of this community is slow. Plink, raptors, and wood duck use
the swamp for nesting and breeding. Deer, muskrat, and other herbivores use
it for feeding. Otter Island also serves as specialized habitat; it is
I ~ ~located within the nesting territory of bald eagles and provides wintering
habitat for them. The isolation of this unit creates wildife habitat that
* ~~is relatively secure from human disturbance.

Table 6
EXISTING WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION FOR UNIT Vl, MID-SPENCER ISLAND
(BASED ON A MODIFIED REPPERT ET AL., 1979)

Value Basis for Evaluation

1. NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION
A. Food Chain Support
1. Net Primary Production High Marsh habitat covers most of unit.
2. Mode of Transport High Channels move nutrients Into sloughs.
3. Food Chain Support High Open water/marsh can support a large number
of waterfowl and raptors.
B. General Habitat High Three habitat types, large cattall/bulrush marsh.
C. Special Habitat High Nesting territory and winter habitat for bald eagles.

2. AQUATIC STUDY AREAS, Moderate-High Large wetland, hydrologically connected to
SANCTUARIES, REFUGES sloughs, variety of habitats.

3. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION
A. Hydrologic Periodicity Moderate-High Tidally influenced, regularly flushing, hydrologically
linked to Possession Sound via sloughs.
B. Elevation in Basin High Located near base of Snohomish watershed
basin, associated with Snohomish River.
4. SHORELINE PROTECTION Low No development located in area.

5. STORAGE OF STORM AND
FLOOD WATER
A. Flood Storage Factor High Greater than 10 acres In size.
B. Flood Retardation Factor Moderate Between 10-30% coverage of woody vegetation
(Vegetative Cover)

6. NATURAL GROUNDWATER Low Does not contribute to local groundwater table due
RECHARGE to location within Snohomish estuary.

7. WATER PURIFICATION
A. Wetland Type
1. Hydroperiod High Regularly flooded.
2. Vegetation Density Moderate Plant coverage of 50-80%.
B. Areal and Waste

1. Total Wetland Size Moderate Between 10 to 100 acres In size.
2. Proportion of Water Moderate Greater than 75% water coverage at high tide, but
to Wetland tidal fluctuation allows regular aeration.
3. Proportion of Runoff Moderate 25-50% water retained in wetland.
Retained In Wetland
C. Location Factors
1. Frost Free Days High Over 250 frost free days/year.
2. Location Related to Moderate-High Located downstream from agricultural fields and
Pollution Sources Lake Stevens sewage lagoon.

8. CULTURAL VALUES Moderate Provides habitat for fisheries resources and
(Economics, Aesthetics, waterfowl, provides visual diversity In landscape
Archaeologic Sites) view from highway.

9. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Moderate Existing dikes could serve as trails, numerous
channels for canoe use, excellent wildlife viewing
opportunities, traditionally used for hunting, high
values for other functions discourage heavy human.
use.
22

Table 7 shows the value ratings assigned for wetland functions on Otter
Island and gives the basis for those ratings based on the Reppert
I ~ ~methodology. Otter Island has a high value for natural biological
functions; aquatic study areas, sanctuaries, and refuges; hydrologic support
functions; storage of storm and flood water; and water purification
I ~ ~functions. A moderate to high value was assigned to this unit for cultural
values. Natural groundwater recharge and shoreline protection received a
low rating. Overall, this wetland has moderate to high functional value for
nearly all the wetland characteristics. Due to such high functional values,
recreational opportunity on this wetland unit was given a low value in the
interest of protecting and maintaining the status of other functions. As
with other units, the stormwater storage function may be moderate-high due
to physical conditions, but is of limited value due to the unit's location.
Unit VIII - Northwestern Portion of Ebey Island

Unit VIII, is located south of Otter Island and is bounded by Steamboat
Slough to the west and Ebey Slough to the east and north. Snohomish County
has purchased 70 acres at the northwestern end of the island. The area that
has been evaluated in this report includes that portion of Ebey Island that
has been purchased.
3 ~~~Although most of the 70 acres of Unit VIII is diked and separated from
tidal influence and minor floods, much of it would probably be considered
wetlands under the current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers definition. An area
3 ~~which is transitional between wetland and upland is located in the northwest
portion of this unit. The area is dominated by blackberry and red alder.
Much of the remainder of the unit is grassland dominated by reed canarygrass
and soft rush with interspersed patches of blackberry and spirea. The area
is currently being used as pastureland for a small number of cattle. Two
small, seasonally ponded areas occur in the pasture and include a small,
open-water, intermittent marsh located in the south central portion of the
I ~ ~unit. A narrow band of wetland exists on the landward side of the flood
control dike along the western and northern boundary of Unit VIII. This
wetland is composed of an open-water channel with associated shrub swamp and
marsh habitat. Historically, the original marsh and shrub swamp wetland
communities were more extensive, but diking, ditching, and vegetative
clearing have reduced these habitats.
I ~~~The area between the dike and Steamboat and Ebey Sloughs on the north
and west sides of Unit VIII are also wetland communities. These areas are
composed of broad-leaved deciduous forest and shrub swamp habitats. In the
I ~ ~northeastern portion of the unit is an area of coniferous forest dominated
by Sitka spruce.
Although the wetland habitat that occurs inside the dikes is considered
I ~ ~to be fairly low in value due to its use as agricultural land, habitat on
this unit represents the only non-tidal wetland habitat included in the
wetlands management plan. Most of the habitat types observed on the unit
U ~ ~occur relatively rarely, less than 100 acres total of each habitat, in the
Snohomish River basin below the confluence of Ebey Slough with the Snohomish
River (Burrell, 1979). The inland shrub communities and open water pond
I ~ ~offer habitat types, transitional habitat and isolated wetland habitat,
23

Table 7
EXISTING WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION FOR UNIT VII, OTTER ISLAND
(BASED ON A MODIFIED REPPERT ET AL, 1979)

I Value Basis for Evaluation

1. NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION
A. Food Chain Support
1. Net Primary Production Moderate-High Majority of wetland comprised of marsh habitat.
2. Mode of Transport High Channels in wetland move nutrients into Ebey
and Steamboat Sloughs.
3. Food Chain Support High Diversity of plants supports a variety of wildlife,
nesting territory and winter habitat for bald eagles.
B. General Habitat High Three habitat types, with special habitat features.
C. Special Habitat High Wintering and nesting territory for bald eagles.

2. AQUATIC STUDY AREAS, High Large wetland, hydrologically linked to Snohomish
SANCTUARIES, REFUGES River, diverse habitats - one of few units with
Sitka Swamp. Presence of bald eagles,
peregrine falcons.
3. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION
A. Hydrologic Periodicity Moderate-High Tidally influenced, regular flushing, hydrologically
linked to Snohomish River and Possession Sound.
B. Elevation in Basin High Located near base of Snohomish watershed basin,
associated with Snohomish River.
4. SHORELINE PROTECTION Low No development located in area.

5. STORAGE OF STORM AND
FLOOD WATER
A. Flood Storage Factor High Greater than 10 acres in size.
B. Flood Retardation Factor Moderate-High Approximately 30% coverage of woody vegetation.
(Vegetative Cover)

6. NATURAL GROUNDWATER Low Does not contribute to local groundwater table due
RECHARGE to location within Snohomish estuary.

7. WATER PURIFICATION
A. Wetland Type
1. Hydroperiod High Regularly flooded.
2. Vegetation Density High Plant coverage greater than 80%.
B. Areal and Waste
Loading Relationships
1. Total Wetland Size High Greater than 100 acres in size.
2. Proportion of Water High Approximately 50% surface water coverage
to Wetland at high tide.
3. Proportion of Runoff Low Most of water entering wetland exits
Retained in Wetland at low tide.
C. Location Factors
1. Frost Free Days High Over 250 frost free days.
2. Location Related to Moderate-High Located below agricultural fields and the
Pollution Sources Lake Stevens sewage lagoon.

8. CULTURAL VALUES Moderate-High Provides fisheries resources habitat, visual
(Economics, Aesthetics, diversity in landscape, is only wetland in area that
Archaeologic Sites) has never been extensively diked and used for
agriculture, midden located on island.
9. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Low Large size, visual diversity, and diverse habitat
provides high potential for recreation, but high
values for other functions precludes intrusion
of wetland.

respectively, not found elsewhere on the wetland units. The habitat values
for Unit VIII reflect the relatively rare occurrence of these habitats
within the proposed management area.
Based on a review of historical aerial photographic interpretation, the
I ~ ~habitat of Unit VIII appears to have changed considerably. Wetland habitat
mapping completed in 1978 shows the majority of this site to have been
comprised of shrub and forested habitat, with only two small areas of
pasture dominated by rushes and one small open water pond. Presently, the
unit is dominated by pastureland with areas of shrub and forest inter-
spersed. The open water area, as delineated in the 1978 mapping, does not
appear to have changed. These habitat changes may have been due to a ditch
and drainage program implemented in 1980 to improve the agricultural
potential of the unit.

* ~~~Transitional habitat on this unit supports wildlife species that would
not occupy wetland habitats, such as pheasant and coyote. Pastureland
provides food for rodents and, in turn, coyotes, hawks, and owls. Shrub
areas serve as feeding and shelter habitat for coyotes, other small mammals,
I ~ ~deer, and a variety of birds. Raptors use the forested habitat for nesting
and roosting. Deer use it for resting and foraging. Unit VIII serves as
specialized habitat. Pileated woodpeckers, a sensitive species, have been
I ~ ~observed in the forested habitat (Thompson, 1987). The northern portion of
the unit is located within the nesting territory of bald eagles and is
expected to be used by wintering bald eagles.

Value ratings, based on the Reppert methodology, for Unit VIII are
shown in Table 8. All wetland functions were evaluated for the wetland
areas on the unit. Upland areas were not evaluated except for the
I ~ ~recreational opportunity function. This unit was given low functional
values for aquatic study area, sanctuaries, and refuges; natural groundwater
recharge; and shoreline protection. Low to moderate values were assigned
for storage of storm and flood water. Mioderate values were assigned to
natural biological function, hydrologic support function, and water
purification. A moderate to high value was assigned to cultural values.
Generally, low to moderate value ratings were given for most of the
functions evaluated for the wetlands on Unit VIII. For this reason, human
use of the site would have less of an impact on the functional values of the
3 ~~unit and, thus, potential recreational opportunity received a high rating.

Unit IX - Ebey Island Highway 2

Unit IX, approximately 83 acres in size, is located on the east side of
the Snohomish River just outside the city limits of Everett. The unit is
bisected by Highway 2. This unit has not been purchased by Snohomish County
for wetlands preservation.
The wetland habitat in Unit IX is composed primarily of shrub swamp
with scattered areas of emergent marsh. The shrub swamp occurring along the
I ~ ~perimeter of the unit is dominated by young red alder and willow with sparse
Sitka spruce scattered throughout. Other areas of shrub swamp in this unit
are composed of a spirea/cattail community. Cattail dominates the emergent

Table 8
EXISTING WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION FOR UNIT Vill, EBEY ISLAND (NORTHWEST)
(BASED ON A MODIFIED REPPERT ET AL., 1979)

Value Basis for Evaluation

1. NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION
A. Food Chain Support
1. Net Primary Production Moderate Comprised of marsh, shrub and forested swamp.
2. Mode of Transport Low-Moderate Isolated system, but is adjacent to Ebey Slough.
3. Food Chain Support Low Some intermittent waterfowl use expected.
B. General Habitat High Four habitat types.
C. Special Habitat High Nesting territory and wintering habitat for bald
eagles.

2. AQUATIC STUDY AREAS, Low Small size, hydrologically isolated,
SANCTUARIES, REFUGES

3. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION
A. Hydrologic Periodicity Low Hydrologically isolated.
B. Elevation in Basin High Located near base of Snohomish watershed
basin, associated with Snohomish River.
4. SHORELINE PROTECTION Low No development located in area.

5. STORAGE OF STORM AND
FLOOD WATER
A. Flood Storage Factor Low-Moderate Less than five acres in size, hydrologically
isolated from sloughs.
B. Flood Retardation Factor Low-Moderate 10 - 30% woody vegetation in western wetland.
(Vegetative Cover)

6. NATURAL GROUNDWATER Low Does not contribute to local groundwater table due
RECHARGE to location within Snohomish estuary.

7. WATER PURIFICATION
A. Wetland Type
1. Hydroperiod Low Seasonal wetland habitat.
2. Vegetation Density Moderate 50-80% vegetative cover.
B. Areal and Waste
Loading Relationships
1. Total Wetland Size Moderate Approximately 95 acres in size.
2. Proportion of Water Low Greater than 75% water coverage during
to Wetland wet season, less than 40% during dry season.
3. Proportion of Runoff Low Retains less than 25% of run-off.
Retained in Wetland
C. Location Factors
1. Frost Free Days High Over 250 frost free days.
2. Location Related to Moderate-High Located below pasture lands.
Pollution Sources

8. CULTURAL VALUES Moderate-High Socioeconomic value as agricultural land
(Economics, Aesthetics, used for grazing.
Archaeologic Sites)

9. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY High Has dikes for trails, small wetlands provide some
visual diversity, plant diversity, diversity of
upland and wetland habitat serves opportunity
for public education.

marsh habitat on the unit with bulrush interspersed. Numerous channels
along the southeastern and northwestern portions of Unit IX act as inlets
and outlets for river water to enter and exit the wetland.
Historically, the southern edge of this unit was diked, separating it
from the agricultural lands on Ebey Island. In addition, the boundary along
Deadwater Slough has been at least partially diked. The Highway 2 bridge
which bisects the unit, was originally constructed farther south before
1895, and moved to its present location prior to 1910. It should be noted
at the time of this writing that the expansion of Highway 2 has been
proposed and may result in construction impacts to Unit IX wetlands in the
future. Several easements exist on the unit, including the City of Everett
I ~ ~water pipelines easements and Burlington Northern and the Central Minnesota
and St. Paul railroad easements. Several structures are located on the
north-central portion of the unit along the Snohomish River. There have
I ~ ~been no observed changes in the habitat of this unit over the past ten
years.
Marsh vegetation on this unit provides high productivity to the wetland
I ~ ~and surrounding areas. The diverse marsh and swamp vegetation provides
feeding, nesting, and breeding habitat for a variety of waterfowl , wading
birds, songbirds, and small mammals. Although bald eagle use of this unit
I ~ ~has not been documented, some of the spruce scattered along the outer
portion of the unit could potentially be used as perch sites for wintering
eagl es.
Value ratings assigned for Unit IX wetland functions are shown in Table
9. The table also gives the basis for those ratings based on the Reppert
methodology. High values were assigned for hydrologic support function and
I ~ ~storage of storm and flood water. As with other units, however, the storm-
water storage function may be moderate-high due to physical conditions, but
is of limited value due to the unit's location. Moderate to high values
U ~ ~were assigned to natural biological function; water purification; and
aquatic study areas, sanctuaries, and refuges. Recreational opportunity and
cultural values received a moderate value rating, and natural groundwater
* ~~recharge and shoreline protection received a low rating.
Other Areas
I ~~~Snohomish County has recently acquired several small parcels of land in
the vicinity of the nine wetland units. These "other areas" are outside of
the boundary of any specific unit, but lie within the Snohomish River
I ~ ~Estuary and are considered elements of the same general wetland system.
Although these areas are important because they contribute to the program of
wetland procurement and preservation by Snohomish County, they will
generally have only minor parts in the development of a wetlands management
plan at the current time. Consequently, an in-depth wetland evaluation will
not be made for these individual small parcels. If, as the management plan
is developed, any of these areas appears to play a significant role in the
I ~ ~utilization of the wetlands as a whole, then detailed evaluations can be
made on those areas. It was not within the scope of this study to tabulate
the wetland values for additional wetland areas which are proposed for
I ~ ~possible acquisition and which lie outside the originally proposed nine
wetland units.
27

Table 9
EXISTING WETLAND VALUES EVALUATION FOR UNIT IX, EBEY ISLAND, (HIGHWAY 2)
(BASED ON A MODIFIED REPPERT ET AL., 1979)

Value Basis for Evaluation

1. NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION
A. Food Chain Support
1. Net Primary Production Moderate Shrub swamp habitat dominates wetland.
2. Mode of Transport Moderate-High Tidally influenced, exports material to Deadwater
and Steamboat Sloughs and the Snohomish River.
3. Food Chain Support High Diverse habitats and plant species support a
diversity of wildlife.
B. General Habitat Moderate-High Two habitat types, cattail/spirea community.
C. Special Habitat Moderate Potential wintering habitat for bald eagles.

2. AQUATIC STUDY AREAS, Moderate Large wetland, hydrologically linked to sloughs,
SANCTUARIES, REFUGES Snohomish River, Possession Sound, diversity of
plant communities. Unit bisected by Highway 2.
3. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION
A. Hydrologic Periodicity High Tidally influenced, regularly flooded.
B. Elevation in Basin High Located near base of Snohomish watershed

4. SHORELINE PROTECTION Low No development located in area.

5. STORAGE OF STORM AND
FLOOD WATER
A. Flood Storage Factor High Greater than 10 acres in size.
B. Flood Retardation Factor High Greater than 30% coverage of woody vegetation.
(Vegetative Cover)

6. NATURAL GROUNDWATER Low Does not contribute to local groundwater table due
RECHARGE to location within Snohomish estuary.

7. WATER PURIFICATION
A. Wetland Type
1. Hydroperiod High Regularly flooded.
2. Vegetation Density High Greater than 80% vegetation density.
B. Areal and Waste
Loading Relationships
1. Total Wetland Size High Approximately 83 acres in size.
2. Proportion of Water Moderate Greater than 75% water coverage at high tide, but
to Wetland tidal fluctuation allows regular aeration.
3. Proportion of Runoff Moderate 25-50% of water retained in wetland.
Retained in Wetland
C. Location Factors
1. Frost Free Days High Over 250 frost free days/year.
2. Location Related to Moderate-High Located downstream from agricultural fields.
Pollution Sources

8. CULTURAL VALUES Moderate Provides habitat for fisheries resources, provides
(Economics, Aesthetics, visual diversity for views from Highway 2 and the
Archaeologic Sites) west side of the Snohomish River.

9. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Moderate Large wetland with diverse plants, wildlife viewing
opportunities, high to moderate values for other
functions discourage heavy human use.

2.3 COMPARISON OF WETLAND VALUES
I ~~~~Using the Reppert methodology, it is possible to compare the functional
values of each of the nine wetland units. Table 10 presents the values for
each unit. The following comparison of wetland units is intended as a tool
I ~ ~to be used in determining the roles best suited for each of the units.
Those roles are identified in Sections 3.1 through 3.9. Each of the
following paragraphs presents a comparison of the wetland units for a single
wetland function. This comparison allows for the development of a heirarchy
identifying the units with the highest to lowest value for that function.
3 ~~Wildlife Habitat
Of the nine units considered for preservation, Units I, II, VI, and VII
are considered to currently have the highest values for wildlife habitat.
I ~ ~These units all have high ratings for their natural biological function due
to their high to moderate-high values for the factors that contribute to
valuable wildlfe habitat. These factors include primary productivity, food
chain support, and general and special habitat features. Units I, III, IV,
V, and IX have a moderate-high rating for natural biological function with
moderate to high ratings for factors contributing to valuable wildlife
3 ~~habitat. Unit VIII has a rioderate value for natural biological function.

Aquatic Study Areas, Sanctuaries, and Wildlife Refuges

