Untted States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
(WA96101
AlasKL
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Water DMston
Wedands Section
Jury 1990
Restoration Potential of Diked
Estuarine Wetlands in
Washington and Oregon
Phase II:
Identification of Candidate Sites in
Puget Sojjnd
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Summary of Phase 1 Study 1
Methodology 2
Preliminary Site Identification 2
Ownership Identification and Permission to Access 2
Field Reconnaissance 3
Criteria for Feasibility of Restoration 3
Results 4
Preliminary Sites Identified 4
Summary of Access Permission Requests 4
Suitability Criteria 8
Field Reconnaissance I 8
Clallam County 12
Island County 13
Jefferson County 14
Kitsap County- 15
Mason County 16
Skagit County 17
Snohomish County "18
Field Identified Suitable Sites 18
Jefferson County 18
Skagit County 20
Snohomish County 21
Thurston County 23
Whatcom County 24
Criteria 25
Ranking Criteria 25
Preservation Options • 27
Preservation Options and Incentives 28
Federal Programs 29
State Programs 30
County Programs 31
Jefferson County • 31
Skagit County 32
Snohomish County 32
Thurston County 32
Whatcom County 33
Discussion 33
-------
Summary 35
Literature Cited 37
References 37
Personal Communications 38
APPENDICES
A - Permission to Access Letter and Postcard
B - Sample Data Sheet for Sites Visited
C - Data Sheets for Sites Visited
D - Non-Profit Organizations
u
-------
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
Under the auspices of the Clean Water Act, Section 404, one of the missions of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to enhance and protect wetland
resources. In EPA Region 10, specifically in the Puget Sound area, there is opportunity
to enhance aquatic resources by restoring some of the thousands of acres of wetlands
that have been historically diked.
The objective of Work Assignment 24 is to field identify and prioritize areas in
Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca that were tidally influenced wetlands which
are now either not functioning as wetlands or are providing limited wetland functions
due to dike construction. This report is the field confirmation of the non-field data
compiled within Phase 1.
Summary of Phase 1 Study
The objective of the Phase 1 study was to identify areas in Washington and
Oregon that: 1) once were estuarine wetlands but are not currently functioning as such
due to dike construction; 2) were greater than 5 acres in size; and 3) may be suitable for
restoration.
Preliminary sites were identified by the analysis of aerial photographs, U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) quad maps, the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps,
Soil Conservation Service soils maps, and personal communication with professionals in
the field.
Potential Phase I sites were identified if they met the following criteria:
1) They were located within potential tidal range of the estuary and a human
intervention such as a tide gate or dike had removed the site from tidal
influence. This was determined by the presence of adjacent wetland, or
channels mapped as estuarine by the NWI, or the clear presence of levees,
dikes, or tide gates which impacted tidal influence; and
2a) Current land use as determined from aerial photograph review was
agricultural. Agricultural use was defined as active cultivation, pasture for
grazing, or hay-field use. Such areas may have been mapped by the NWI
as palustrine, estuarine, or upland systems; or
2b) Current land use as determined from aerial photographs was passive and
the area appeared to have the potential to be restored to estuarine
influence, i.e., the area was not discernable as being cultivated or actively
-1-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table £age
1 Location Information for Preliminary Sites *
2 Summary of Responses Received '
3 Summary of Information on Sites Visited 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
Figure Page
1 Preliminary Sites 4
2 Sites Visited :. 8
3 North Quilcene Bay -18
4 Relative Elevations at Quilcene Bay 19
5 Fidalgo Bay 20
6 Relative Elevations at Fidalgo Bay 20
7 Biringer Farms 21
8 Relative Elevations at Biringer Farms 22
9 Spencer Island 23
10 Nisqually Delta 23
11 Lummi Bay '. 24
in
-------
developed. Such areas may have been mapped by the NWI as palustrine,
estuarine, or upland systems.
METHODOLOGY
Preliminary Site Identification
Preliminary sites were identified by the analysis of aerial photographs, NWI maps,
USGS quad maps, soils maps, and input from experienced field professionals.
As noted above, the criteria for identification was based on the proximity to the
estuary and the known or suspected presence of dikes or tide gates which appeared to
isolate the site from tidal influence. Palustrine freshwater systems were included as
preliminary sites if the aerial photographs indicated that the site may have previously
been within tidal influence.
Ownership Identification and Permission to Access
Prior to conducting field visits, an attempt was made to identify and contact each
property owner in order to gain written permission to access each site.
Ownership was determined by identifying each site by quarter-quarter section, to
the extent feasible. Tax assessors maps for each quarter section were reviewed to identify
tax lots. The address of the taxpayer for each tax lot was obtained from the appropriate
county assessor's office.
A total of 63 sites were preliminarily identified, of which it was determined that
15 are publicly owned or could be viewed from public access areas. The remaining 47
sites are privately owned by a total of 188 individual taxpayers. Results of the requests
for permission to access private properties are discussed below. The Lummi Bay
Seapond is located on tribal land; no permission to access the site was requested.
Once the taxpayers were identified for each tax-lot, a letter explaining the intent
of the study with a request for permission to access the site was sent to each taxpayer.
Included within the letter was a self-addressed and stamped postcard with check-offs for
responses to allow or not allow access to the site. Appendix A contains a sample of the
letter of request and return postcard.
Permission to access was not requested from public lands such as National
Wildlife Refuges. If significant portions of a site were accessible from public right-of-
ways, then no permission to access was requested. In addition, if permission to
physically access was denied, and if significant portions of a site were visible from a
public roadway, then a visual assessment using binoculars was conducted without
trespassing on private property.
-2-
-------
Field Reconnaissance
Field reconnaissance was organized by county and general region to make most
efficient use of field time and effort
Each site was walked, when possible, and a visual assessment of existing
conditions was conducted. The relative value of the site in its present condition
(palustrine or estuarine wetland, or upland), was evaluated.
Data was compiled on each appropriate site visited on field forms developed
specifically for the study. Appendix B contains a sample of the data field forms used for
collecting site data. The field form was developed to assess the existing conditions and
the restoration potential for each site. Use of the form insured the collection of
consistent data for each site. A detailed description of the field form methodology is
contained in Appendix B; a brief summary follows here.
The first page of the form focuses on the existing natural site conditions, such as
wetland classification (if any wetland was present), vegetation, water conditions, soil, and
habitat features. Any existing adverse impacts to wildlife use or wetland functions or
value were noted. Information regarding general site conditions and a qualitative
assessment of existing functions and values of the site was collected.
The second page of the form is for the collection of data regarding the dikes,
tidegates, relative site elevations, existing or potential problems (such as the presence of
structures), an assessment of potential conditions if the site were restored to tidal
influence, and a general summary assessment of the site and its restoration potential.