* ~~~Most of the nine wetland units evaluated were assigned generally high
values for potential use as aquatic study areas, and sanctuaries or refuges
for wildlife. The large size, diversity of plant communities, and
hydrologic connection to surrounding waters of these wetlands contribute to
I ~ ~their value for this purpose. Units II and VII have the highest value and
Units I, IV, V, VI, and IX have moderate-high value. Unit III received a
rating of moderate due to its proximity to Highway 5 and Unit VIII received
I ~ ~a low rating due to the hydrologic isolation and seasonal water regime of
much of its wetland habitat.
3 ~~Hydrologic Support

Nearly all of the units have a high value for hydrologic support due to
their location in the Snohomish watershed basin and the fact that they are
I ~ ~regularly flooded. The one exception is Unit VIII with a moderate value for
this function. This unit received a lower rating because the dikes sur-
rounding it are maintained and most of the wetland area on this unit is hy-
drologically isolated from the main river channels.
Shoreline Protecti on
I ~~~Unit I received a high rating for its function in shoreline protection
due to its location facing Puget Sound and the protection it provides to
industry in the area. Unit II received a moderate rating since developed
I ~ ~areas it could protect are fairly limited. The remaining wetland units
received moderate to low ratings for this function due primarily to the lack
of development in those areas.

Table 10.
A COMPARISON OF WETLAND UNIT VALUES

North Ebev Island Ebev Island
Smith Island Oullceda Island Mid-Spencer Otter Island
Unit I Unit II Unit III Unit IV Unit V Unit VI Unit Vll Unit VIII Unit IX

1. NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION Moderate-High High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High High High Low-Moderate Moderate-High
A. Food Chain Productivity
1. Net Primary Production High High High High High High High Moderate Moderate
2. Mode of Transport High High High High High High High Low-Moderate Moderate-High
3. Food Chain Support High High High High High High High Low High
B. General Habitat High High Moderate Moderate Moderate High High High Moderate-High
C. Special Habitat High High High High High High High High Moderate

2. AQUATIC STUDY AREAS, Moderate-High High Moderate Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High High Low Moderate-High
SANCTUARIES, REFUGES

3. HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT FUNCTION High High High High High High High Moderate High
A. Hydrologic Periodicity High High High High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High Low High
B. Elevation In Basin High High High High High High High High High

4. SHORELINE PROTECTION High Moderate Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

5. STORAGE OF STORM AND FLOOD WATER' Low Low Low Low Low Low-Moderate Low-Moderate Moderate Moderate
A. Flood Storage Factor High High High High High High High Moderate High
S B. Flood Retardation Factor Moderate Moderate Low Low moderate Moderate Moderate-High Low-Moderate High
(Vegetative Cover)

6. NATURAL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

7. WATER PURIFICATION Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High High Moderate-High Moderate-High High Moderate Moderate-High
A. Wetland Type
1. Hydroperlod High High High High High High High Low High
2. Vegetation Density Moderate High High High High Moderate High Moderate High

B. Areal and Waste Loading Relationship
1. Total Wetland Size High High Moderate High High Moderate High Moderate High
2. Proportion of Water to Wetland Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate High Low Moderate
3. Proportion of Runoff Retained In Low Low Moderate High Moderate Moderate Low High Moderate
In Wetland
C. Location Factors
1. Frost Free Days High High High High High High High High High
2. Location Related to Pollution Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High
Sources

8. CULTURAL VALUES Moderate-High High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate
(Economics, Aesthetics,
Archeologic Sites)

9. RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY Moderate Low-Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low High Moderate

*Overall values for this function have been modified to reflect the location of each unit within the watershed.

Storm and Flood Water Storage
I ~~~~High values were assigned to Units VII and IX for storm and flood water
storage since these are large wetlands with a high percentage of woody
vegetation which slows the velocity of floodwaters. lost of the remaining
I ~ ~wetland units have moderate to moderate-high values for storm and flood
water storage. These large wetlands have a lower rating due to the lower
proportion of woody to herbaceous vegetation occurring in the wetlands.
Unit VIII received a low rating for this function since most of the unit is
hydrologically isolated from the sloughs, except in extreme cases of high
flood levels. It should be noted that the overall value for each wetland
unit has been modified to reflect its location in the watershed. Taking the
I ~ ~factor of location into consideration, the overall values for the units are
as follows: low value assigned to Units I, II, III, IV, and V; low-moderate
value to Units VI and VII; and moderate value to Units VIII and IX.
Groundwater Recharge
All of the wetland units received a low rating for natural groundwater
recharge. The location of the wetland units within the Snohomish estuary
prevents them from contributing to the local groundwater table.

3 ~~Water Purification
Units IV and VII received a high rating for the water purification
function. A moderate-high rating was given to Units I, II, III, V, VI, and
IX. Unit VIII received a low-moderate rating. All the units, except Unit
VIII, have consistently high values for the wetland type and location factor
* ~~characteristics.
Cultural Values
3 ~~~The highest rating for cultural values was given to Unit II since this
wetland has archeological and cultural significance and provides fisheries
resources important to the livelihood and cultural traditions of the Tulalip
Tribes. Moderate-high values were assigned to three of the wetlands units
including Unit I for use as a study area by the Everett School District,
Unit VII for an archeologically significant midden, and Unit VIII for its
active use as agricultural land. The remaining units received moderate
ratings for the fisheries resources and/or visual diversity they provide to
the regional landscape.

3 ~~Recreational Opportunity
Values for potential recreational opportunity for each unit were based
on three factors: 1) the ratings for the other wetland functions within the
unit, 2) present recreation use of the unit, such as hunting; and 3) the
observable potential for recreation within the unit. While a few of the
units are presently being used for waterfowl hunting, all of the units have
I ~ ~some opportunity for recreation such as dike trails for hiking and open
water channels for canoeing. While the potential for recreation exists on
nearly every unit, heavy recreational use could have an adverse affect on
I ~ ~units that have a high value for wildlife habitat. Thus, the unit with the
31

lowest ratings for its other functional values, Unit VIII, was assigned a
high value for recreational opportunity. Units II and VII received a
relatively low rating for recreation because of very high values for other
wetland functions. The remaining units received a moderate rating for
recreational opportunity.

Overall Functional Values

Based on the Reppert Functional Value methodology, Units II and VII
received the highest functional value ratings overall and Unit VIII received
the lowest overall. All the remaining units (I, III, IV, V, VI, and IX)
have moderate to moderate-high value overall for wetland functions. This
wetland evaluation process is intended to compare the units to each other
for various wetland functions, rather than to provide an absolute rating
system. The goal of this process is to provide a basis for the development
of appropriate management roles for each of the units. Management roles for
the units are presented in Sections 3.1 through 3.9.

I
I
I
I
* 3. Management Plan Goals
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

3* IIANAGEPIENT PLAN GOALS

A primary goal of the Management Plan is to develop specific management
I ~ ~recommendations for all of the units. To do this, it was first necessary to
identify overall goals for the management of all nine wetland units as a
whole and then determine how each of the nine units could be managed to meet
these goals. Because of the diversity, and sometimes conflicting nature, of
the goals, an individual wetland unit cannot fulfill all of the goals. A
unit can meet several management goals, however, if it contains a variety of
* ~~habitat types and if the proposed goals are compatible.

The seven management plan goals identified by Snohomish County and the
Snohomish River Wetland Advisory Committee include wildlife habitat pre-
I ~ ~servation, wildlife habitat enhancement, public access, recreation, inter-
pretive education, scientific research, and cultural resource preservation.
The number of goals each wetland unit can meet, or the number of "roles" it
can fulfill in meeting goals depends upon that unit's natural, geographic,
and cultural features.
For each role assigned to a wetland unit, a set of "objectives" has
I ~ ~been established to provide measureable accomplishments towards meeting the
designated goal. A more specific "strategy" details a method of attaining
each objective. Specific objectives and strategies are discussed in Section
4, while an overview of the management plan goals and the potential roles
each of the wetland units could fulfill in meeting these goals is discussed

* ~~~Wildlife habitat preservation refers to the primary preservation of
wetland habitat as it currently exists. While a main focus of the
management plan for all the units is to preserve existing wetland habitat,
U ~ ~some of the units have lower values for wildlife habitat than others and are
more appropriate for roles which permit a certain amount of controlled
disturbance (e.g., hiking, habitat enhancement activities, etc.). Those
areas that exhibit the greatest diversity and uniqueness in habitat and the
least amount of past disturbance have been considered most strongly for
strict habitat preservation. Those units are proposed to fill other roles
only where those other roles do not conflict with strict habitat
preservation.
Wildlife habitat enhancement opportunities exist on units where
I ~ ~marginal wetland habitat occurs or where a single habitat type dominates the
unit. In wetland areas dominated by a single or few habitat types, enhance-
ment opportunity exists through diversification of the wetland by creation
of other habitat types. For example, open water habitat can be introduced
into large areas dominated by cattails. In areas of marginal wetland
habitat, the creation of marsh habitat or forested wetland can greatly
enhance the existing habitat value. Areas of native wetland shrubs and
U ~ ~trees could be planted along the edges of large expanses of marsh, again to
create greater structural and habitat diversity within the plant community
and, therefore, in the wildlife habitat provided. Enhancing existing
I ~ ~wetland habitat generally increases the wildlife habitat value and aesthetic
value of a wetland.

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~33

A primary goal of the management plan is to provide public access to
the wetlands for various sanctioned uses. Two types of public access need
I ~ ~to be considered. One type of access would be to provide public entry into
a particular unit. This could consist of a road and parking lot or, in the
case of access to islands, a dock or observation deck accessible via boat
I ~ ~from the sloughs. Another type of access would be the provide entry to the
general wetland system via a particular wetland unit or focused access
point.