Relative elevations of the site from outside of the dike to inside the dike were
collected to enable more accurate predictions of the relative levels of inundation to be
expected if the site were restored to tidal influence. Elevations were measured using a
transect and stadia rod, measuring relative changes in elevation across a site from a
logical benchmark. Elevations were taken only along one transect for each site at a
"typical" cross-section; the objective was to ascertain relative elevations both inside and
outside of the dikes.
The presence/absence of structures was noted to assess any potential adverse
impacts to structures if the area in question were returned to tidal influence.
Criteria for Feasibility of Restoration
Criteria for the feasibility of restoration are based on data collected in the field
and review of applicable literature.
Assessment of restoration feasibility at a site was based on several factors, which
are listed below:
1) Current condition of the site; does it provide a complex and stable habitat type
which may not be present otherwise in the immediate vicinity?
-3-
-------
2) Is the existing condition of the site due to historical human created alterations
or naturally occurring conditions. Is the current condition stable or does it
require constant human input to be maintained?
3) Is the site situated adjacent to or within the influence of a stream or river that
potentially provides salmonid habitat?
4) Is it physically feasible to restore the site. Has fill been placed over the
original substrate. Has dredging occurred. Are tide gates or dikes in place
that would have to be removed?
5) If the site is returned to tidal influence, will there be any potential adverse
impacts to existing structures?
The Discussion section of this report contains an overview of some of the issues
related to whether to restore sites to tidal influence. Points of consideration include
whether the site is located in an estuarine area where fresh and salt water interface;
fisheries considerations such as improved rearing habitat or stranding; functional habitat
value present in the existing site; potential habitat value of the restored site; and relative
abundance of the anticipated habitat type.
Within the Discussion section there is an outline of criteria that could be used to
create a qualitative rating system for potential restoration sites. The development of an
effective rating system for potential restoration sites is extremely difficult due to the
variability and complexity of factors to consider when determining the feasibility of
restoring a specific site.
RESULTS
Preliminary Sites Identified
Within the Puget Sound and Straits of Juan de Fuca region, 63 preliminary sites
were identified. Of those 63 sites, 24 were identified in the Phase 1 study and an
additional 39 were identified at the onset of this second phase. This phase of the project
focuses on the field identification of sites with restoration potential within the Puget
Sound and Straits of Juan de Fuca region of Washington State. Figure 1 indicates the
general location of the 63 preliminary sites. Table 1 lists all 63 sites, their location by
township, range, and section, and whether the site was field checked.
Summary of Access Permission Requests
One-hundred and eighty-eight letters requesting permission to access 47 properties
were sent Eleven (43 percent) letters were returned because the post-office was unable
to deliver them either due to wrong address or no forwarding address. An attempt was
made to positively identify the taxpayer address for these letters.
-------
Figure 1. Preliminary Sites
-------
TABLE 1
Location Information for Preliminary Sites
No.*
Clallam
6
7
8
9
10
11
Island
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
59
24
13
Jefferson
25
26
1
2
27
28
29
30
King
31
Kitsap
32
33
34
35
36
Site Name
Batelles Lagoon
Crescent Bay
Gray's Marsh
Meadowbrook Creek
The Lagoon
Thompson Spit
Clinton
Cultus Bay
Deer Lagoon
DugalkBay
Hansville
Kennedy's Lagoon
Lake Hancock
Long Beach
Maxwelton
Mueller Park
Pebble Beach
PennCove
Swantown
Crockett Lake
Dabob Bay
Discovery Junction
Quilcene Bay N.
Qirilcene Bay S.
Squamish Harbor
Toandos Peninsula 1
Joandos Peninsula 2
Whitney Point
Quartermaster Harbor
Apple Cove Point
Battle Point
Big Beef Harbor
Little Beef Harbor
President Point
Townshp Rge
30N
31N
31N
31N
SON
SON
29N
28N
29N
33N
29N
31N
SON
32N
29N
31N
SON
SIN
32N
31N
26n
29N
27N
27N
28N
26N
26N
26N
22N
27N
25N
25N
25N
26N
4E
3E
2E
2E
2E
IE
2E
3E
3E
IE
3E
IE
IE
IE
2W
1W
2W
2W
IE
1W
1W
1W
3E
2E
2E
1W
1W
3E
Sect
16
24
18
15
15
7
Visited
15,22
21
30
15
16
31
10
14, 22, 23
7, 18
22
30
5
32
4
31
23
31
32
14,15
24
19
18
24
32
14
14
7
Yes
No
from Public
Access
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Drive by
'Yes
Yes
Drive By
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Number can be used to locate site in Figure 2
-5-
-------
No.* Site Name
Kitsap (cont.)
37 Sinclair A
38 Sinclair B
39 Sinclair C
40 Vmland
41 Waterman Point
TABLE 1 (continued)
Townshp Rge
24N
24N
24N
26N
24N
IE
IE
IE
IE
2E
Sect
27
28
33
5
8
Visited
Drive by
Drive by
Drive by
No
No
Mason
42
43
44
45
Pierce
3
San Juan
46
Ska pit
4
47
48
49
50
51
52
58
60
53
54
Annas Bay
Little Skookum Inlet
Lynch Cove
Triton Head
Nisqually
Aleck Bay
Fidalgo Bay
Milltown Island
PadillaBay
Samish Bay N.
Samish Bay S.
Shannon Point
Ship Harbor
Sinclair Island
Skagit Bay
Telegraph Slough
Windy Point
Snohomish
5 Beringer Farm
55 Picnic Point .
56 Steamboat Slough
57 Stillaguamish R.
61 Snohomish R. delta
62 Spencer Island
Whatcom
63 Lummi Bay
21N
19N
23N
24N
18N, 19N
34N
34N
33N
36N
36N
35N
35N
36N
34N
36N
29N
28N
4W
3W
1W
2W
IE
1W
2E
4E
3E
3E
IE
IE
IE
3E
3E
5E
4E
1.6
17
32
6
19
5
30
21
32
22
9
7
16
4
29
Drive by
Yes
Yes
Yes
31, 32, 5, 6 Yes
38N
IE
14,15
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Recon.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Recon.
No
No
*Number can be used to locate site in Figure 2
-------
Sixty percent of the 188 taxpayers requests responded to the letter 38.8 percent
(72 taxpayers) granted permission to access, and 213 percent (40 taxpayers) denied
access. Thirty-five percent (65 taxpayers) did not respond to the letter of request. See
Table 2 for a summary of these results.
Table 2. Summary of Responses Received
Response Number Percent
Yes 73 38.83
No - 40 21.28
No Response 65 34.57
Returned 8 426
Other 2 1.06
TOTAL 188
The number of taxpayers who were willing to allow access to their property
significantly affected the scope of the study. Numerous sites that may have important
restoration potential were not visited because access was denied. The inability to
visually assess sites has resulted in a very reduced Listing of potential restoration sites.
The respondents provided access to 22 percent (14 sites) of the originally
identified 62 preliminary sites. Fifteen additional sites were identified which could be
accessed on public lands or public right-of-ways.
Most of the potential restoration sites are contained within multiple tax-lots, often
owned by several different individuals. If access was denied to crucial tax-lots that
contained the berms or outlet structures, the site may have not been field checked due to
the inability to gather adequate or significant data.
The areas where this was most critical are the large deltas of the Skagit and
Snohomish Rivers. Historically the Snohomish Delta contained the largest (39 sq. km.)
amount of wetland within its delta of all of the major river estuaries emptying into Puget
Sound (Bortelson 1980). The Skagit Delta contained 29 sq. km. of wetland prior to
diking.
Much of these two deltas were convened to agricultural uses starting in the 1800s,
and that use continues to the present The farms and land holdings in the deltas are
often large, with access controlled by a single private farm road or lane. If permission to
access a site was denied it was usually impossible to visually access a potential
restoration site to assess existing conditions. No visual access from the water or from the
air was attempted within the scope of this project
-7-
-------
Many property owners within the deltas denied access to their property. It is
assumed that not allowing access for the purpose of this study may have been due to
several reasons: 1) the site is in existing agricultural use and therefore the idea of
converting back to wetland would be unacceptable; 2) the intent or implication of the
study may not have been understood; or 3) the intent of the study may have been
understood, but the property owner was not in agreement with the intention; or a variety
of other reasons.
To summarize, of the 63 preliminary sites identified as potential restoration sites,
51 percent (32 sites) were visited, 11 percent (7 sites) were viewed without trespassing,
and 37 percent (23 sites) were not field checked in any manner.
Suitability Criteria
Sites were automatically determined to be unsuitable if any of the following
criteria were met:
1) Restoration of the site to tidal influence would clearly adversely impact
existing structures, particularly residences;
2) The site is a stable, complex freshwater wetland that is providing significant
habitat functions, and little other freshwater wetland habitat is present within
the vicinity;
3) The site is currently dominated by halophytic vegetation; and
4) Restoration to tidal influence could only be accomplished by a major
engineering solution such as drilling under roadways or railroad right-of-ways.
Field Reconnaissance
A total of 38 sites were viewed in the field; 31 sites were field visited and 7 sites
were "drive-bys." Drive-by sites were those sites at which permission to access was
denied but a public access was available, or the site could be viewed from a public point
such as a road shoulder. Figure 2 shows the location of all 38 sites that were field
checked or viewed. Table 3 contains a summary by county of each site visited, whether
the site was "suitable" in a very general sense, and comments about the site.
In an effort to identify specific sites within the large river deltas of the Skagit,
Snohomish, and Stillaguamish Rivers, preliminary field trips were conducted. Aerial
photographs were used to identify potential sites, and an effort was made to see as many
of the sites as possible. The lack of public access roads close to the river shoreline
where the dikes and wetlands are located precluded any significant information
gathering.
-8-
-------
GRAYS
HARBOR
Figure 2. Sites Visited
-------
TABLES
Summary of Information oh Sites Visited
Map #*
Clallam
6
8
10
11
Island
16
17
18
19
20
22
60
24
13
Jefferson
25
26
1
Site
Name
Batelles Lagoon
Gray's Marsh
The Lagoon
Thompson Spit
Dugalla Bay
Hansville
Kennedy's Lagoon
Lake Hancock
Long Beach
Mueller Park
Penn Cove
Swantown
Crockett Lake
Dabob Bay
Discovery Junction
Quilcene Bay N.
Visited?
Yes
Public Access
Yes
Yes
Drive by
Yes
Yes
Drive By
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Site
suitable?
No
No
No
No
No
?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Comments
salt marsh
no connection evident;
functioning
palustrine emergent marsh
site is a palustrine emergent
marsh with no dike
dike impoundment ringed with
homes
active agriculture
saltmarsh
saltmarsh
site is existing saltmarsh that is
used as a target range by the
Navy
saltmarsh
saltmarsh
site is well-developed palustrine
emergent marsh and open water
salt marsh with reduced tidal
regime; engineering constraints
saltmarsh
saltmarsh
see page 14
* Number can be used to locate the site on Figure 2
-9-
-------
Map #* Site
Name
TABLE 3 (cont.)
Visited? Site Comments
suitable?
Jefferson
2
27
30
Kitsap
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
Mason
42
43
44
45
fcont.1
Quilcene Bay S.
Squamish Harbor
Whitney Point
Apple Cove Point
Big Beef Harbor
Little Beef Harbor
President Point
Sinclair A
Sinclair B
Sinclair C
Annas Bay
Little Skookum Inlet
Lynch Cove
Triton Head
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Drive by
Drive by
Drive by
Drive by
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
?
No
No
No
actively grazed
saltmarsh below the road,
freshwater above tidal influence
shellfish lab present
not diked; saltmarsh present
Site is actively managed as a fish
hatchery; palustrine emergent
and open water wetland present
not diked; small saltmarsh
present
two wetlands; one PEM with no
inlet; one has potentially
functioning tidegate with a
variety of salt tolerant species
no longer present
no longer present
no longer present
actively farmed; crucial access
denied
no dike; either hill or natural
beach; cow pasture
diked area appears to provide
habitat diversity
diked pond with adjacent
residences
-10-
-------
TABLE 3 (cont.)
Map#*
Thurston
3
Skagit
4
52
53
61
54
55
Snohomish
5
56
Site
Name
Nisqually
Fidalgo Bay
Shannon Point
Ship Harbor
Skagit Bay
Telegraph Slough
Windy Point
Biringer Farm
Picnic Point
Visited?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recon.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Site
suitable?
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Comments
seepage 23
seepage 20
already freshwater wetland
already mixed salt and
freshwater wetland
no dike is in place; saltmarsh
freshwater wetland
seepage
homes built around die diked
pond; access through railroad
62
Snohomish R. delta Recon.
-11-
-------
The following is a summary of the sites that were field checked and determined to
be unsuitable as potential restoration sites within the constraints of this study. The sites
are organized alphabetically by county. Names have been given to each site based on an
adjacent geographic name or location. The numbers adjacent to each site in this text are
the reference numbers located on Figure 2.
Sites that were considered to have restoration potential based on detailed site
analysis or deductions from available information are discussed in the section Field
Identified Suitable Sites.
Clallam County
6) Batelle's Lagoon
The site is a tidal lagoon. The agricultural fields located on the western
perimeter of the saltmarsh are being actively grazed; however, no dikes or tide gates
were observed. The site was walked on the eastern edge, and viewed with binoculars
from the roadway to the west Water quality within the lagoon and saltmarsh could
likely be improved by increasing the buffer between livestock pastures and. the saltmarsh.