* ~~~Appropriate recreational uses of the wetland units include low impact
activities compatible with the general goal of preserving wetland habitat
and other wetland functions. Examples of such uses include hiking, canoe-
I ~ ~ing, kayaking, and bird watching. Access for use of the wetland units by
fishermen and hunters could also be considered as appropriate uses of
certain wetland units. Decisions regarding recreational uses of the units
I ~ ~need to take into account the fact that not all recreational activities are
compatible. For example, hunting activities on a unit would interfere with
other passive uses and would require closing the unit for other uses besides
* ~~hunting during designated seasons of the year.
Provision for interpretive education is paramount if respect for the
wetland resource is to be gained. It is only as a result of such respect
I ~ ~that the public will value the functions the wetlands provide and,
therefore, want to protect them from destruction. Educational information
should be provided to the public covering topics ranging from a broad
orientation to the Snohomish County Wetlands Preservation Plan to specific
elements of wetland functions. Interpretive stations should be established
throughout the wetland units and include structures ranging from an open
interpretive kiosk with graphics on display walls to small signs placed
I ~ ~along hiking trails. An even less intrusive form of interpretive
opportunity is the placement of numbered posts along hiking or canoe trails
3 ~~corresponding to a descriptive pamphlet useful for self-guided tours.
Use of the wetland units for scientific research is another important
role the wetland system as a whole can fulfill. Research opportunities
exist for the study of a wide range of subjects including wetland ecology,
plant succession, water quality, fisheries resources, ornithology, and other
wildlife.
I ~~~Cultural resource preservation is an appropriate role for those units
containing archeologically and culturally significant features or resources.
The Snohomish Estuary has been used, both in the past and present, by Indian
tribes and has cultural resources appropriate for preservation.
While no single wetland unit is suited to all the roles, taken
together, the units can fulfill all of the goals of the management plan.
Figure 2 provides a general site plan for all of the wetlands as a system
and includes descriptions of selected roles assigned for each unit. Table
11 presents a matrix of possible and recommended management roles for the
I ~ ~wetland units. All of the possible roles a wetland unit can play are shown
in this table based on the opportunity of a unit to fulfill that particular
role. Specific roles were recommended for those units exhibiting high
I ~ ~opportunity and the lowest number of constraints to fulfill that role.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~34

- m - - - m m m - m - m m m m m m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A

I f

MANAGEMENT GOL /"\N'f. .
LIMITED PUBH(O ACCSS-
RESEARCH 2 7 4t
INTERPRETIVEIUAIO
HABITAT PRESERVATION
CULTURAL RESOURC E PRSE TiD v

0 1-di dlofth~~~~~-,\f

7h- 4' ftf

,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ANAGrEMEN~TGOAL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LMTDRECREATION7

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HABITAT ENHANdEKMENT
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~H~~~~~~ABITAT PRESERVATION

FIGURE 2 SNOI-IOMISH COUNTY, WA. / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~�AANAGEElfrNI AL

S ~~ ~ -~~~ ~ ~ ./ArW~~~~~tj;ND~~~~. ~LIMITED REEATION
LEGEND . . 1 ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ii 'NTERPRETIV EDUCATION
3 1 *~R-7 ~. HABITAT ENHANCEMAENT
INTERPRETIVE EX~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HABITA &PINFORMATIONAE

S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' M 4"h/-

"AN GhMEJAGOASOALS10 2 30

~~~~~~~~~~~~AASS1EAES ALS

Table 11
Matrix of All Possible and Recommended Management Roles
for the Wetland Units

Goals
Limited Passive Primarily Cultural
Public Recreational Research Interpretive Habitat Habitat Resource
Access Oortuniy Oportunity Education Enhancement Preservation Preservation

Unit I X(a) X X
West Smith Island

Unit 11
Quilceda Creek

Unit III X (ab) X � X
North Ebey Island (North)

Unit IV
North Ebey Island (Middle) 000000

Unit V ( 0 0
North Ebey Island (South)

Unit Vi
Mid-Spencer 0 0

Unit VII
Otter Island

Unit Vil
Ebey Island (Northwest)

Unit IX X Q X
Ebey Island (Highway 2)

a: access into a particular wetland unit
b: access into the general wetland system via a particular wetland unit
X : Possible Management Role

O : Recommended Management Role

As indicated in Table 11, Units I, II, III, IV, VII, arnd IX are
identified as being possible areas for public access to the wetlands,
I ~ ~however, only Units II, IV, and VII are recommended for the role of
supplying public access at this time. It should be noted that roles which
are recommended, compared with roles which are listed only as possible in
I ~ ~Table 11, Bear more importance in determining the overall proposed
management of any given unit.
Limited recreational opportunity is identified as being possible for
U ~ ~Units I, II, III, IV, and VII, however, only Units II, IV, and VII are
recommended for the role of supplying recreational opportunity at this time.
Research opportunity exists on all of the units and is identified as being
compatible with all other roles for which each unit is recommended.
Interpretive education is identified as being a possible role of Units
I, II, III, IV, VIII, and IX, however, only Units I, II, IV, and VIII are
recommended for filling that role. Interpretive educational facilities
would have low visual impact and be able to withstand flooding that may
occur in the area. Habitat enhancement is recommended for Units III, IV, V,
VI, and VIII.
Preservation of the existing habitats on all the units is recommended,
I ~ ~with Unit VIII being the only unit on which extensive alteration of the
existing habitats is proposed. Such alteration will result from habitat
enhancement activities and the creation of public access and passive
recreational facilities. Consequently, primary habitat preservation is
recommended on all the units except Unit VIII, although preservation of much
of the habitat on Unit VIII will occur regardless of construction of the
proposed facilities. Cultural resources are found on Units II and VII and
are recommended for preservation.
The following sections in this report identify and discuss the unique
I ~ ~set of roles recommended for each of the nine wetland units. The assignment
of roles for each unit was based on the wetland resource evaluation
completed for that unit and presented in Section 2.2 of this report.

3.1 ROLES FOR UNIT I
I ~~~Unit I is relatively isolated from many of the other wetland units and,
based on the wetland resource evaluation completed for this unit, is
recommended for roles including habitat preservation and the provision of
I ~ ~research opportunity. The unit is closely adjacent to heavily industrial-
ized areas in the estuary and, primarily for aesthetic and logistical
reasons, is considered only marginally appropriate for public access,
recreational and interpretive educational roles. As detailed on Figure 2,
certain portions within the originally proposed boundaries of Unit I have
now been recommended for elimination for acquisition by Snohomish County
* ~~because they are currently under heavy industrial use.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~37

3.2 ROLES OF UNIT 1I
I ~~~Recommended management roles for Unit II include the provision of
public access; recreational and research opportunities; interpretive
education; and habitat and cultural resource preservation. Unit II, located
I ~ ~just west of rlarysville and adjacent to an unused (but not vacated) portion
of Tulalip Road, offers ideal public access both to the unit itself, and
(via non-motorized boats using a proposed launch) to other wetland units.
Section 5.1 of this report presents a site plan for Unit II and presents
detailed descriptions of the access, recreational and interpretive
facilities proposed for the unit.
I ~~~Recreational opportunities are proposed to include a boardwalk with
observation platforms, and interpretive signs. A non-motorized boat launch
is proposed where the portion of Tulalip Road currently meets Quilceda Creek
* ~~on its east side.
The land encompassing Unit II is currently owned by the Tulalip Indian
Tribe and presents a unique opportunity for cultural interpretation on the
I ~ ~current and historic use of Quilceda Creek and its wetland resources by the
Tribe.

3.3 ROLES OF UNIT III
Recommended roles for Unit III include the provision of opportunity for
research, and the enhancement and preservation of existing wetland habitats.
It may be useful to note that habitat preservation and habitat enhancement
are not mutually exclusive roles for a single wetland unit. For example,
I ~ ~much of the existing wetland habitat in a given unit may be highly
functional and worthy of strict preservation while allowing, at the same
time, for habitat enhancment in certain areas of the unit where the habitat
I ~ ~values may be lower. Unit III is less appropriate for recreational, access,
and interpretive purposes because of its close proximity to Interstate 5
with its high and distracting noise levels.

3.4 ROLES OF UNIT IV

I ~~~Recommended roles for Unit IV include the provision of public access,
recreational and research opportunities, interpretive educational
opportunity, and habitat preservation. Section 5.2 of this report presents
I ~ ~a site plan for Unit IV and describes the proposed facilities for the unit.
Located roughly in the geographic center of the wetland units, Unit IV
provides an opportunity for supplying recreational and educational
opportunities to the public in a relatively remote and only marginally
accessible portion of the preserved wetlands.
The unit is proposed for access only by boat and will provide a short
I ~ ~span of hiking trail along the top of the dike which remains intact. Two
platforms, one on either end of the trail, are proposed as viewing points

and will exhibit interpretive signs. Both other wetland units (II and VIII)
proposed for the provision of public access, recreational and educational
I ~ ~opportunities are located closer to the geographic "ends" of the preserved
wetlands, and both are adjacent to public roads. Unit TV will allow limited
opportunity for those individuals wishing to access the wetlands by boat
I ~ ~only - away from roads, houses and other developed facilities. Because the
unit contains large areas of monotypic stands of cattails, the introduction
of areas of open water could enhance the existing waterfowl habitat values
* ~~of the unit.

3.5 ROLES OF UNIT V
Recommended roles for Unit V include the provision of research
opportunity, and opportunities for both habitat preservation and enhance-
I ~ ~ment. Recreational, educational and public access opportunities were
identified as roles inappropriate for this unit due to its relatively high
wetland values, and to the fact that the unit is isolated from roads or
other terrestrial (non-water) access points. Additionally, the unit's dikes
are heavily breached rendering them inappropriate for hiking trails. 'luch
of the wildlife habitat on this unit exists as extensive stands of emergent
vegetation. These plant communities should be preserved and include some
habitat enhancement resulting from the creation of open water areas or
wetland tree and shrub plantings (on dikes) where appropriate.

U ~~3.6 ROLES OF UNIT VI
Unit VI, like Unit V, has relatively high wetland and habitat values;
I ~ ~large, monotypic stands of emergent vegetation; and is isolated from roads
or other terrestrial access. Therefore, Unit VI is recommended to serve
only those roles including the provision of research opportunity and the
enhancement and preservation of wetland habitat.

3 ~~3.7 ROLES FOR UNIT VII
Based on the functional value determined using the Reppert Methodology
this unit has relatively high values for nearly all the wetland functions
I ~ ~evaluated, and particularly for wildlife habitat and cultural resources.
Because of these high values, it is important to limit human impact on this
unit. Thus, no recreational facilities, public access, or interpretive
I ~ ~stations have been proposed for the island. The roles this unit can fulfill
in the overall management goals of the County's preservation plan include
habitat and cultural resource preservation.

3.8 ROLES FOR UNIT VIII
I ~~~This unit has relatively low value for most of the wetland functions
evaluated as based on the Reppert Methodology (see Table 8). This was one
3 ~~of the primary reasons Unit VIII was considered an ideal location for the

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~39

main interpretive, parking, and non-motorized boat launch facilities
necessary for inclusion somewhere into the overall management plan. Unit
I ~ ~VIII is also currently owned by Snohomish County and, therefore, presents
immediate opportunity for development. In addition, Unit VIII is directly
accessible via existing roads on Ebey Island. It should be noted, however,
I ~ ~that these county roads would need improvement in order to safely convey
increased levels of traffic to the wetland unit. These considerations, in
combination with the relatively low wetland habitat values on much of Unit
VIII, were primary considerations in the selection of the unit as the
location for public access and use.
In addition to the public uses recommended above, habitat enhancement
I ~ ~was also determined to be an appropriate role for Unit VIII. Opportunity
for habitat enhancement on this unit is high due to the relatively low
habitat value of the wetlands that currently exist.
Potential recreational uses of the unit include access to canoeing and
kayaking (via the boat launch) in the sloughs of the Snohomish River, a loop
trail along the dikes for hiking and bird watching, and interpretive
facilities in the forms of signs and self-guided nature walks.

3.9 ROLES OF UNIT IX
Based on the wetland evaluation completed for Unit IX, possible roles
for this unit include the provision of public access, research opportunity,
interpretive education, and habitat preservation. Recommended roles include
the provision of research opportunity and habitat preservation. Public
access and educational opportunity are largely discounted as roles for this
I ~ ~unit because of the unit's location - closely adjacent to U.S. Highway 2.
Vehicular access is currently dangerous from the highway and may be
eliminated as a result of proposed impovements to the roadway. Addition-
I ~ ~ally, traffic noise emminating form the highway could be distracting to
many visitors wishing to enjoy a natural wetland ecosystem. Recreational,
public access and educational roles are all better served by other wetland
* ~~units.

3.10 ALTERNATIVE MIANAGEMENT SCENARIOS AND POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL AREAS
The management plan roles for the wetland units as presented above is
one possible scenario incorporating the functional values information as
I ~ ~generated in the resource values assessment of each unit. Various alterna-
tives to this management plan are possible and may be influenced by several
factors.
I ~~~One such factor is the possible purchase of additional areas outside of
the nine units described herein, thus providing additional management oppor-
tunities not currently presented by the nine identified units. For
I ~ ~instance, the possible joint purchase of Spencer Island by the Washington
State Department of Wildlife and Snohomish County would provide additional
* ~~resources for incorporation into the management plan.

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~40

Another factor influencing the management plan is the actual avail-
ability of all nine units for acquisition by Snohomish County. If certain
I ~ ~units become unavailable for acquisition, the individual roles of the units
may change from those recommended herein. Overall, management opportunities
presented by various land ownership combinations could affect the locations
I ~ ~of various elements including the interpretive center, areas of habitat
enhancement, hiking trails, boat launches, interpretive platforms and
overlooks, etc. Some of these alternatives are detailed below.

I ~~Possible Additional Areas for Purchase or as Conservation Easements
Additional areas could be purchased outside of the nine units. There
are several reasons why this may be desirable and why this would affect the
management plan. The reasons for such additional acquisitions include 1) a
desire the preserve valuable wetland habitat not originally identified for
I ~ ~acquisition in earlier studies, and 2) the desire to buffer valuable
wetlands from external disturbance by separating those wetlands from such
disturbance through the preservation of open or undeveloped space.
Acquisition of buffer areas could be achieved through the direct purchase of
I ~ ~land or the establishment of "conservation easements." Land owners would be
restricted on the type of development possible on land with a conservation
easement designation. Several areas that could be acquired to serve these
I ~ ~purposes have been identified on Figure 2. A brief description of the
location and potential use of these areas is given below.
Additional areas recommended for acquisition include all those
indicated of Figure 2 with an "R" code (R-1 through R-6). The following
paragraphs describe those areas.

I ~~~1) R-1: Acquisition of the floodplain of Quilceda Creek between
Interstate Highway 5 and the north end of Unit II at Marina Drive
could protect valuable wetlands and the downstream reaches of the
creek in Unit II.
2) R-2: A large expanse of saltwater marsh exists between Units I and
1I, north of Steamboat Slough and south of Ebey Slough at the mouth
of the Snohomish River estuary. This area is west of an area which
was used years ago as a dump site for garbage originating from local
municipalities. This saltwater marsh was not originally identified
I ~ ~~~as a wetland unit for preservation, however, because of its high
wetland resource value, it is now being recommened for acquisition
and preservation. The area appears to exhibit habitat and other
wetland values of quality equally high to those found in Units I and
I ~~~~~II.
3) R-3: Acquisition of the lobe of land located east of Ebey Slough
between Units IV and V. The County has already acquired
approximately 0.5 acres along the northern portion of this area.
Most of the area consists of forested wetland. This area could
I ~ ~~~potentially serve as access to the general wetland system by using
the created slough along the area's northern border for boat access

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~41

to Ebey Slough. A means of public access (pedestrian or vehicular)
to the slough would need to be established since none presently
I ~ ~~~exists across the private property that separates the slough from
public roads. Acquisition of this area and preservation of its
habitats would also serve to buffer the south portion of Unit IV and
I ~ ~~~the north portion of Unit V. This recommended area is currently
vegetated with forested wetland of high wetland value.
4) R-4: Acquisition of the lobe of land located east of Ebey Slough
I ~ ~~~roughly located between Units V and VII would add high value
forested wetland habitat to the wetlands preservation and management
plan. Acquisition of this area would serve to buffer Otter Island
I ~ ~~~(Unit VII) and the southern portion of Unit V from potential
development of agricultural lands to the east. Acquisition would
also serve to protect a bald eagle nest located in this lobe of
wetland.
5) R-5: Spencer Island is another possible acquisition area. Located
between Steamboat and Union Sloughs to the south of Unit VI, this
area would serve as a buffer for Units VII and VIII. In addition,
it would serve a number of other valuable functions within the
* ~~~~wetland system.