Garbage was present on the outer dunes adjacent to the laboratory.
8) Grays Marsh
The site was accessed from the public beach along the Straits of Juan de Fuca.
The site is a large freshwater wetland system, and the majority of the length of the dunes
on the north edge were walked, but no tide gates were noted. A channel may exist out
to the open waters of the Straits; however, none was evident The site is providing
outstanding palustrine habitat immediately adjacent to open saltwater and therefore it is
not recommended that it be opened to tidal influence. See the Discussion section for
information on the site implications of nutrient cycling from enclosed freshwater
marshes.
10) The Lagoon
The site is an excavated palustrine emergent marsh located a substantial distance
from the open saltwater of Discovery Bay. No tide gate or created dike is present
11) Thompson Spit
The site is a former tidal lagoon that is completely dosed off to tidal influence.
The entire sand dune system ringing the tidal lagoon is covered with seasonal and year-
round residences. Given the location, it is very likely that no sanitary sewer system is
present Opening the lagoon to tidal influence would result in potential flooding
problems for the homes and septic contamination within the wetland.
-12-
-------
Island County
13) Crockett Lake
The site is an existing saltmarsh, however, tide gates limit the tidal influence in
the system. The tide gates likely also function to limit fisheries use of the site, which
could be very significant Looking at the relative elevations of the site to the Sound, it
appears that removing the tide gates could cause the inner site to become completely
exposed during low tide events. The site could likely provide critical nutrient input to
the local waters of the Sound if natural tidal fluctuation were restored. The presence of
Highway 20 and a commercial structure near the tide gates and culverts pose potential
structural problems. It is recognized that this site has been previously recommended for
restoration. Without further technical data regarding the impact of that action on the
structural stability of the highway and adjacent structure, as well as the potential impact
on flooding, no recommendation for tidal restoration is suggested.
16) Dugalla Bay
Permission to access this site was not granted; however, the site was. observed
from the west side of Highway 20. The site appears to be within active agricultural use;
livestock were present on the lower site. Portions of the fields appeared to support some
halophytes in spite of grazing. Removal of grazing pressure could allow some of the
native species to return and could clearly improve the water quality of Dugalla Bay.
From the visual vantage, dike presence/absence could not be determined; however, it is
assumed to be present
17) Hansville
The site, which is on Whidbey Island, is dominated by halophytic vegetation and is
separated from the Sound by sand dunes and a road. The vegetation is predominantly
Scirpus acutus and Scirpus americanum. There is no obvious culvert under the road,
although there may be interchange through the sands of the old dunes.
18) Kennedy's Lagoon
The site is an existing saltmarsh.
19) Lake Hancock
The site was not field checked, as it is on the Whidbey Island Naval Station;
however, it was observed with binoculars from the wayside on the east side of Highway
20. The site is tidal with at least two channels out to the open water of the Sound. It is
unknown what impacts the site is undergoing from being located within a Target Range
on the military reservation.
22) Mueller Park
The site is an existing saltmarsh.
-13-
-------
24) Swantown
The site is a large (approximately 80-acre) wetland that was formerly tidal, but is
now primarily fresh water. Some halophytes remain; however, the predominance of '
species are fresh. The site is regulated by culverts and tidegates located below the
roadway that forms the western edge of the site. At low tide the culverts were not
visible on the beach of the Sound.
Road runoff from the adjacent roadway has been placed in a roadside ditch
dredged parallel to the western edge of the wetland. The runoff flows down to the
wetland outlet where it seems to be directed through an outlet and out to the Sound.
It is estimated that the existing culverts under the roadway are greater than 200
feet in length. Several confusing old channels and broken culverts are present near the
outlet of the wetland, and it is impossible to ascertain the function of most of the system.
Field checking the site confirmed that it was no longer tidal as the surface substrates
were not saturated from the morning tides. The site likely holds water in the winter
months and provides excellent migratory waterfowl habitat
If the site were restored to tidal influence it would likely be a net exporter of
nutrients to the Sound; however, it is unknown what type of vegetation community would
establish within the actual wetland Maintenance of the existing system is recommended
based on the extent and quality of freshwater habitat present and the possibility that the
diverse freshwater emergent system would be replaced by tidal mudflats.
Jefferson County
25) Dabob Bay
The site is an existing saltmarsh.
26) Discovery Junction
The site contains some remnant wetland although it is actively farmed. Filling of
the wetland and pastures is on-going with what appears to be barn waste. The site was
not accessed, but was assessed with binoculars from the road shoulder. The visible
portion of the site is significantly above the head of the saltmarsh.
2) South Quilcene Bay
This site is located immediately to the south of the identified potential restoration
site (see p. 18 of this report), across the channel of the Little Quilcene River. The site is
very actively managed and either hayed or constantly grazed. No permission to access
the site was granted, but the dikes were assessed from the existing estuary to the east It
is unknown whether the site would provide restoration potential, it may be located at too
high of an elevation to provide high saltmarsh. The site may be within the floodplain of
the Little Quilcene River and could provide potential as either floodplain or surge-plain
wetland.
-14-
-------
27) Squamish Harbor
The site is saltmarsh to the east of Point Thorndyke Road and freshwater forested
wetland to the west of the road. There does not appear to be any blockage of tidal
action. The freshwater system is located upstream of tidal influence.
30) Whitney Point
The site contains a shellfish laboratory. Restoration would adversely impact the
operation of the shellfish laboratory.
Kitsap County
32) Apple Cove Point
The wetland is a high saltmarsh dominated by Scirpus americanum. It appears
that the saltmarsh has been removed from tidal influence with the placement of
tidegates. To the immediate south there are existing residences that are likely on septic
systems. No evidence of culverts or tidegates was clearly present; it is assumed that
some son of conveyance exists through the old dune barrier. Restoring the site to full
tidal influence may impact the existing structures and could allow degraded water to
enter more directly into Puget Sound.
34) Big Beef Harbor
The site contains some remnant saltmarsh; however, the area is actively managed
as a fish hatchery and research station for the University of Washington Department of
Fisheries. No potential for restoration exists as long as the fisheries function is
maintained.
35) Little Beef Harbor
The system is not diked, and a small fringe of natural saltmarsh exists along the
edge of the river upstream of the road crossing.
36) Presidents Point
Two wetlands are located in the area. The first is a very small palustrine system
that may have been larger historically but now appears to be a very small isolated
remnant It is likely that the system collects runoff from the adjacent hillside to the west.
No inlet or outlet were discernable and the species present are predominantly palustrine.
The berm and open water of the Sound were out of influence range. Soils within the
small area are deep organics above sands and tight clays in several areas.