Miarshes of grasses and bulrush dominate the area and stands of red
alder and Douglas fir at the periphery of the island surround the
emergent wetland in the center of the island. These habitats
attract a wide variety of wildlife. Species known to use the site
include deer, pileated woodpecker, marsh wren, coyote, quail, and a
variety of small mammals, raptors, and waterfowl. The high wildlife
I ~ ~~~habitat value of the island makes this an ideal area for wildlife
viewing and provides an area for public hunting. In addition, the
northern portion of the island is located within bald eagle nesting
I ~ ~~~territory. Hiking trails also could be established throughout the
interior and along the dikes of this area. Trails could be linked
to the hiking trail system designed to be placed in the Langus
Riverfront Park by the City of Everett. There is also potential for
wetland enhancement and interpretive education on this site.
6) R-6: Existing in the northwest quarter of the intersection of U.S.
I ~ ~~~Highway 2 and Ebey Slough, is an area of forested wetland and open
fields which has been recommended for acquisition by Snohomish
County. This area was not formerly an area recommended for
I ~ ~~~acquisition in past studies, but presents opportunities for wetland
preservation consistent with the objectives for the management plan.
The area, in part, is known as the "Posel Property" and includes
I ~ ~~~approximately 22 acres of forested area - all or most of which is
forested wetland. A portion of the wetland was recently logged by
the owner of the property with the objective of planting cottonwood
I ~ ~~~trees for later harvest. The property is currently available to
Snohomish County for purchase as part of the County's wetlands
preservation program. The remaining forested wetland areas provide

valuable wildlife habitat. The open field existing between the
forested wetland and Ebey Slough provides a physical connection
between the forested wetland and the waterways of the estuary, and
because of this, the field is also recommended for acquisition.

3 ~~~7) R-7: As shown in Figures 2 and 6, the most appropriate location for
the boat launch recommended at the southwest portion of Unit VIII
requires the acquisition of a small piece of land currently outside
of County ownership. Purchase of the land will allow for the
construction of the launch in a small backwater of Steamboat Slough
rather than on the main channel of the river which would be required
if the County uses only land currently owned for the launch.
I ~ ~~~Construction of the launch in the backwater will make for a safer
and more convenient means of launching the non-motorized boats for
which the launch is designed. A property line adjustment at the
I ~ ~~~southwestern corner of Unit VIII (to include the backwater) would
allow the County to acquire the area without having to purchase a
large piece of land for which it has no anticipated need or use.

I ~~~Acquisition of these additional areas outside the original nine units
would increase the amount of wetland habitat to be preserved by the County,
as well as buffer the designated wetland units. Some of these areas also
I ~ ~could be used to fulfill various management goals for the wetland system.
For example, Spencer Island has the potential to fulfill goals for
recreational use, habitat enhancement, interpretive education, research, and
public access. In addition, the floodplain of Quilceda Creek could play a
role in strict habitat preservation and the lobe of land between Units IV
and V could provide public access to the general wetland system.
I ~~~Several areas which have not been proposed for acquisition by Snohomish
County for wetlands preservation are proposed to be included as "conserva-
tion easements" in the management plan. These areas are identified on
I ~ ~Figure 2 as those areas with "C" codes (C-i through C-4). These areas could
be managed to act as buffers separating the wetlands from possible future
nearby development in the Snohomish River valley. Outright purchase by
Snohomish County of the conservation easements is not recommended because of
the expense and because the areas are generally all upland habitat.
However, acquisition of easement rights by the County, preventing certain
uses of (or activities on) the properties, could well support the goals of
I ~ ~the wetlands preservation plan. Prohibited uses of the easement properties
could be the construction of buildings or parking facilities, and a
prohibited activity could be the cutting of native woody vegetation. If
any of these areas are currently agricultural , that ongoing use could be
native woody vegetation could* be encouraged on the easements to further
* ~~buffer the wetlands from possible adjacent disturbance.
There are currently many variables which make it difficult if not
impossible to accurately prioritize the order in which the County should
I ~ ~begin to pursue acquisition of the recommended additional purchase areas and
the conservation easements. Those variables include 1) the willingness of

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~43

any given land owner to sell or grant easement to the County, 2) the asking
price for a piece of property on the open market, 3) the threat of
I ~ ~development existing on any given piece of land being considered, 4) the
relative wetland or upland resource values on the properties in question,
and 5) the proximity of additional areas or conservation easements to
wetland units which the County anticipates purchasing in the near future.
There would probably be little disagreement that areas R-1 through R-7
all exhibit high wetland resource values - the primary reason why they have
been recommended for additional acquisition. However it is difficult to
prioritize them relative to habitat values alone without additional,
in-depth study of their wetland resource values.

Proximity to County owned wetland units could help prioritize
acquisition of additional wetland areas outside of the original nine units.
I ~ ~For example, area R-4 might well be the current highest priority additional
acquisition area because of its proximity to Units V, VI, and VII - all or
parts of these units which Snohomish County currently owns.

I ~~~Our recommendation is that the County carefully evaluate the potential
acquisition of these areas as each becomes available on the market.
Approaching the current owners to assess willingness to sell and at what
I ~ ~price would also establish a base of information useful in prioritizing the
areas for purchase. As with the recent purchases of wetland units the
County has made, each purchase should be based on careful evaluation of
price per acre, existing habitat and other wetland values, and the
contribution the purchase would make toward reaching the goal of preserving
valuable wetlands.
I ~~~Prioritizing the order of acquisition of the conservation easements is
also difficult because all represent an important step in buffering areas
currently or potentially owned by the County. Perhaps acquisition of
I ~ ~easement rights on areas C-3 and C-4 should be current priorities because
the County owns Units VII and VIII - the units closest to C-3 and C-4.
Alternative Interpretive Center Locations
Several different locations were investigated for establishment of a
central interpretive center for the wetland preserve. Factors that were
I ~ ~considered in evaluating the alternative sites described below include:
1) the desire for minimal impact to wetland habitat in the construction and
human use of the center; 2) concerns for potential flood damage to the
I ~ ~facility; 3) aesthetics concerns; and 4) consideration of public access to
the location and to the wetland system overall via the facility. Units II,
IV, V, VI, and VII were not considered as potential locations for the
facility due to difficult access to the island units and the disturbance to
wetland habitat that such a facility would create on those units.
Several sites that could serve as interpretive center locations include
I ~ ~Units I, III, VIII, IX, Langus Riverfront Park, the additional purchase
areas located east of Ebey Slough, and Spencer Island. Each of these areas
present certain opportunities and constraints for development as a central
I ~ ~interpretive/access facility. These opportunities and constraints are
described below.

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~44

Unit I has been proposed as an alternative interpretive center because
of direct access to the unit via existing roads through the industrial area
1 ~ ~to its east. The area is currently being used by City of Everett schools
for interpretive course work. Use of the upland habitat along the eastern
portion of the unit as an interpretive area would minimize impact to the
I ~ ~wetland habitat to the west. Placement of an interpretive station on the
upland area also would be expected to minimize impacts due to periodic
flooding. The major drawback to using this unit as an interpretive center
is the proximity of heavy industrial uses including log storage areas, wood
waste treatment ponds and the landfill to the north. These industrial uses
in the vicinity of the unit have a deleterious effect on the aesthetics of
the area and contribute unpleasant odors to the unit.

Unit III also has been proposed as an alternative interpretive center.
Proximity of the site to Highway 529 could facilitate access to this site.
I ~ ~The open water area at the northeast corner of the unit could be used a boat
launch. The majority of this unit consists of marsh habitat. Placement of
an interpretive station on this unit would affect some of this habitat, the
amount of habitat affected would depend on the size of the interpretive
center. Aesthetically, this unit is undesirable for a public interpretive
facility because of the noise and visual disturbance of nearby Interstate
3 ~~Highway 5.

Unit VIII is an alternative choice for the location of an interpretive
center. Wetland habitat on this unit is considered marginal and so
I ~ ~establishing an interpretive station in this area would not disturb valuable
wetland habitat. Although this area is subject to flooding, the structure
of interpretive stations on this unit can be designed to minimize impact
from flood waters. This unit could be useful as an educational area because
I ~ ~it is located in the heart of the estuary and is surrounded by diverse
wetland habitat types. Other advantages to use of this unit include the
fact that the County currently owns the site and that there is existing
I ~ ~access to the unit via public roads. Constraints to the use of Unit VIII
include the fact that the site is periodically flooded and local residents
are concerned by the possible increase of traffic on Ebey Island roads.
Additionally, the local diking district has expressed concern over the use
of the dikes as public access hiking trails.
Unit IX has an existing area of fill on which an interpretive center
could be placed. A boat launch on Deadwater Slough could provide access to
the wetland system. An access road to this unit from Highway 2 presently
exists; however, the State of Washington may have future plans to close this
access for safety interests during proposed expansion of State Highway 2.
Ifthis road is closed, the unit would be inaccessible to vehicular traffic.
Noise and visual disturbance from Highway 2 negatively affect the aesthetics

Putting a wetland interpretive center at Langus Riverfront Park has
also been proposed. This would eliminate impacts to wetland habitat in the
I ~ ~wetland units and maximize the public facility already existing, or
proposed, at Riverfront Park. The park already has existing vehicular
access and parking facilties as well as a motorized boat launch useful also

for non-motorized watercraft. However, its location on the Snohomish River

and its distance from the wetland units diminish its usefulness for access
to the wetland system existing generally east of the park. Riverfront Park
I ~ ~has been determined to be an appropriate location of an interpretive
facility orienting the public to the resources of the Snohomish River
Wetland Preserve. Unit V11I, if developed as the central access and
3 ~~interpretive focus of the wetland preserve, would seem a better location for
interpretive information specific to concepts of wetland ecology, and to the
roles individual wetland units have in the overall management of the wetland
* ~~preserve.
Two possible additional purchase areas (R-3 and R-4) could be used as
an interpretive center. An interpretive center and centralized access
I ~ ~facilities could be placed on the adjacent upland portion of the areas,
minimizing disturbance to wetland habitat and reducing possible impacts from
floods. Impacts to wetland habitat would occur, however, if access to Ebey
I ~ ~Slough were established for a boat launch. In addition, neither of these
areas has existing access to them. Another drawback to the use of the
southern area near Otter Island would be disturbance from human use of the
5 ~~area to the bald eagle nest.
Spencer Island also has been proposed as an alternative site for an
interpretive center. A road, running across the south end of Smith Island,
I ~ ~already provides access onto Spencer Island. Any interpretive structure
could be placed on the upland area where the road ends, minimizing impacts
to wetland habitat. It has been suggested that the old barn in this area be
I ~ ~used as an interpretive facility; however, the structure of the building
would need to be investigated for safety and a determination made as to
whether any improvements to it would be cost effective. Hiking trails could
be established throughout the island and along the dikes. The existing
dikes would require some repair where the underlying hog fuel has
deteriorated. Trails on the island could be linked to the hiking trail
system proposed on Smith Island as part of the Langus Riverfront Park. A
I ~ ~boat launch could be placed on Union Slough, with access to the wetland
system via the channel just south of Unit VI. From an aesthetics
perspective, Spencer Island lends itself to use as an interpretive center;
however, drawbacks to using this area for this purpose include the
aesthetics of the access road onto the island. The road runs between two
wastewater treatment ponds, which are visually unappealing and could
contribute to unpleasant odors on the island. In addition, plans are
presently being considered which include using the island as a hunting area.
In this case, uses other than hunting would be restricted for certain
seasons of the year, limiting the interpretive education function for this
area.
Habitat Enhancement Alternatives
I ~~~An alternative to the habitat enhancement options presented for Units
III, IV, V, and VI would be to eliminate recommendations for wetland
enhancement on certain units. Elimination of wetland enhancement would
I ~ ~preclude the creation of open water habitat in the marshlands or the
planting of wetland shrubs and trees on the dikes surrounding these units.
Enhancement may not be desirable due to the costs of such activity or to the
I ~ ~disturbance enhancement activities may have on the existing habitats.

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~46

Alternative Purchase Options For Unit Vill

I ~~~Several options for additional land purchase adjacent to County-owned
portions of Unit VIIl have been investigated. These options include: 1) no
further acquisition, 2) acquisition of access rights to all or a portion of
I ~ ~the dike along the western portion of Ebey Slough, or 3) acquisition of all
the land east of the existing unit and west of Ebey Slough, essentially
extending the southern property boundary of County-owned land to the east
3 ~~all the way to Ebey Slough.

Snohomish County currently owns approximately 70 acres on the northwest
end of Ebey Island. By acquiring access rights to the dike along the
I ~ ~northwestern portion of the island, a walking trail could be extended along
Ebey Slough with a pleasant view of agricultural lands to the east. An
easement along the southern portion of the land to the east of the existing
I ~ ~County-owned land could provide a means to create a loop trail. The option
to purchase the land east of the existing County-owned land and west of Ebey
Slough would also allow creation of a loop trail , as well as creation of a
more extensive trail system throughout the unit, however much of this area
is upland habitat.
The recommendation made as a result of this study is to gain easement
I ~ ~rights to the area identified on Figure 2 as 0-4. This will allow for
extension of the dike trail from County-owned portions of the north end of
the island, and for the preservation of the large grove of spruce trees
partially outside County-owned land. It is recommended, therefore, that the
County not purchase the northeastern portion of Ebey Island for inclusion
into its wetland preservation program. Although there are some wetlands on
the unowned area, they are of low habitat and functional value as compared
I ~ ~to other wetland areas in the vicinity. It is felt that funds appropriated
for wetland purchase would be better spent purchasing areas of wetland which
5 ~~have higher values.
If the land east of the existing unit is not acquired, it may be
desirable to create a barrier fence along the eastern edge of the
County-owned land to separate it from grazing activities which will probably
continue on the northeastern portion of Ebey Island. Native wetland shrubs
and trees could be planted along the fence to create an aesthetically
3 ~~pleasing barrier.

Possible Loop Trails on Units TV
3 ~~~A current proposal under a management plan for Unit IV includes
construction of a short section of walking trail on portions of the dike
(see Figure 2). An alternative to this trail would be to create more
extensive loop trails that would allow pedestrians to walk completely around
this and even other units such as V and VI. Clearing of vegetation along
the tops of the dikes to create trails would have to be minimal. Sufficient
amounts of overhanging shrubs and trees should be retained in order to
I ~ ~preserve existing habitat for juvenile salmon and other fishes. Since the
dikes around these units are currently breached in many places, developing

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~47

loop trails would require bridges to span the breaches. Construction of
bridges would have to be accomplished with as little impact to the dikes,
I ~ ~channels, and surrounding vegetation as possible. Bridge structures should
be made with as little visual and environmental impact as possible, while
still maintaining structural soundness for their intended use. It is not
I ~ ~known at this time how many bridges would be required or if they could
withstand floodwaters.
The Citizens Wetlands Advisory Committee requested that only those trails
shown on Figure 2 be recommended. It was felt that impacts to the wetlands
would be too great if additional trails where recommended.

I ~~Additional Boat Loop Route
An additional route to create an alternative boat route along the
I ~ ~sloughs could be established by linking Ebey and Steamboat Sloughs at the
most narrow portion of North Ebey Island between Units IV and V. This link
would allow boaters a loop "trail" around Unit V when accessed from the
proposed boat launch on Unit VIII. The loop could also be achieved by
I ~ ~building a boardwalk on the existing cross dike that boaters could use to
portage canoes and kayaks between the sloughs. This possibility, however,
is not recommended at this time due to the physical and financial
constraints present.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

I
I
I
I
* 4. Management Objectives and Strategies

I
I
I

Il
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

4. MANAGEIIENT OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES

Recommended management plan goals for the Snohomish estuary, as
discussed in Section 3, can be reached by establishing objectives for each
I ~ ~unit. These objectives consist of specific actions for which results can be
measured. The results will determine the success in achieving the stated
goals. Strategies are approaches, or a collection of actions, that are
taken to implement those objectives. In addition to the actions to be
I ~ ~taken, strategies include options for implementation of those actions, and a
monitoring plan to measure the success of the action in reaching the
3 ~~objective.
Potential objectives and strategies for the wetland units have been
determined. They include specific actions to be taken in order to reach the
stated goals, implementation options, and a monitoring plan where

1 ~~4.1 OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES FOR UNIT I
The primary management role for Unit I is to preserve the existing,
I ~ ~relatively high value habitats on the unit. This should be accomplished
indirectly by limiting or preventing public access along with the habitat
disturbance which can result from such access. By proposing or developing
no access or recreational facilities on the unit, a strategy for limiting
disturbance to the natural habitats on the unit is achieved. As with all
the wetland units for which habitat preservation is a primary goal, periodic
monitoring, perhaps twice a year by a qualified biologist, should occur.
I ~ ~Such monitoring will identify any disturbances which may be negatively
affecting the wetland habitats. Monitoring can be done by Snohomish County
personnel familiar with the objectives of the wetlands preservation plan, or
by qualified biologists hired to monitor the wetlands. An additional
resource for such monitoring could be members of volunteer conservation
organizations who undertake a monitoring program which is sanctioned or
3 ~~supervised by the County.
An objective for all of the wetland units is to supply the opportunity
for research in wetland ecology. A strategy for achieving that objective is
I ~ ~to retain an "open door" policy allowing access to all the wetland units for
approved research projects undertaken by qualified scientists, educators, or
naturalists. A special committee could be assembled and supervised by
I ~ ~Snohomish County to screen applications for such research and establish the
standards by which research projects can be approved.

I ~~4.2 OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES FOR UNIT II
A primary objective for Unit II is the preservation of the existing
I ~ ~high value wetlands on the unit. A strategy for achieving such preservation
is to allow only limited public access to the wetlands. Allowing for

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~49.

limited access satisfies other objectives for Unit II by supplying
recreational and educational opportunities on the unit. By careful
I ~ ~placement of access facilities which control the ease of foot traffic in the
wetlands, habitat preservation and public access can both be achieved on
Unit 1I. Figure 3 (the site plan for the unit) depicts a boardwalk
accessing only a portion of the wetlands. It would be difficult to walk
further into the wetlands than the end of the boardwalk because of wet,
muddy soil conditions beyond the boardwalk.

I ~~~Another strategy for allowing for public access and recreation in the
wetlands is to develop a non-motorized boat launch at the end of the
currently unused Tulalip Road where it formerly crossed Quilceda Creek.
I ~ ~Additional description of this proposed facility is given in Section 5.1.
Snohomish County would be responsible for the construction and maintenance
of the public access facilities, both the trails and the boat launch.
Services of volunteers, supplying labor and/or materials, could be used by
the County in constructing, maintaining, and monitoring the facilities.
The objective of promoting cultural preservation on Unit II could be
achieved by installing interpretive signs which educate the general public
as to the current and historic use of Quilceda Creek and its wetlands by the
Tulalip Indians. The Tribe could be contacted for useful information, and
I ~ ~even construction skills, in the development of such interpretive signs.
The signage should also describe the natural features of the wetlands so
that the objective for public education in wetland ecology could also be met
3 ~~for Unit II.

3 ~~4.3 OB~JECTIVES AND STRATEGIES FOR UNIT III
The primary objectives for Unit III are the preservation of existing
wetland values and, where appropriate, the enhancement of existing habitats.
U ~ ~Because much of the unit exists as emergent wetland dominated by a limited
number of plant species, enhancement of the existing habitats could be
accomplished by creating areas of open water. Such habitat would attract
waterfowl in potentially larger numbers than currently use the wetlands on
the unit.
Strategies for creating such open water areas include dredging or
U ~ ~blasting "potholes" in the emergent wetland. The use of dredging or
blasting to remove areas of wetland soil and herbaceous vegetation to a
depth adequate to create permanent open water would require careful study
and permitting by the resource agencies under whose jurisdiction the
wetlands may lie. Both of these excavation techniques would also be
publically controversial because of the obvious short term disturbances to
the wetlands during excavation. Monitoring of any enhancement activity in
any of the wetland units will be useful in determining the success of the
techniques used, and therefore the applicability of those techniques to the
enhancement of other wetland units. Such enhancement monitoring could be
I ~ ~accomplished by County staff biologists; by biologists employed by Snohomish
County; or by volunteers supervised by the County personnel.

4.4 OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES FOR UNIT IV
3 ~~~~Primary objectives for Unit IV include provisions for habitat
preservation, public access, interpretive education, and recreation. These
are not necessarily incompatible objectives, but they must be considered
carefully together in order to create a working balance among them. The
single most direct strategy to preserve the existing high wetland values on
the unit will be to limit public access to only a small portion of the unit.
This will be accomplished by creating a short stretch of hiking trail along
I ~ ~the top of that portion of the dike which currently does not contain
breaches. The naturally occurring breaches on the dike create a barrier to
foot traffic because of the inconvenience of walking through the mud or deep
I ~ ~water in the breaches. Additionally, because of the wet, muddy conditions
found in the interior of the unit, the dike allows the only convenient and
"1clean" pedestrian corridor, thus also limiting public access to the
3 ~~majority of the unit.
Access to the unit will be by boat only and will therefore limit the
number of people capable of using the limited recreational facilities
U ~ ~proposed. Observation platforms on either end of the hiking trail will
allow for the placement and use of interpretive signs, thereby affecting a
strategy for incorporating educational information into the recreational
facility.
As with all the proposed structures on the wetland units, Snohomish
County may elect to use County personnel and materials purchased by the
County in the construction of the proposed facilities. A less costly
alternative for the County is to use donated materials and volunteers,
supervised by either County personnel or hired professional contractors in
the construction of the facilities.

3 ~~4.5 OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES FOR UNIT V
The primary objective for the management of Unit V, preservation of
existing habitats, can best be accomplished by limiting public access to
the unit. A strategy to accomplish this is to discourage public access by
developing no access points on the shores of the unit. Unit V is essential-
ly an island except for an very narrow connection with Unit IV, and as such
I ~ ~the unit is accessible only by boat. By creating no designated boat landing
facility on the unit, public access will be difficult. As a result, the
existing habitats on the unit should be preserved in their current state.
Some habitat enhancement may be possible in the creation of areas of open
water (see Section 4.3). Monitoring of Unit V should be done periodically
to make sure that no "unofficial" boat landing spots begin to develop, and
if they do, signs should be placed discouraging such landings. Such signs
I ~ ~should take the opportunity to educate the public on the values of the
undisturbed wetlands to wildlife, and explain the reasons why public access
in the wetlands is discouraged other than in those areas sanctioned for such
I ~ ~access.

4.6 OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES FOR UNIT VI
3 ~~~~Like Unit V, Unit VI will be managed for the preservation of the
existing relatively high wetland values which it exhibits. Public access,
the major threat to the preservation of existing wetland values, will be
3 ~~discouraged by developing no boat landing facilities.

3 ~~4.7 OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES FOR UNIT VII
Management goals for Unit VII concentrate on preservation of cultural
resources and wildlife habitat. It is apparent these goals could be best
I ~ ~achieved by limiting, to the extent possible, public access to the island.
The desire to prohibit public access is of special interest due to the
sensitivity of the wetland habitat on this unit. Several strategies could
be implemented to reduce the potential impacts to the island from human
disturbance. The strategies are oriented toward educating the public about
the sensitive nature of the unit in order to encourage individual regulation
I ~ ~to avoid disturbance to the island. They include 1) placing interpretive
signs throughout the wetland system to identify Unit VII as sensitive
habitat which should not be disturbed; 2) placing signs on the island itself
to notify the public not to enter in order to protect wildlife habitat; and
3) placing a barrier at the mouth of the channel on the west side of the
island to prevent boat entry. Detailed plans for design and location of
3 ~~these features are discussed in Section 5.
Snohomish County would be responsible for construction of these
features. The County could use its own resources for placement of the signs
I ~ ~or it could supervise placement of the signs by volunteers. It is recom-
mended that the services of qualified professionals be used to design and
place the barrier at the mouth of the channel. Implementation of this
action would require special knowledge of sensitive areas to avoid distur-
bance that could affect the habitat value of the channel, i.e., changing the
configuration of the channel bottom or blocking channel flows.
I ~~~Monitoring of the island should be conducted twice a year. In general,
a period of time has to pass before the public uses a new park or public
access area to its full potential. In order to ensure that Unit VII is not
I ~ ~being adversely affected by public use of surrounding areas, monitoring the
unit should continue until the number of visitors to surrounding areas has
reached fairly stable numbers. The monitoring program should consist of
field surveys of the island by a qualified biologist to determine whether it
is being disturbed by humans or domestic pets. These surveys would
determine whether the strategies employed are adequately protecting the
island; and, if not, to what extent is the island being disturbed. One
I ~ ~survey should be conducted immediately prior to hunting season, and the
second conducted immediately afterward. This would help determine whether
disturbance, if any, was due to general use of the wetland system or
I ~ ~specifically to hunting uses in surrounding areas. A report describing any
impacts to the wetland should be submitted to Snohomish County after each
survey.

If disturbance to the island is high at any time during the monitoring
program, steps should be taken to target the cause and establish additional
a ~ ~measures to remedy the disturbance. After five years, an analysis of the
impact of public use of the surrounding areas on Otter island should be
completed and decisions made whether to continue monitoring the unit and
I ~ ~whether implementation of more measures to ensure the protection of the
island are appropriate.

I ~~4.8 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES FOR UNIT VIII
Five management goals have been suggested for Unit VIII. These goals
I ~ ~include public access, recreational opportunities, research opportunity,
interpretive education, and habitat enhancement. These goals can be
achieved by providing public access to the wetland system via Unit VIII, as
well as to the unit itself; providing a variety of primarily passive
recreational uses of the unit; providing an avenue for academic research;
providing an opportunity to educate the public about wetlands; and
3 ~~diversifying the habitat types that presently exist on the unit.
Numerous strategies are recommended to achieve public access. The
existing public road to the south of the unit, Drue Road, terminates at the
I ~ ~southeast corner of the unit and could be used to access the site. Use of
Drue Road for this purpose would require improvements such as grading and
placement of gravel or pavement. Vehicular access into the unit could be
achieved by providing a roadway and parking lot on the unit. The amount of
impervious surface on the unit should be limited to preserve as much of the
existing wetland habitat as possible. In addition to vehicular access, it
is recommended that the unit provide pedestrian and boat access to the
I ~ ~system. These include trail systems which could be constructed throughout
the unit, and a launch for non-motorized boats which could provide an avenue
into the larger wetland system.
Strategies for recreational opportunities include construction of
hiking trails throughout the unit and along the dikes such that observation
of wildlife and wetlands could occur and potential impacts to sensitive
habitat areas would be reduced. A launch for non-motorized boats could be
constructed, allowing canoe and kayak access into Steamboat Slough.
Diversifying the existing wetland is a strategy for enhancing the existing
I ~ ~wetland functional values on the unit. This could be accomplished by
creating areas of open water, emergent marsh, shrub swamp, and forested
swamp on the unit where relatively low value, overgrazed wetlands currently
I ~ ~exist. The opportunity for research is low at present; however, enhancement
of wetland areas on the unit would open opportunities to study the success
in creation and diversification of wetland habitat.

I ~~~Given that this unit has been proposed to serve as'the central
interpretive area for the wetland units, various strategies for public
education are suggested. An open kiosk could be built in an area with low
I ~ ~flood impact. Graphics and narrative descriptions pertaining to the
Snohomish Wetlands Preservation Plan and elements of wetland and wildlife
t ~~ecology could be displayed on the walls. Numbered posts along the hiking

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~53

trails, in conjunction with a printed pamphlet distributed from the kiosk,
could be used as a self-guided nature tour. In addition, interpretive signs
I ~ ~along the dike trail could detail the sensitivity of Otter Island (Unit VII)
and discourage access to it. Detailed plans for design and location of
these features are discussed in Section 5.
Snohomish County could be responsible for constructing some of the
features suggested for Unit VIII; however, it is suggested that professional
services also be used where appropriate. The County could use its own
I ~ ~resources for placement of the kiosk, numbered posts, hiking trails,
construction of the parking lot and roads, and road improvement. Services
of volunteers also could be used, under the supervision of the County, for
U ~ ~placement of the interpretive and recreational features.
It is recommmended that professional services be used for implementing
design and construction of the boat launch. Special care would be required
in placement of the boat launch to ensure that the integrity of the dike
would not be affected, that the main drainage ditch on the inland side of
the dike would continue to function as it does at present, and that there is
minimal disturbance to the hydrology of the inlet.
Services of qualified biologists also should be used for wetland
enhancement and creation on Unit VIII. The biologist should be directly
involved in all elements of this feature; including design, construction
landcapecontractor should be used to implement planting recommended plant
speces.Alternatively, volunteers can used to help with the plantings;
however, volunteers should be under the strict supervision of the biologist
*~ ~~n landscape contractor if this alternative is used.