A larger, more complex system is located to the north of the small wetland. The
larger wetland has a 12-inch outlet culvert which empties into a buried concrete control
structure so that no visual assessment of the outlet was possible. The larger wetland
contains some salt tolerant species. It is separated from the Sound by the intact old
-15-
-------
dunes topped by an old roadway. Private homes are located at the far north end and on
the bluff above to the west. These homes are very likely on septic systems.
The wetland may have been experiencing nutrient loading judging from the
amount of algae accumulated within the standing water of the system. It appears as if
the system does not experience any tidal flushing on a regular basis judging on the
existing water quality and the condition of the vegetation. It is unknown whether tidal
influence could be restored through the existing outlet structure. To dredge or drill a
"new" inlet/outlet channel would be costly and impractical.
37) Sinclair A
Site no longer present; area appeared to be filled.
38} Sinclair B
Site no longer present; area appeared to be filled.
39) Sinclair C
Site is existing freshwater system out of range of tidal influence.
Mason County
42) Annas Bay "
Permission to access the site was not granted to the critical component of the site.
Observations of the site from public access show that the site is actively farmed and
grazed. Review of the aerial photographs indicates the presence of a site with significant
potential to be restored to tidal influence.
43) Little Skookum Inlet
No dike is present on the site; there is a cow pasture located approximately five
to six feet above the Salicornia virginica marsh. From the point of observation, it was
not possible to discern if the pasture area is a natural elevation or fill
44) Lynch Cove
A portion of the existing saltmarsh has been diked off and a culvert and tide gate
have been placed to control the hydrology inside of the dike. There is an extensive
saltmarsh outside of the dike which appears to be in reasonable condition. The area
within the dike contains a mixture of fresh and salt tolerant species, and on the day of
the field visit over 20 waterfowl were present within the diked area.
The area within the dike is providing brackish to freshwater wetland habitat
diversity that compliments the large existing estuarine system. To restore this small
portion to the estuary would mean the loss of the element of diversity with an unknown
gain in quantity of restored saltmarsh.
-16-
-------
A citizens group received a Public Involvement and Education (PXE.) grant in
1989 from the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority to enhance educational
opportunities at this marsh.
45) Triton Head
The site is a very email lagoon that has been diked off from tidal influence. The
site is surrounded on three sides by seasonal and permanent residences that are likely on
septic systems. Restoring the site to tidal influence would pose possible adverse impacts
to the existing structures and possibly further degrade water quality by allowing septic
runoff to enter Hood Canal more directly.
Skaeit County
52) Shannon Point
The site is located immediately to the west and north of the San Juan Island ferry
terminal. It is a complex forested freshwater wetland outside of tidal influence.
53) Ship Harbor
The site is located just to the east of the San Juan Island ferry dock/terminal
complex The site is a mixture of fresh and salt tolerant species. Walking of the site did
not reveal any culverting or tide gate system through what may have been either
naturally occurring dunes or created dikes. If a culvert/tide gate system is present it
must be buried below the evident surface. Restoration of tidal influence would require
that a channel be dredged out to the open water of the Sound.
The existing system is a large complex wetland with a diversity of vegetation
communities. Historical alterations by humans have left impacts such as hundreds of
pilings and old excavated channels.
54) Telegraph Slough
The area is immediately to the south of Highway 20 prior to the highway crossing
the Swinomish Channel to the west The vegetation within this area of the Slough is
dominated by salt tolerant species. It is unclear whether there is still tidal influence
entering the system from the south and west (via the Swinomish Channel) or from
Padilla Bay to the north. It may be that residual salts are still present within the soils
which maintain salt tolerant species. It is most likely that tidal influence, if present, is
from the Swinomish Channel.
55) Windy Point
The site is a long (over 600 feet) palustrine emergent system located at the south
end of Chuckanut Drive, between the base of the railroad tracks and a created berm to
the west It may be that the wetland was created when soils were excavated at the west
-17-
-------
edge of the tracks and piled 25 to 30 feet further to the west to create a berm to protect
the tracks from wave action and erosion from the open waters of Samish Bay.
The palustrine wetland that has formed is a diverse scrub and emergent system
around the edges of the long deep pool If the site were opened to tidal influence by the
placement of a culvert through the berm at the north end, it is predictable that the site
would become exposed mudfiat at low tide like the rest of Samish Bay. It is
recommended to leave the site as a palustrine system because of the habitat diversity
provided and because there does not seem to be a compelling need for more mud flat
habitat in the area.
Snohomish County
56) Picnic Point
The site is located between the railroad tracks to the west and a steep hillside
with residences to the east It is an open water pond impounded behind the railroad
right-of-way. Permanent residences are constructed on the slope above the site. It is
assumed that the homes are on septic systems. It is unknown whether a culvert and tide-
gate system exists under the railroad fill Boring such a channel to create tidal
interchange would not be feasible, and would run the risk of adding degraded water
quality directly to the Sound in the event of a septic system failure.
Field Identified Suitable Sites
Of the 62 preliminary identified sites, four sites have been identified as suitable
restoration sites in the field (see p. 8, Suitability Criteria). Two other sites are included
within this discussion; one is proposed to be opened to tidal influence by Snohomish
County, the other is the seapond in Lummi Bay. The sites are discussed below, listed in
alphabetical order by county.
Additional feasible sites exist throughout the Puget Sound and Straits of Juan de
Fuca region, but it was not possible to gain visual or physical access to these areas to
confirm their potential.
The field forms for each identified site are located within Appendix C.
Jefferson County
1) North Quilcene Bay, approximately 8 acres.
The site is located at the head of Quilcene Bay, south of East Quilcene Road and
north of the Little Quilcene River channel. See Figure 3 for the site location. Figure 3
also indicates the South Quilcene site discussed above. The site is clearly formerly
within tidal influence, it is a grazed horse pasture with limited habitat value, the original
soils are in place, and there is little potential for any major structural damage if the tidal
regime was restored to the site.
-18-
-------
NORTH QUILCENE BAY
SOUTH QUILCENE BAY
EAST QUILCENE
QUILCENE
Figure 3. North Quilcene Bay
-------
The existing site is a horse pasture; however, the grazing pressure is apparently
not intense as much of the vegetation on site is mature standing growth. To die east the
area is high saltmarsh dominated by Carex Ivngbei and Deschampsia caepitosa. The
southern boundary is delineated by the dike which parallels the north bank of Little
Quilcene River.
Inside the dike the area is typical disturbed wetland pasture. Species include
Agrostis alba. Juncus effusus. Cirsiuni arvense. and Ranunculus repens. The dike is
approximately 8 feet higher than the approximate high tide elevation on the outside. As
is often the case, the dike was created by dredging out a ditch on the inside of the
proposed dike as a source of the material from which to create the dike itself. The
dredging activity has left a ditch on the inside of the dike that is now filled with water.
Figure 4 shows the relative site elevations across a typical cross-section of the site.