Wetland enhancement could be funded by Snohomish County. Funds also
may be available from the Port of Everett serving as wetland mitigation for
I ~ ~work completed on the Port. Funds should be adequate to cover, not only the
cost of the design and implementation of wetland enhancement, but also the
cost of contingency plans should measures such as replanting be necessary.

* ~~~Qualified biologists could be used to provide technical information for
the interpretive kiosk and nature trail signage. An alternative to this
approach would be to offer an internship to college students to complete
this task.
A monitoring plan is an important element in ensuring the success in
3 ~~achieving stated objectives for this unit. Monitoring of the hiking trails
should be conducted at least once a year to determine the impact of human
use of the area on the trail system and whether the trail is effective in
3 ~~discouraging pedestrians from entering wetland habitats on the site.

The boat launch and interpretive center and signage can be monitored
for the same elements as the hiking trails. Periodic surveys of the area
I ~ ~can determine whether these features are successful in discouraging human
disturbance to wetland habitat, i.e., the boat launch in directing people
onto established trails and the interpretive features in educating people
about the sensitive nature of wetlands. These areas also can be monitored
for the impact of general public use and for vandalism.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~54

Since a period of time usually passes before a new park becomes used on
a regular basis, monitoring of the unit should continue until the number of
I ~ ~visitors to the area has become fairly stable. Monitoring of the boat
launch, interpretive features, and hiking trails could be carried out by
Snohomish County personnel or by volunteer organizations. An annual report
should be completed and submitted to Snohomish County. If disturbance to
the wetlands or degradation of the trails, launch, or interpretive features
is high, steps should be taken to remedy the disturbance. After five years,
an analysis of the impact of public use on the unit and built features
I ~ ~should be completed and decisions made whether to continue monitoring the
unit and, if so, which features to continue to monitor. In addition,
decisions can be made whether additional measures are appropriate to achieve
I ~ ~the objectives for the unit.
At least a three year monitoring program should be implemented for
wetland creation and/or enhancement. The site should be evaluated by a
qualified biologist once a year using standardized procedures to measure the
survival and growth of plant materials. Procedures that could be used
include establishment of of photographic points and cover transects. An
U ~ ~annual report of results should be prepared and submitted to Snohomish
County to track the success of the enhancement project. If plantings do not
survive or are destroyed, a contingency plan should be implemented to
I ~ ~revegetate these areas. At the close of the monitoring program, data
collected should be compared to project objectives and a recommendation made
as to the success of the project. If, for example, the vegetative cover in
the planted areas is less than 80%, it may be determined that a contingency
plan of replanting is necessary.

1 ~~4.9 OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES FOR UNIT IX
The primary objective in the management of Unit IX is for the
3 ~~preservation of the existing wetland values on the unit. An indirect
strategy to accomplish this will be to discourage public access to the unit.
There is currently an area along the only existing access road on the unit
where trash and refuse has been dumped in the past. A general "clean-up" of
I ~ ~this area could enhance the aesthetics of the unit and discourage further
dumping. This clean-up could be accomplished by County maintenance
personnel ; people serving garbage pick-up duty as a result of drunken
I ~ ~driving or other convictions; or could result from the efforts of concerned
and organized volunteers.

1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~55

I
I
I
I
* 5. Site Plans
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I

5. SITE PLANS

This chapter presents writen descriptions and graphic representations
I ~ ~of site plans developed for the four wetland units on which constructed
facilities are proposed. Those units are II, IV, VII, and VIII. Site plans
for Units II, IV, and VIII depict the locations of the proposed recrea-
tional, access, and interpretive facilities, while the site plan for Unit
VII (Otter Island) depicts the locations of an access barrier and signs
discouraging access to the unit. Site plans are not presented for those
units on which no facilities have been proposed. Snohomish County will need
I ~ ~to do environmental analyses, where required, prior to any major construc-
tion activity in any of the wetland units. The analyses will assess the
* ~~impacts of implementation of the facilities recommended on the site plans.

5.1 UNIT II SITE PLAN
I ~~~For Unit II, Quilceda Creek, the management goals consist of providing
1) public access; 2) recreational opportunities; 3) research opportunities;
4) interpretive education; 5) habitat preservation; and 6) cultural resource
I ~ ~preservation. Figure 3 depicts the site and in part details the facilities
proposed to meet each goal. The following is a discussion of those
facilities and their relationship to the goals.
I ~ ~Public Access

Public access is proposed via a portion of the spur of Tulalip Road
remaining after construction of new bridge over Quilceda Creek. This "spur"
provides an ideal public access point since it is currently available to
vehicles and pedestrians. Use of the existing right-of-way minimizes
I ~ ~penetration into Unit II, and utilizes a relatively unused section of the
existing County road. The road remains in County ownership and has not been
vacated.

* ~~~Parallel parking in the cul-de-sac and along the edges of the road
would be encouraged since the area is not anticipated to be used heavily.
For this reason, costly improvements to the roadway and the creation of a
parking lot are not deemed necessary.
Access from the road-end parking to the wetland unit is proposed
I ~ ~through use of a gravel walkway placed above high tide levels. The walkway
connects the parking area to an interpretive viewing area and a cartop boat
launch. An elevated boardwalk extends from the roadhead to an observation
deck to the south of the bridge. This latter deck would serve as an
interpretive platform with views oriented away from the bridge to the
downstream and more scenic portion of the wetland. Some habitat enhancement
plantings could be done in the area of the right-of-way associated with the
public access improvements.

U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E

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

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-(1A 41

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t-:~-oeo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WI lrs/-

p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Jo~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ 4 AI M2-

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lia #40"
- r e ZpQ ops wj A-

1 ~SNOHOMISH RIVER WETLANDS MANAGEMENT PLAN
a ~~~~~~~SITE PLAN UNIT II QUILOEDA CREEK -9R
0 200 400 800 1200 160D Sf-/\I O~) z.
FIGURE 3 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTONAS~TLS

Another means of access to and from the site is by water. Canoes,
kayaks, and other similar small craft are able to use Quilceda Creek both
U ~ ~for site specific purposes as well as connections to and from other wetland
units via Ebey and Steamboat Sloughs and the Snohomish River. Access at
Quilceda Creek would consist of a small non-motorized boat launch located
within the county right-of-way associated with 66th Street Northeast.
Recreational Opportunities
I ~~~Though limited by a variety of constraints, some opportunities for
recreation do exist on Unit II. These include wildlife observation, hiking,
small scale boating. Through the use of the proposed walkways and observa-
I ~ ~tion areas, visitors would be able to view wildlife and gain information
from interpretive facilities as discussed below. Quilceda Creek and numer-
ous channels are available to users of canoes and kayaks. Heavy use of Unit
I ~ ~II, however, is discouraged both by the unsuitability of the terrain and by
the fact that almost all of the area is prime high value habitat that should
not be disturbed.

I ~~Research Opportunities

Because of its great diversity of habitats, Unit II offers excellent
I ~ ~opportunities for scientific studies. This unit could serve as a field
classroom for the local grade schools, high schools, and universities.
Research in a variety of disciplines could examine diverse natural systems
and their relationship to each other and to the adjacent agriculture and
urbanization.
Interpretive Education

In conjunction with the public access to Unit II, the opportunity for
interpretive education could be provided. Interpretive facilities would
I ~ ~relate information both specific to the site and to the entire wetland
preserve and surroundings. Small in scale, the actual interpretive
structures would resemble those depicted in Figure 8, particularly the
3 ~~signboards and observation deck.
Information conveyed through the interpretive process could include
that regarding tidal influence, plant communities, wetland functions and
wildlife habitat, as well as cultural values.
* ~~Habitat Preservation

One of the most important goals in the management of Unit II is habitat
preservation. This unit has a number of unique features and high value
diverse habitats that make continued lack of disturbance a high priority.
With human intrusion limited to a small area little or no impact to high
value habitats is anticipated.

Cultural Resource Preservation
U ~~~~Unit II provides habitat for fish important to the livelihood and
cultural traditions of the Tulalip Tribes. With the proposed minimal public
use of this unit, the salmon runs should continue unaffected. Similarly,
I ~ ~archeological and other cultural components of significance will remain
undisturbed.
3 ~~Estimate of Construction Costs
The proposed facilities for Unit II have been designed to fulfill their
purpose simply and efficiently while blending as much as possible with the
I ~ ~natural surroundings. In addition, their design and placement will minimize
impact both to the entire unit and to the area immediately adjacent to the
improvement. The parking area w ill utilize the existing road end, the
I ~ ~existing guardrail will be replaced with a more aesthetic and functional
structure, allowing access to the walkway. Observation structures and
elevated walkways are proposed for construction from wood, as are any
interpretive signs. The old roadbed could be filled and planted with native
species to match surroundings.
Construction costs shown below are represented in current dollar
I ~ ~amounts and reflect the use of professional contractors and purchase of all
materials. Costs could be considerably lower, however, with the use of
volunteer labor and donated materials.
I ~~~Restoration and reintroduction of native plant species could take place
in the area formerly occupied by Tulalip Road. Such plantings would
significantly enhance the appearance of this area and any proposed
I ~ ~improvements such as the boat launch and observation area. Proposed
plantings would cover roughly one-quarter of an acre with estimated cost of
about $15,000 per acre. Costs savings could be realized through the use of
U ~ ~bareroot plant material, and even further reductions in cost could be
achieved through donations of nursery stock from interested organizations.

I ~~5.2 UNIT IV SITE PLAN
The site plan for Unit IV, North Ebey Island (Middle), represents
incorporation of a variety of goals into the management of this unit. These
goals will provide for limited public access; limited recreation; research
opportunities; interpretive education; and habitat preservation with limited
enhancement. Figure 4 depicts the site and its limited improvements
designed to meet each goal. The following is a discussion of those
facil ities.
I ~~Public Access
Access by the public to Unit IV is gained only through the use of water
craft via Ebey Slough. Boats can be beached below two proposed dike top
observation structures (see Figure 8). These structures have been placed on
top of the dikes to maximize viewing opportunities and to protect the decks
from normal flooding. Proposed access to the structures is through the use
of other wood or metal stairways.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~59

UNIT II
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Item Cost Subtotal

Restoration of Old Roadbed
fill soil $ 1,500.00
topsoil 3,000.00
native plantings 2,500.00
$ 7,000.00

Gravel Paving
walkway and observation area 1,500.00
1,500.00

Interpretive Facilities
raised walkway 14,400.00
observation deck 4,800.00
signage 1,000.00
20,200.00
Boat Launch
concrete ramp 2,000.00
2,000.00
Misc. Signage, Bollards,
benches, waste recepticles 2,000.00 2,000.00

TOTAL: $32,700.00

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~v~ PL 2KF

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rm~TMf-H

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OL9eIW6l

5 rz~~~~~~~'o1~~~~~~ 115~~~~~~IL ~~~~~~ PII~~~~~~-~~~.Q

I~~~~~~~~~~

~~SOOISHRVRWTAD AAEETPA
~~~SITEPA NTI I OT BYILN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 102 0 4 wSAIRO
~~~~~~~~IGUE4SOOIHCUTWSIGO SM'S

After arrival by boat to either deck, pedestrian access along a stretch
of dike-top trail is possible. Preliminary reconnaissance of the dike areas
I ~ ~indicated that a dike-top trail between the two observation decks could be
established simply by the limited removal of brush. The trail should be
feasible without the use of bridges. Extension of the trail in either
I ~ ~direction beyond that shown in Figure 4 did not appear to be possible
because of major breaches in the dikes. If upon closer inspection of the
proposed trail area it is found that major obstacles are present, then an
alternative proposal is to establish only one observation deck in one of the
locations shown and to delete the foot trail. Further study is needed of
the historic changes in the dike resulting from flooding and breaching.
Such a study will help document the probable stability of a trail along the
currently intact stretch of dike.
Recreational Opportunity
Recreation on Unit IV is limited due to both physical constraints and
the desire to protect wildlife habitat, but a few opportunities do exist.
Hunting has been a traditional form of recreation on this unit, and is
I ~ ~proposed to continue, through use of boats on the many small waterways. The
proposed observation decks and dike top foot trail will allow wildlife
viewing and hiking. At higher tides, the numerous waterways become
accessible to small boats, while the surrounding sloughs are navigable at

3 ~~Research and Study Opportunity
The opportunities for research and study of the wetland ecosystem on
Unit IV appear to be excellent. Access to the wetland by boat is relatively
I ~ ~easy, especially during higher tides, and a proposed dike top trail (as
discussed above) could allow some study of that area as well. Research in a
variety of fields relating to wildlife and natural processes would be
I ~ ~possible, and available to field classes from the local schools and
universities.
Interpretive Education
One of the opportunities provided through public access to the unit is
interpretive education. Information about the island's ecosystem and its
U ~ ~function within the entire wetland system could be provided as well as a
brief history and explanation of the effects on the unit of prior
agricultural use. Facilities used for interpretive purposes would resemble
I ~ ~the observation deck in Figure 8, with small signs placed on handrails.
Estimate of Construction Costs
I ~~~The limited improvements proposed for Unit IV have been designed for a
minimum of impact to the area while at the same time fulfilling their
assigned function. As such, they should be visually unobtrusive,
I ~ ~aesthically pleasing, and durable. Observation decks are proposed to be
made out of wood, as are the frame for the interpretive signs (the actual
sign itself could be fabricated from wood, metal or other material). Access

ladders to observation decks could be made from either wood or metal. The
dike top trail would need to be cleared of brush along a narrow corridor but
I ~ ~no other improvements should be necessary except for possible minor hand
grading of the foot path.

Construction costs shown below reflect current market value of items
provided by a professional contractor and assumes purchase of all materials.
Costs could be considerably lower, however, with the use of volunteer labor
* ~~and donated materials.

Item Cost Subtotal

3 ~~Observation Decks $8,000 $ 8,000
Trail 2,000 2,000
Interpretive Signage 800 800

I ~~~~~TOTAL $10,800

I ~~~The cost of the observation decks includes an access ladder to each.
Trail cost figures are for a four foot cleared width along the top of the
* ~~dike between and connecting the two observation decks.

5.3 UNIT VII

The goal for Unit VII, Otter Island, is primarily the preservation of
existing wetland habitat, both for wildlife use and for cultural resource
values. Therefore, the site plan for this unit is relatively simple and is
I ~ ~aimed at limiting public access in order to preserve the existing resources
of the island. The possibility of closing the island to hunting year-round
* ~~should also be considered.
Interpretive signs are recommended to educate the public about the
sensitive nature of the habitat in Unit VII and the need to protect the
island by limiting human disturbance. Such signs would be placed on the
closely adjacent and more publically used Unit VIII (see Section 5.4), and
on Otter Island itself. The signs on Otter Island would be designed to
notify the public not to enter the island and would be placed at strategic
I ~ ~points around its perimeter (see Figure 5). The signs on Unit VII are
planned to be relatively small and unobtrusive but obvious enough to boat
* ~~traffic passing by the island.
A barrier is recommended for the mouth of the small channel entering
the west side of the island from Steamboat Slough to prevent boat entry into
the central portion of Otter Island. This barrier is recommended to be
constructed of floating logs tied end-to-end and anchored on shore.
Features presented on the site plan for Otter Island are conceptual in
I ~ ~nature and may be modified due to site specific conditions and public use
patterns observed in the overall wetland system over time. For example, the
interpretive signs designed to be placed throughout the overall wetland

5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w- Vill~~T

*~SOOIHRVRWTAD AAEETPA
SITE PLAN UNIT V11 OTTER ISLAND 0 100 2~~~~~~~~0040BoD

~~~~FIGR SOMISCONTYWSINGTON ASfl

system could be installed as a first step in discouraging public entry into
Otter Island, and if they prove to be effective in limiting access to the
island, the channel barrier and/or sign placement on the island itself may
be deemed unnecessary.
Maintenance of the signs and the channel barrier would be the
responsibilty of Snohomish County. Regular surveys of the area would need
to be conducted to check for vandalism and misuse of the island. If signs
or the log barrier are vandalized, these would need to be repaired-or
replaced.

5.4 UNIT VIII
The site plan for Unit VIII on the north end of Ebey Island has been
designated to satisfy five of the seven goals within the overall wetlands
management plan. Those five goals include allowing for: 1) public access
(both to the unit and to the wetland system as a whole); 2) public recrea-
tion; 3) research and study; 4) public interpretive education; and
U ~ ~5) habitat enhancement. Figure 6 depicts the site plan for the unit and
details in part the facilities incorporated into the plan to meet each goal.
* ~~The facilities are further described in the paragraphs below.
Public Access
Public access to Unit VIII is proposed via the small, currently
I ~ ~unimproved Drue Road running in a north/south direction in the central part
of the north end of Ebey Island. This County road will need some
improvement before it is useful for public access. Road widening and paving
I ~ ~would allow safe transit for vehicles arriving from U.S. Highway 2 to the
south of Unit VIII. The County will need to do an environmental analysis
assessing the impacts of the road upgrade. A gravel drive is planned to
I ~ ~provide access from the entrance gate on the south property boundary of the
unit to a small gravel parking lot planned in the southwestern corner of the
unit. The design of the drive will provide the public with an interesting
introduction to the unit by its indirect approach to the parking facility
and by the fact that the drive will pass through the system of proposed,
created wetlands.
I ~~~Once vehicles are parked in the parking lot, visitors can gain access
to other areas of the unit using a system of hiking trails. These trails
have been designed to follow the existing flood-control dike on the northern
I ~ ~and western sides of the unit. Careful interaction with the Ebey Island
Diking District will be necessary to coordinate use of (and possible
improvements to) the top surface of the dike so it can be used as a hiking
trail. Currently the dike is covered with grass kept low by grazing cattle.
As the unit is developed for public use, the cattle will need to be kept out
of the unit; the placement of fences with gates across the dikes could
achieve this. With the removal of grazing, the dike will need seasonal
I ~ ~mowing to remove trees and shrubs. Such woody vegetation on the dikes is a
concern of the Diking District for its possible negative effect on the
structural integrity of the dike. Snohomish County would be responsible for
I ~ ~mowing the dike, while the Diking District would be responsible for
maintaining the physical integrity of the dike.
* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~65

~~~~~~~~~~~~JT~~~~~VPLY VII
~~ A~C04e4 -E/6F1ATIC- ~AiMR.