It is important to note that the inlet elevation for the tide gate is lower than the surface
elevation within the dike; the area within the dike could be flooded by removing the tide
gate, if enough hydraulic head is present
Figure 4. Relative Elevations at Quilcene Bay Site
The original soils are present inside the dike, and therefore no fill would have to
be removed. It is anticipated that a high salt marsh community would develop inside of
the dike if tidal influence were restored.
From a physical perspective it would be best to remove major portions of the
dike. Propping open the tide gate or creating one opening within the dike will cause
erosion and sedimentation problems on both sides of the dike.
An old barn structure located many hundreds of feet to the west presents the one
potential structural problem associated with restoring tidal influence to this area. If
detailed topographic analysis indicates that the barn would be in jeopardy, then an
additional smaller berm could be built across the west end of the site to maintain the
upper end of the pasture outside of tidal influence.
-19-
-------
Skagit County
4) Fidalgo Bay; approximately 8.6 acres.
The site is located in the northwest comer of State Highway 20, at the
intersection with March Point Road. The site has been diked from the waters of Fidalgo
Bay and portions of it subsequently filled. Figure 5 shows the location of the Fidalgo
Bay site.
The area inside the dike is a composite of vegetation communities and substrate
types. Immediately adjacent to the dike, there is an excavated ditch, which was the
source of the fill material for the dike itself. Within this excavated ditch salt-tolerant
species have established.
The majority of the area within the dike is characterized by three different dense
vegetation communities: Agrostis alba is dominant in the excavated ditch; Typha
latifolia form dense stands in some locations; and Juncus effusus and Cirsium arvense
are present in significant numbers.
The far east side of the site is being used as a refuse site for oyster sliells and
what appears to be barn waste. This area is currently out of tidal influence and if no fill
removal were undertaken, this area would remain above tidal inundation.
Figure 6 shows the relative elevations across the site. It should be noted that
these elevations do not occur in one straight line transect, but have been compiled here
for simplicity.
Figure 6. Relative Elevations at Fidalgo Bay
-9.9
It is important to note that the bottom of the emergent marsh inside of the dike is
nearly one foot lower in elevation than the mud flat outside of the dike. The assumption
is that if the berm is simply removed, there will be deeper standing water in the area
which is now a marginal transitional marsh. It is to be expected that the excavated ditch
-20-
-------
Figures. FidalgoBay
-------
area would be lower than the other surfaces, however, it complicates some assumptions
that the area inside the dike is lower than the area outside of it.
The soils which may no longer be saturated in the diked tideland may have
subsided due to oxidation of the organic matter, or the site may have been used as a
staging area during construction of the highway which would have compacted the soils.
Regardless, it is important to note that the land inside the berm is lower than that which
currently functions as mud-flat at low tide. Removal of the dike could provide a
saturated zone at the head of the bay.
The physical constraint in removing the dike is the potential for adverse impacts
to Highway 20 or March Point Road. Highway 20 is exposed to the wave action on
other portions of this bay, therefore, it is not anticipated that this location would require
more than standard precautions to protect the roadways. If flooding of either roadway is
of concern, an auxiliary dike could be constructed at the toe of fill for each roadbed to
assure stabilization.
The habitat value at the existing site is moderate to low. The location next to the
busy highway limits the amount and habits of any wildlife present. Structural diversity
and community diversity is limited to emergent vegetation with few very small
tree/shrubs on the berm. The site provides habitat for various prey species and some
predators would seek prey within the area.
By removing the dike from the site, it is very likely that the previously cut ditch
behind the berm will fill with sediment and eventually the surface morphology of the
bottom would stabilize. Because of the extreme shallowness of these bays (Fidalgo and
Padilla in particular), low tides result in extensive mud flats in the area.
The site provides an excellent opportunity for restoration: it may be primarily
within Washington State Department of Transportation ownership; there are no
structural concerns that cannot be easily addressed; and the existing conditions on the
site can only be improved, especially if the site continues to be used as a dump area.
Snohomish County
5) Biringer Farms; approximately 45 acres.
The site is located west of Interstate 5, east of State Route 529 and Union Slough,
and south of Steamboat Slough (see Figure 7).
The site is currently farmed in row crops on the majority of the southern portion
and an approved Grading Permit from Snohomish County has been issued for the
northern portion of the site. In addition a 404 Nationwide Permit was issued by the
Corps of Engineers for the filling of an open water wetland on site which was formerly a
portion of Union Slough. The limits of the approved Grading Permit forms the northern
boundary of the potential restoration site. Future plans for the site are unknown;
however, conversations with the owner indicate a willingness to sell the property for
restoration.
-21-
-------
fttt
'->?•..'/A
?-'t*
IFRONTA
SMITH S'
ISLAND
r-s
Figure?. BiringerFarms
-------
Outside of the dike saltmarsh was present; the primary species was Carex lyngbei.
From the remnant slough on the north, this entire site is diked from the tidal
influence of Union Slough. Fill for Interstate 5 forms the eastern boundary of the site
and it may be necessary to create a new berm at the base of the freeway fill to protect
the roadway. There are no structures or other improvements on site that would be
threatened by restoring the site to tidal influence.
The existing habitat values of the site are limited because of the annual tilling and
haying. Some shrub habitat for prey species and passerine birds is available on the dikes
along the western edge. The openwater pond provides habitat for some waterfowl and
aquatic prey species. This habitat will be lost when the filling is complete.
With the exception t>f the actual dike itself, the remainder of the site has not been
filled. Soil analysis within the tilled portions of the site disclosed the top 10- to 14-inches
to be mixed silty sandy clay of a very tight texture. Below the till zone the soils were
silty sandy clays with bright mottles. Although the annual working of the soil has altered
the color and texture, the tilled soil is still hydric.
The relative elevation measurements across the site indicate that the pasture is
well within the anticipated tidal regime of the river. See Figure 8 for relative site
elevations. It is anticipated that much of the area which is now pasture would revert to
mudflat and saltmarsh. Scattered saltmarsh species are still present within the pasture
where they have escaped the effects of annual tilling.
Figure 8. Relative Elevations at Biringer Farms
It is recommended that if this site is restored to tidal influence that significant
portions of the dikes be left intact and that channel openings be created to allow flows in
and out of the restored saltmarsh. Remnant portions of dikes would function as islands
and maintain their shrub community. The elevation gradient on the bottom of the
"islands" would allow for greater diversity of vegetation community establishment within
the wetland.
-22-
-------
An issue of concern in restoring this pasture to tidal inundation is the possible
stranding of fish. Detailed topographic analysis will be required to ascertain if stranding
would actually be an issue. Minor grading and creation of a low-flow channel may solve
the problem if it is determined to be an issue.
63) Spencer Island; approximately 52 acres.