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~4

hNI0 SATNE E7ANL6

rm OFo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I NAuE

lb~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DRC NATUOE 7FI NAEpT LEubye

IN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1TERPRETIV EXIITADAKINGI AREA ENLRGMEN woRvN

I SITE PLAN UNIT VIII 100~~~T 200 400 80 HALO

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R~ FIGURE - SNOHMIS COUNTY, hP WAHNTON A2Sn~ AF
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Wf ONR EW

An agreement between Snohomish County and the Diking District will be
necessary to specify appropriate construction and general maintenance stand-
I ~ ~ards for the facilities on or adjacent to the dikes on Unit V1II. Design
and construction of the dike trail and canoe launch facilities shown on
Figures 6 and 7 will require careful coordination between the County and the
Diking District so that each agency is able to continue to fulfill their
differing responsibilities to the publics they serve. For example, dredging
and widening of the existing drainage ditches along the inside of the dikes
(and excavation of the ponds elsewhere on Unit VIII) can be accomplished,
I ~ ~serving the needs of both the County and the Diking District. The dredged
or excavated soil can be used to strengthen the dikes - a priority of the
Diking District, and the ponds will serve to enhance the wetlands on the
3 ~~County's land. Construction activities should occur only when adverse
impact to nesting waterfowl will not result.
In addition to the trails on the dike, trails are also proposed in the
level, central portion of the unit. These will connect the parking lot with
peripheral areas of the unit and allow for pedestrian circulation throughout
the unit. One of the trails will pass near the created wetlands and allow
I ~ ~the public opportunity for education using signage detailing the purpose and
function of the created wetlands. All of the trails, whether they are
located on the dikes or on the level interior of the unit, will have
bollards incorporated into their design to prevent other than authorized
service vehicles from driving on the trails.
Access to the other units in the wetland system as a whole will be
provided through the non-motorized boat launch proposed for the southwestern
corner of Unit VIII. Canoes, kayaks and small rowboats can be hand carried
from the parking lot to the boat launch across the dike using an earthen
I ~ ~ramp as shown in Figure 7. The land proposed for the boat launch facility
is not currently owned by Snohomish County and will need to be purchased
prior to any development. A property line adjustment may be a cost
effective way for the County to gain access to the area by not having to
purchase the large tract of privately owned land of which the proposed boat
launch area is only a small part.
I ~~Recreational Opportunity
Recreational opportunities are provided on the Unit VIII in a variety
I ~ ~of forms. The hiking trails, as detailed above and shown on the site plan,
will provide opportunities for hiking, bird-watching, nature study, etc.
The loop trails shown should be monitored to study the impacts of foot
traffic on wildlife. If the wildlife is disturbed too much, especially
during breeding season, the loop trails can be seasonally closed. The boat
launch structure will allow direct access to the water for canoeing and
kayaking. In general , only passive recreation is being encouraged directly
on the unit, and as such this type of recreation will impact the habitats
and wildlife present as little as possible.

1 ~~Research and Study Opportunity
By allowing easy access to the unit, opportunity will be gained for
research and study of the wetland ecosystem. Field classes from local

~~~~~IKETALNA OTLUC

I~~~~CHRCE SKTH
~~SAIRD
~~~SadE2 IGR7

grade schools, high schools, and universities would be possible on Unit
VIII. Students and professional researchers could be encouraged to conduct
I ~ ~studies on a variety of disciplines appropriate to the natural resources
present on the unit. Research in botany, ornithology, aquatic/wetland
ecology, fisheries, wildlife biology, etc. would be possible. Once funds
U ~ ~for the created wetland ponds are allocated, research in wetland landscape
design and the culture of native plants will be possible, furthering the
growth of knowledge in these developing disciplines.

I ~~Interpretive Education
Unit VIII has been given the role of supplying educational opportunity
I ~ ~to the public. The information presented to the public would relate to the
wetland preserve as a whole (all of the units), and in particular to the
resources present on Unit VIII. A diversity of interpretive structures is
proposed, with the range of facilities depicted in Figure 8. The most
elaborate structure is the kiosk which is proposed to be closely associated
with the parking facility on Unit VIII. The kiosk will have the most
detailed interpretive information of all the interpretive facilities
I ~ ~proposed on the unit. The kiosk will be covered with a roof-like structure
helping to identify it as the key orientational and educational element
* ~~within the unit.
Other types of interpretive structures can be placed in strategic
locations along the trails of Unit VIII. Signboards, covered signboards,
and observation decks are appropriate on unit VIII or any other unit shown
in Figure 2 proposed for interpretive signage or overlooks. The horizontal
signs shown on the illustration for the observation deck in Figure 8 could
be a useful response to concern that signs in the wetlands may be prone to
I ~ ~gunshot vandalism. The horizontal signs present little or no apparent
target for vandals wielding hunting rifles. The interpretive marker post
illustrated in Figure 8 is appropriate for marking locations relating to a
I ~ ~self-guided interpretive brochure which could be developed as part of the
interpretive program for Unit VIII.
*Figure 8 has been included to show a broad range of interpretive
signage and structures. Each unit proposed in Figure 2 for educational
signage should be considered on a case-by-case basis for selection of the
* ~~most appropriate type of interpretive structure.
Habitat Enhancement
I Il~~~uch of Unit VIII is covered by relatively low value wetland habitat.
Consequently, a primary goal for the management of the unit is to enhance
the habitats present. A single habitat type, reed canarygrass marsh (with
scattered patches of scrub/shrub and forested wetland intermixed), dominates
I ~ ~the early succusssional stage habitat present on the unit. Since Unit VIII
has been used for agricultural purposes in the recent past, the wetland
habitat in this area has not yet reverted to well-developed wetlands as has
I ~ ~occurred in other wetland units formerly used as agricultural lands but
abandoned longer ago. A goal , therefore, in the enhancement of Unit VIII is
* ~~to accelerate the process of wetland succession presently occurring on the