Spencer Island was not accessed during the field work for this study; however, the
staff of Snohomish County contacted the author regarding the County's intention of
removing the dikes on the island to restore tidal influence. The site is shown in Figure
9.
Given the location of the Island within the slough system of the Snohomish, it is
likely that a surge plain wetland may be restored on the island over time. Other undiked
islands within comparable reaches of the sloughs contain wetlands with Picea sitchensis
dominated overstory and Carex spp. understory. The sedge community may be
composed of both C. lyngbei and £» obnupta.
It is strongly recommended that baseline data be collected on the island prior to
opening of the dikes in order to document the change in the vegetation community over
time. Permanent vegetation transects should be established in order to collect consistent
data over a long period of time. It is essential that baseline data be compiled in order to
document any changes in vegetation community composition so that future restoration
actions will have a basis for predicting outcomes.
Thurston County
3) Nisqually; acreage unknown.
Existing and historical conditions of Nisqually Delta are well known and
documented (Burg 1984) and there has been no attempt in this study to collect
substantial new data. The site, which is shown in Figure 10, is included within this study
because of the previous studies conducted which indicate the physical feasibility and
potential biological value in restoring the delta to an estuarine condition.
The break in the dike that occurred in 1975 provided a glimpse of the potential of
restoring portions of the delta to tidal influence. Waterfowl use of the new brackish
portion of the refuge inside the breached dike increased, although a portion of the
increased waterfowl use may have been attributed to the ducks seeking refuge during the
hunting season (Burg 1984). Also, the vegetation responded within the "restored"
brackish zone and salt tolerant species began to recover (Burg pers. comm.).
The restoration of Nisqually Delta, in portion or entirety, is a question of
National Wildlife Refuge management policy and decisions, not a question of biological
or physical feasibility. The natural breaching of the dike in 1975 clearly showed the
biological feasibility of restoration.
The issue of saltmarsh restoration as opposed to maintenance of limited
freshwater wetland and managed agricultural use for waterfowl production within the
-23-
-------
Everett Sewage
Treatment Lagoons
Figure 9. Spencer Island
-------
Figure 10. Nisqually Delta
-------
refuge is a sensitive one. The argument for the maintenance of the refuge in its current
condition is based on the production of waterfowl and game birds, which is a primary
directive of the National Wildlife Refuge system.
The argument for restoration of at least portions of the delta to a natural
estuarine condition is based on the overall increased productivity of the system measured
in total biomass export to Puget Sound, and the significance of estuarine habitat on
salmonid populations as documented by Simenstad (1982).
The significance of estuaries for salmonid production is discussed more completely
within the Discussion section below; however, it must be noted here that the two highest
production levels for salmon within Puget Sound are from the Skagit Delta north, and
south of the Tacoma Narrows (Simenstad 1982). The Nisqually River and Delta provide
critical habitat to a very significant portion of salmon production in Puget Sound.
Personal observations by the author during this field study and during previous
visits to the refuge on foot and by kayak have indicated a tremendous use by waterfowl
of the saltmarsh and mud flats outside of the refuge dikes.
Habitat use within the diked refuge is provided for a variety of prey and predator
species of mammals, passerine birds, and raptors. Portions of the refuge provide
excellent diversity of upland, wetland, and riparian habitat in close proximity.
The recommendation for restoring portions of the diked delta to tidal influence is
based on the objective of increasing habitat diversity within the delta area. Diked farm
fields that provide some habitat for upland game birds and mammals are present within
the immediate vicinity. The amount of freshwater wetland present within the dikes of
the refuge is limited due to the limit of freshwater input to the system, however, these
cattail marshes do provide an element of diversity which is not otherwise present within
the delta.
The Discussion section clarifies the functional relationship between estuaries and
primary productivity in Puget Sound, it is this relationship which is the basis for
recommending restoring portions of Nisqually Delta to a natural estuarine condition.
Whatcom County
4) Lummi Bay Seapond; approximately 760 acres.
In the early 1970s a portion of Lummi Bay, on Lummi Tribal property, was diked
to create a seapond for aquaculture purposes. The site remains diked for active
aquaculture activities; however, it is contained within this report as a site which has
biological potential for restoration to tidal influence. The site was not field checked
during this study, and the information presented here was obtained from existing
environmental documents and personal communication with Tribal fishery staff (McKay
and Cochrane 1990). Figure 11 shows the site vicinity.
The seapond encloses 760 acres and it is approximately two feet deep. A scour
channel runs through the pond from the southeast to the northwest; the maximum depth
-24-
-------
Lummi
Indian
eservation
No Scale
Figure 11. Lummi Bay
-------
of the channel is approximately 4.5 feet. No filling or grading, other than to create the
dikes, has been conducted within the seapond area (McKay 1990).
Saltwater from Lummi Bay enters the pond through tidegates when the tide is
greater than 6 feet, and leaves the pond when tides are below 6 feet. The tidegates are
set to maintain standing water within the seapond at all times.
Sand and silt comprise the major substrate components within the diked area.
Areas of gravel are present as well. The gravels were likely deposited during
construction of the surrounding dike.
Vegetation composition within the pond is uncertain, however it is known that
Zostera. Ulva. and Enteromorpha are present
The original concept for salmonid aquaculture did not work within the seapond
due to high water temperatures from the shallow conditions. The tribe has established a
netpen rearing operation within the seapond for chum, coho, and chinook salmon. In
addition, oyster culture and manila clam production are present (Corps of Engineers
1988). The operations produce approximately four million fall chinook, one million
coho, and six million oysters annually (McKay 1990).
Removal of the dikes or the tidegates would result in the area within the seapond
being restored to its previous condition. Reviewing the aerials for the surrounding area
of Lummi Bay the previous condition would likely be extensive mud and sand flats
during low tide conditions. There is the potential for high saltmarsh along the upper
reaches of the site.
Restoring the site to tidal influence would restore approximately 760 acres of mud
flat and perhaps some high saltmarsh habitat Elimination of the aquaculture activities
may reduce nutrient loading to the waters of Lummi Bay caused from fishery production.
Elimination of the seapond would eliminate the aquaculture resource to the
Tribe. Managed fishery production within Lummi Bay would be significantly reduced as
would commercial shell fish production.
CRITERIA
Ranking Criteria
In an effort to establish ranking criteria in order to prioritize a theoretical list of
potential restoration sites, the process of developing a rating system was considered.
Due to the complexity of factors effecting the feasibility of restoring a site to tidal
influence it was determined that a realistic rating system was not possible.
The following list of feasibility questions has been developed to assist in
determining if a site is feasible for restoration. It must be noted that there are at least
-25-
-------
two levels to determine feasibility: the first is the determination of cooperation by the
land owner, the second are the physical and biological limitations to restoration.