MARKER POST SIGNBOARD COVERED SIGNBOARD

- --_

I~~~/ii~~A~ (il,,f//.f ,.L, t
-'Stt~~~~~~~ II And ~i//'__,.!.!'. _

OBSERVATION DECK KIOSK WITH OBSERVATION DECK
AT PARKING LOT OVERLOOKING CREATED WETLANDS

INTERPRETIVE STRUCTURE OPTIONS
SHAPIRO& FIGURE 8
,ASATES,22 FIGURE 8

site. This can be achieved by diversifying habitat types present. Open
water habitat could be created through 1) shallow excavation along the
I ~ ~drainage ditches just landward of the dikes, and 2) the creation of a system
of ponds as depicted in Figure 6. Plantings of cattail and bulrush along
the margins of the ponds could create a more diverse plant community than
I ~ ~presently exists. This habitat combination of open water and permanent
cattail/bulrush marsh could encourage waterfowl such as gadwall and cinnamon
teal to use the area in higher numbers than they may currently. Plantings
of wetland shrub and tree species could also increase the structural and
habitat diversity of the unit. Care must be taken in grading the ponds so
as to create no deep backwaters where juvenile salmon may become stranded
(from the main body of water) if water levels in the ponds drop seasonally.
The trail shown crossing the pond should be monitored to determine if
seasonal closure, especially during breeding season, should be done.

* ~~~Removal of debris would also serve to enhance the habitat and
aesthetics of Unit VIII. Old farm equipment and miscellaneous refuse are
present on the unit. Using heavy equipment to remove only the larger
debris, while removing the remainder of the debris by hand, would minimize
I ~ ~impacts to the habitats and wildlife present. Because this unit is proposed
as the central focus for public use of the wetland system as a whole,
habitat enhancement could increase the unit's value as an educational/
recreational resource.
Estimation of Construction Costs
I ~~~The facilities proposed for Unit VIII have been designed to be visually
unobtrusive so they blend in with the natural surroundings. Roads and
parking facilities are proposed to be gravel paved. Tire stops in the
I ~ ~parking lot and all structures such as the interpretive signs, kiosk, and
the boat launch/dock are proposed to be made of wood. The trails are
proposed to be covered with wood mulch or gravel , and the plantings for
I ~ ~wetland enhancement are proposed to be largely bareroot nursery stock. All
of these materials are relatively low cost compared to higher cost materials
used in more "urban" parks such as the Langus Riverfront Park in Everett.
I ~~~The development of Unit VIII could be phased to spread the costs over
time. A listing of estimated costs for certain materials and construction
items is presented below. It is important to note that the costs shown are
I ~ ~representative of current construction costs in which professional
contractors are hired and all materials are purchased. Costs could be
considerably lowered if volunteer labor and donated materials could be used,
at least in part, during the development of Unit VIII.
A major expense item is the excavation of the created wetland ponds.
The costs associated with excavation have been calculated for the excavation
of approximately 7.5 acres of ponds averaging four feet in depth. Costs
have been estimated at $3.00 per cubic yard of excavated soil totalling
$160,000.00 for excavation. The Ebey Island Diking District has expressed
I ~ ~an interest in using the excavated material in strengthening the flood-
control dikes. A certain amount of the excavated soil would be placed on
the landward side of the dikes. Hauling and removal costs of excavated
U ~ ~material would be lessened by depositing soil on-site compared with the
removal of all soil off-site.
71

UNIT VIII
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Item Cost Subtotal

Created/Enhanced Wetlands
pond excavation $160,000.00
emergent plantings 34,000.00
tree & shrub plantings 45,000.00
$239,000.00

Gravel Paving
road, parking, & kiosk 37,000.00
$ 37,000.00

Trail System
trails (gravel or wood chips) 16,000.00
bridges & observation deck 4,400.00
$ 20,400.00
Interpretive Center
kiosk 6,000.00
signage 2,400.00
observation deck 4,000.00
$ 12,400.00

Boat Launch
floating dock 7,000.00
elevated boardwalk 24,000.00
observation deck 3,900.00
$ 34,900.00

Misc. Signage, Bollards, Gates
Benches, Waste recepticles 3,500.00
$ 3,500.00
TOTAL: $347,200.00

The emergent marsh plantings proposed for the created wetland have been
estimated to cost $34,000.00 using landscape contractor installed nursery
stock. Such plantings would accelerate the development of a plant community
in the ponds, however the the plantings may not be necessary. Natural
introduction of cattails would occur over time, but may take considerably
longer than if the emergents were planted. Rather than purchase bareroot
emergent plant material, transplanted cattails and bulrush could be taken
from other wetland units where habitat diversification may be desired and
where the removal of emergents is key to such diversification.

Plantings of trees and shrubs have been proposed to enhance the
habitats currently existing on Unit VIII. Three acres of such plantings
have been estimated to cost $15,000.00 per acre, or $45,000.00 for all three

acres. Bareroot nursery stock is proposed for cost savings, however further
reduction in costs could be achieved by using donations of nursery stock
I ~ ~from conservation organizations which may wish to contribute to the
enhancement of Unit VIII. The Pilchuck Audubon Society has already
3 ~~expressed an interest in donating plantings.
Another major cost of developing Unit VIII is the construction of the
boardwalk, observation deck, ramp, and floating dock associated with the
boat launch as it is currently depicted (see Figure 7). Costs of the
facility (approximately $34,900.00) could be lowered considerably if
Snohomish County gains ownership of an additional area of land adjacent to
the small backwater slough south of the southwestern corner of Unit VIII
U ~ ~(see Figure 6). The elaborate boardwalk and deck designed for currently
owned County land could be eliminated by acquiring land closer to the
backwater where a simplified, less costly, boat launch and ramp could be
I ~~used.

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

I
I
I
I
a 6. References
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a

6. REFERENCES

Burrell, Galen, 1978. Snohomish Estuary Wetlands Study, Volume III. Report
prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 7 pp. plus appendices.

Dye, Paul, January 1989. Personal communication. Member of the Snohomish
Citizens Wetlands Advisory Committee.

Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. lessman, C. Meyers, 1979. Wetland
Values: Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Institute of Water Resources. Research Report 79-RI, 109
pp.
Shapiro and Associates, Inc., 1985. Snohomish River Wetland Units
Preservation Management Plan. Report prepared for Snohomish County
Department of Planning and Community Development. 67 pp. plus
appendices.

Shapiro and Associates, Inc., 1978. Snohomish Estuary Wetland Study, Volume
II. Report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 335 pp. plus
appendices.

Thompson, Patricia and L. Leschner, 1987. Snohomish River Estuary Wetlands
Wildlife Habitat Inventory. Report prepared for Washington Department
of Wildlife, 17 pp.

United States Army, Corps of Engineers, 1981. An Evaluation of Approaches
to Preservation of the Delta Lobes, Braided Channel, Three Forks Park,
North and Middle Forks Snoqualmie River as Contemplated in the
Snohomish Mediated Agreement. Seattle District, Seattle, Washington,
March.

Watson, Jim, December 1988. Personal communication. State Bald Eagle
Coordinator, Washington State Department of Wildlife.

a
I
I
I
Appendix A: Resource Agency Correspondence

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
a

CURT SMITCH \*
I Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON

I 60 Norh CaitolWayDEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
600 North CaptlWyI- 11 a Olympia, Washington 98504-0091 *(206 Nj]WJ[

NOV 15 1988
November 10, 1988
3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SHAPIRO AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Shapiro & Associates, Inc.
Andrew F. Gorski, M.S.
Wetlands Ecologist
The Smith Tower, Suite 1400
506 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104

3 ~~RE: Shapiro (Snohomish River)

3 ~~Dear Mr. Gorski:

We have completed a review of our files for information on significant natural
features in the study area. The result of this review is presented in the
enclosed material, which summarizes the occurrence of special animals reported
within or adjacent to the study area. The Washington Natural Heritage Program
will mail, under separate cover, project area information concerning special
3 ~~plants and plant communities.

We hope this presentation will be useful to you. This response is provided for
your information only and is not to be construed as an official Department of
I ~ ~Wildlife environmental review of your project. For official Department review
and comment, mail environmental impact documents to: Washington Department of
Wildlife, Ted Muller, Regional Habitat Biologist, 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard,
3 ~~Mill Creek, WA 98012.

In order to ensure the protection of the special species occurring in the study
area, we recommend that the specific locational information presented here not
I ~ ~be published or distributed.

If your office should publish or distribute general information from the
enclosed material, please provide the Nongame Wildlife Program with a draft of
any document in which information from the Natural Heritage Data System is
incorporated or referenced, and cite the System as follows:

I ~~~~~~Natural Heritage Data System
Washington Department of Natural Resources and
Department of Wildlife - Nongame Program
I d~~~~~~co Mail Stop EX-12
Olympia, Washington 98504

Andrew F. Gorski
November 10, 1988
Page 2

The information provided is not to be taken as a complete inventory of the
project area and does not eliminate the need or responsibility to conduct more
thorough research. If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free
to contact us at (206) 586-1449.

Sin erely,

Rihr y Tayo{o
I ~ ~~~~~~~~~~Nongame Data Systems Bil St

RHT:pr-b

CC: Lora Leschner
Ted Muller
Dana Base
Jim Watson

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EnclosurelI
ELEMENT OCCURRENCE SUMMARY
I ~~Introduction
The Natural Heritage Data System was established by the State of Washington and
I ~the Washington Natural Heritage Program of The Nature Conservancy. It is
currently maintained by the Heritage Program under contract to the Washington
I ~~Department of Natural Resources and by the Nongame Wildlife Program of the
Washington Department of Game.
The database is comprised of "element occurrences." An "element" is a natural
feature of particular interest because it is exemplary, unique, or endangered
I ~on a statewide or national basis. An element can be a plant community, special
plan, or special animal species. An "element occurrence" is a reported or con-
firmed locality of a native vegetation community, or of significant habitat for
a plant or animal species of concern. Information on element occurrences in
the state is collected from herbarium and museum specimens, scientific litera-
ture, knowledgeable individuals, and field investigations. This information is
compiled in the Natural Heritage Data System for use in land-use planning and
evaluating the status of Washington's natural features.
This enclosure summarizes the special animal occurrences reported within or
adjacent to the study area and catalogued in the Natural Heritage Data System.
The Washington Natural Heritage Program manages similar information concerning
special plants and plant communities.
Format
The Element Occurrence Summary table lists those special animals that have been
reported to occur in or adjacent to the area specified in your Information

3 ~~~- The first column lists the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) topographic
quadrangle.
3 ~~~- The second column lists the township, range, and section.
- The third column, entitled "1conf."1 (confirmation), lists a code
indicating the specifically of the locations recorded for each element
occurrence.
Confirmation Codes
C =The location of the element occurrence is known to within a 1/4-mile
radius. In addition, the locality has been confirmed.
I ~ ~~ U=The location of the element occurrence is known to within a 1/4-mile
radius, but at this time has not been confirmed.
5 ~ ~~ N=The location of the element occurrence is known to within a 1-mile
radius. This information usually is derived from secondary sources.
G = The element occurrence is locatable only to a general area, usually
I ~ ~~denoted by a geographic name. This information was derived from
secondary sources.

1 - ~~The next column contains federal and state status information.
3 ~~~~~~~Status Codes for Special Animals
Code Explanation
I ~~FE Federal Endangered - A species in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
FT Federal Threatened - A species which is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future.
The state status given in the second column under "Element Status" Is based on
status evaluations conducted by the Washington Department of Game, Nongame

I ~Code Explanation
SE State Endangered - A species which is seriously threatened with
extirpation throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within Washington.
3 ~~PE Proposed Endangered - A species proposed for listing as Endangered.
ST State Threatened - A species that could become endangered within
Washington in the foreseeable future without active management or
removal of threats.
PT Proposed threatened - A species proposed for listing as Threatened.
I ~~Ss State Sensitive - A species that could become threatened if current
water, land, and environmental practices continue.
I ~~PS Proposed Sensitive - A species proposed for listing as Sensitive.
SM State Monitor - A species of special interest because it: 1) has
I ~ ~~~significant popular appeal; 2) requires limited habitat during
some portion of its life cycle; 3) is an indicator of environme~ntal
quality; 4) requires further field investigation to determine pop-
ulation status classification; or 6) was justifiably removed from
Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive classification.
3~~P M Proposed Monitor -A species proposed for listing as Monitor.
PD Proposed Delete - A species proposed for deletion from the special
animal species classification.
- In the fourth column the animal species is named.
- The fifth column, entitled "Crit."1 (Criteria), lists codes that indicate
the specific criterion/criteria used to evaluate whether a habitat
location is significant to the species.

I ~~~~~Element Occurrence Criteria for Special Animals
10 Individual occurrence. Any record of the species constitutes a
I ~ ~~~special animal occurrence.
HG Herptile Concentration. Five or more individuals present in the
5 ~~~~same location.
CR Colonial roosts.
I ~~B Evidence of breeding: nest, young or eggs, adult visiting probable
nest site, nest building activity (i.e., carrying nest material),
breeding display, agitated behavior and distraction display (i.e.,
feigning injury).
RI Regular individual occurrences at the same location. Observations
of less than 10 individuals that have been made during at least
three different years, not necessarily consecutive.

RSC Regular small concentrations, during migration, breeding or winter
seasons, of 10-70 individuals observed during at least three
different years, not necessarily consecutive.

I . RLC Regular large concentrations, during migration, breeding or winter
season of over 70 individuals, that have been reported during at
least three different years, not necessarily consecutive.
I ~Comments
The enclosed information represents the reported element occurrences currently
catalogued in the Natural Heritage Data System. The Data System is constantly
updated as more current and historic information on element occurrences in the
state are reported. Consequ~ntly, some of the element occurrences reported to
I ~occur historically within the study area may no longer be present. Likewise,
areas within the study boundary for which element occurrences have not yet been
reported, nevertheless, may support special animal species.

I ~Finally, if information is needed on specific plant community or special plant
occurrences within the study area, please contact the Washington Natural
E ~Heritage Program, (206) 753-2449. For additional information on specific
special animal occurrences, please contact the Washington Department of Game,
Nongame Wildlife Program, (206) 586-1449.

I ~~~~~~~~~~~~-3-

- m m - m i nm m -m m m-

Enclosure 1

ELEMENT (CCURREFE SUMMARY - SPECIAL ANIMALS

FOR: Shapiro (Snohanish River)

Status
Quad Name T R S Conf. Fed. State Element Name Crit. No. Nest #

Everett.' /4712282 29 5E 27 Snoqualmie HMA

Marysville/4812212 29 5E 10 ET ST Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle) B 872 1
of t o 29 5E 10 FT ST Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle) B 872 2
if " 30 5E 31 PM Pandion haliaetus (Osprey) B 459

A few bald eagles are reported along the project
area during the January midwinter bald eagle survey
each year.

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
2625 Parkmont Lane SW, Bldg B Lqg~R
Olympia, Washington 98502
206/753-9440 FTS 434-9440 DEC O l;8

November 29, 1988

SHAPIRO AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mr. Andrew F. Gorski
Wetlands Ecologist
Smith Tower, Suite 1400
506 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104

FWS Reference: 1-3-89-TA-34

Dear Mr. Gorski:

As requested by your letter, dated November 2, 1988 and received by us on
November 14, I have attached for your information a list of endangered and
threatened species (Attachment A) that may be present in the area of the
proposed management plan for wetlands within the Snohomish River delta in
Snohomish County, Washington. Attachment B outlines requirements that would
become applicable should there be federal involvement (funding, permitting,
planning, licensing) in the project.

If you have any questions regarding the Act, please contact Jim Michaels
at the letterhead phone/address. Your interest in endangered species is
appreciated.

Sincerely,

David C. Frederick
Field Supervisor

Attachments

c: WDW (Nongame)
WNHP

JWH:`gb

LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND
CANDIDATE SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR WETLANDS WITHIN THE SNOHOMISH RIVER DELTA
IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
(T30N R5E S29/31/32/33; T29N R5E S3/4/5/6/10/11/14/15/16/21/22/2:3/27/28)

1-3-89-TA-34

LISTED

Bald eagle (Ialiaeetus leucocephalus) - wintering bald eagles may occur in the
vicinity of the wetlands from about October 31 through March 31.

A nesting territory is located at T29N R5E S10. Nesting activities occur from
about January 1 through August 15.

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregr.inus) may occur within the area as fall migrants
or wintering birds.

PROPOSED

None

CANDIDATE

None

Attachment A

U ~~~~FEDERAL AGENCIES' RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER SECTIONS 7(a) AND 7(c)
OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

ISECTION 7(A) - Consultation/Conference

Requires: 1. Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to carry out programs to
I ~ ~~~~conserve endangered and threatened species;

2. Consultation with FWS when a federal action may affect a listed
endangered or threatened species to ensure that any action authorized,
I ~ ~~~~funded, or carried out by a federal agency is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat. The process is initiated
by the federal agency after it has determined if its action may
affect (adversely or beneficially) a listed species; and

3. Conference with FWS when a federal action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or
an adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.

USECTION 7(c) - Biological Assessment for Construction ProJects *

IRequires federal agencies or their designees to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA)
for construction projects only. The purpose of the BA is to identify any proposed
and/or listed species which is/are likely to be affected by a construction project.
I The process is initiated by a federal agency in requesting a list of proposed and
listed threatened and endangered species (list attached). The BA should be completed
within 180 days after its initiation (or within such a time period as is mutually
agreeable). If the BA is not initiated within 90 days of receipt of the species
I list, please verify the accuracy of the list with our Service. No irreversible
commuitmient of resources is to be made during the BA process which would result in
violation of the requirements under Section 7(a) of the Act. Planning, design, and
U adminstrative actions may be taken; however, no construction may begin.

To complete the BA, your agency or its designee should: (1) conduct an onsite inspec-
tion of the area to be affected by the proposal, which may include a detailed survey
I of the area to determine if the species is present and whether suitable habitat
exists for either expanding the existing population or potential reintroduction of
the species; (2) review literature and scientific data to deter-mine species distribu-
Ition, habitat needs, and other biological requirements; (3) interview experts
including those within the FWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, state conservation
department, universities, and others who may have data not yet published in scien-
I tific literature; (4) review and analyze the effects of the proposal on the species
in terms of individuals and populations, including consideration of cumulative
effects of the proposal on the species and its habitat; (6) analyze alternative
actions that may provide conservation measures; and (6) prepare a report documenting
Uthe results, including a discussion of study methods used, any problems encountered,
and other relevant information. Upon completion the report should be forwarded to
our Endangered Species Division, 2626 Parlouont Lane SW, Bldg. B, Olympia, WA 98502.

I---------------------------------------------
* "Construction project" means any major federal action which significantly
affects the quality of the human environment (requiring an EIS), designed
primarily to result in the building or erection of human-made structures such as
dams, buildings, roads, pipelines, channels, and the like. This includes
federal actions such as permits, grants, licenses, or other forms of federal
authorization or approval which may result in construction.

ATTACHMENT B

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
Natural Resources
BRIAN BOYLE
Commissioner of Public Lands
OLYMPIA, WA 98504

* ~~~November 16, 1988 19R U

NOV 17 1988
Andrew F. Gorski
Shapiro & Associates, Inc. PAPIR0 ANO ASSUMAHS, U
506 Second Avenue, Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98104

SUBJECT: Management plan for the Snohomish River Delta

We've searched the Natural Heritage Data System for information on
rare plants, high quality native wetlands and native plant
communities in your study area. We have identified four types of
high quality natural communities (wetlands) within Sections 29,
31, and 32 of Township 30 North, Range 05 East, as well as a
sensitive plant, Fritillaria camschatcensLs , in Section 29 of
Township 30 North, Range 05 East.

The enclosed list summarizes the occurrences of these natural
features in your study area. Also enclosed is a plant description
of Fritillaria camschatcensis from An Illustrated Guide to the
Endanaered. Threatened. and Sensitive Plants of Washincton.

In order to ensure the protection of the rare plants in the
project areas, it's Important that the specific locations on the
enclosed list not be published or distributed.

The Natural Heritage Data System is a cooperative effort between
the Department of Natural Resources' Washington Natural Heritage
Program and the Department of Wildlife's Nongame Program. The
Washington Natural Heritage Program is responsible for information
on the state's endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants as
well as high quality native plant communities and wetlands. The
Nongame Program manages and interprets data on wildlife species of
concern in the state. For information on animals of concern in
the state, please contact the Nongame Program, Washington
Department of Wildlife, Mail Stop: EX-12, Olympia, WA 98504.

The Natural Heritage Data System is not a complete inventory of
Washington's natural features. Many areas of the state have never
been thoroughly surveyed. There may be significant natural
features in your study area that we don't yet know about. This
response should not be regarded as a final statement on the

Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Andrew F. Gorski
Shapiro & Associates, Inc.
November 16, 1988
Page 2

natural features of the areas being considered and doesn't
eliminate the need or responsibility for detailed on-site surveys.

I hope you'll find this information useful.

Sincerely,

Sandra Norwood, Data Assistant
Washington Natural Heritage Program
Mail Stop EX-13
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 753-2449

SN:fg
Enclosure

WASHINGTON NATURAL HERITAGE DATA SYSTEM
NATURAL FEATURES IN THE SNOHOMISH RIVER DELTA
CURRENT AS OF NOVEMBER 15, 1988

TOWNSHIP, RANGE NATURAL FEATURE STATE STATUS
& SECTION

T30N R05E S29,31,32 Transition zone wetland

T30N R05E S29,31,32 Surge plain wetland

T30N R05E S29,31,32 Low intertidal, low salinity, silty marsh

T30N RO5E S29,31,32 High intertidal, low salinity marsh

I T30N R05E S29 FritIllaria camschatcensis (black lily) Sensitive

NAME: Frifillaria cemschatcensis (L.)
Ker-Gawl. - Indian rice, black lily (FRCA 2)
FAMILY: Liliaceae - Lily family
STATUS: State: Sensitive
PROMINENT CHARACTERISTICS: Stems 2-5
dm. (8-20 in.) tall; leaves in 1-3 whorls of
5-9 each, with 1-several scattered above the
uppermost whorl; flowers 2-7, spreading to
pendent, bell-like, dark greenish-brown to
brownish-purple, sometimes streaked or
spotted with yellow. Similar to F. lanceolate,
which has a ribbed capsule, F.
camschatensis has a smooth capsule.
Identifiable May to July.
HABITAT: Tidal meadows to marshy meadows
in the foothills, up to 879 m. (2900 fl.).
RANGE: Peripheral in WA, Island and
Snohomish cos,; Kodiak I. and coastal AK s.
to Vancouver BC.
OCCURRENCE SUMMARY: Known from eight
recent sightings.
THREATS: Diking and filling of tidal marshes
and meadows, logging, trampling, plant
collectors.
LAND OWNERSHIP/MANAGEMENT: FS,
FWS, TIR, DNR, PVT

IK (...9/20

:�

150
FROM: AN ILLUSTRATED qGUIDE
TO TH_ ENDANGERED, THREATEED,
AND SENSITIVE VASCULAR PLANi'S
OF WASHINGTON. WASHINGTON
NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM 1981,
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N ESTY ACLRPAI

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~fWSIGO.WSIGO

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NTRLHRTG RGA 91