1: Is the site on public lands, available for purchase, or is the private landowner
willing to cooperate with restoration and permanent preservation of the site?
Options for preserving lands that are not within public ownership are discussed in
the Preservation Options section of the report
2: Is it possible to restore the site to tidal influence without adversely impacting
existing structures or utilities?
If there are structures such as barns, outbuildings, roads, utility lines or poles
present within portions of the site it may be necessary to construct secondary dikes to
protect these features. The feasibility of that is dependent upon the location of the
structures in relation to the anticipated zone of inundation, and whether secondary
diking will function to protect the structures and allow their continued use. Cost of
secondary diking or moving of existing structures must be factored into the cost of
restoration.
3: Was the site formerly within tidal influence prior to historical diking?
If the site was never within tidal influence, it may not be advisable or possible to
develop a tidal regime within the proposed site (Frenkel and Morlan, 1990). The
presence and extent of historical tidal influence may be estimated by adjacent unaltered
sites (if any are present) or very roughly estimated by referencing the Bortelson report
4: Does the site retain its approximate former substrate elevation or has the
substrate subsided substantially?
Subsidence of the substrate within diked areas is very common. According to
Mitchell, it is caused by a combination of oxidation of the organic matter within the soils,
loss of buoyant effect of saturation, mowing, grazing, or tilling (Frenkel and Morlan,
1990).
5: If the site has subsided, will restoring tidal influence lead to establishment of a
desireable habitat type or vegetation community?
Changes in substrate elevation can cause a vegetated community to become a tide
flat when restored to tidal influence. Mud flat habitat may represent an increased value
over the existing habitat on site, or the direct interchange of nutrients and biomass into
the salt system may be of value.
This question becomes critical when the existing site is providing an element of
freshwater wetland or even upland habitat diversity that is uncommon in the area, and
the proposed restored habitat type may already be common in the area. Creation of
additional mud flat habitat in an area of extensive mudflat may represent a reduction in
value over the existing site.
-26-
-------
6: If subsidence has occurred, is it likely that deposition may restore the site to
former gradient levels that would allow the restoration of a desired habitat type? How
long would such a depositional process take?
If there is a natural sediment source within the system that could "fill in" the area
of subsidence it may be possible for nature to restore appropriate substrate elevations
within the restoration site. The length of time for that to occur is dependent on the
degree of subsidence and the source of sediment and deposition rates.
7: What type of vegetation community is likely to become established in the
restoration area? Is the expected vegetation community one that is of value within the
vicinity?
If the existing community is providing diverse stable habitat, and the anticipated
habitat within the restored site will only provide more of what already exists within the
area, then the maintenance of existing diversity should be given a priority.
8: Has a detailed elevation survey been conducted of the site? Have the native
salt marshes within the surrounding area been surveyed to determine the elevation of
plant communities?
Comparing existing substrate elevation within the proposed restoration area to the
surrounding native saltmarsh communities may provide insight into the vegetation
community that may develop on site.
9: Would the proposed restoration site require revegetation? Are the
appropriate native species available commercially or would existing natural systems have
to be used to provide plant species?
Depending upon the size of the proposed restoration area, and the time frame
within which revegetation is desired, this can be a significant criteria. Many native salt
marsh species are not yet available commercially which means that revegetation plans
must rely on harvesting from existing natural communities within the vicinity. An
assessment must be made as to whether that is an appropriate activity within those
existing communities.
Preservation Options
Many mechanisms exist by which land owners, government agencies or the public
may set aside sensitive areas such as diked wetlands for preservation and restoration.
Land owners or stewards may opt to act on-all or only a portion of property or
property rights for means of land preservation. The full ownership of all property rights
is termed fee simple interest. The ownership of individual property rights such as the
right to build or restrict access to the land is termed less-than-fee interest in the
property. Fee simple interest or less-than-tfee interest may be forfeited or transferred on
land that is either publicly or privately owned (Frost 1990). For example, a land owner
may forfeit the right to build on one property in exchange for rights to build on another
-27-
-------
parcel. In this way, the original piece of property may be set aside for preservation.
Substantial tax reductions or other incentives are available and may encourage land
owners to donate and/or preserve their land. Alteration of property rights may apply to
lands which are either privately or publicly owned.
Public ownership is the most obvious measure by which to preserve and set aside
land for restoration. Lands may be acquired by a public agency through outright
purchase or through private donation of title, development rights, or a conservation
easement It is not feasible, nor is it always preferable for all lands slated for
preservation to be publicly owned. Furthermore, public agencies often do not possess
adequate funds for outright purchase of sensitive areas. Preservation of land through the
help of a private agency is often more expedient than would the same process through a
government agency.
Lands, development rights or conservation easements for lands may be donated to
a private, non-profit natural conservancy corporation. A corporation such as this must
meet the requirements for tax exemptions defined by section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax
code (Adams and Dove 1989). It must also consider scientific research, conservation of
natural resources for public use, or the conservation of natural areas as its primary
purpose (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 1989).
Preservation Options and Incentives
Conservation Easements. Conservation easements are recognized by Washington
State's Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Chapter 64.04.130, as legal documents by
which land owners can restrict use of the land permanently or for a specified period of
time. This easement is recorded on the property deed and remains intact regardless of
transfer of ownership. Conservation easements may be an option for granting limited
property rights to a government agency, land trust or other natural resource agency.
(King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department 1988). In this way, the land
owner is able to protect a parcel of land for conservation purposes without forfeiting the
title to the land. The land owner may occupy the property, sell, lease, bequeath, or
transfer ownership subject to easement conditions. Under a conservation easement
certain activities such as logging, building or other land development measures may be
restricted. It is the recipient's responsibility to oversee management of the land in
accordance with the terms of the conservation easement (Adams and Dove 1989).
Restricted land use options under a conservation easement usually reduces the
market value of the land. Reduced market value reduces the amount of estate tax due
upon the owner's death. The loss of potential land use may also be claimed by the
owner as a tax deductible,'charitable contribution (Frost 1990). Additionally, donation of
a conservation easement to a land trust organization may be considered a tax deductible
charitable contribution (O'Brien 1989).
Conservation easements are often considered the most politically acceptable and
economically feasible tool for land preservation (Sand 1988).
-28-
-------
Land Trusts. Land Trusts are locally run, non-profit organizations that acquire
and manage lands in order to preserve open space for public benefit Private citizens
may donate title to or a conservation easement on natural areas or open space lands to
private land trust organizations. Donation of a title or conservation easement may
qualify an individual for a charitable donations tax reduction. Land trust organizations
are often a more feasible choice for preservation of land than purchase by, or donation
of land to, a government agency. Private citizens are often more comfortable working
with and donating land to a private organization than they would be with a government
agency. Additionally, land trusts are often able to act more quickly and acquire land at a
lower prices than government agencies. Non-profit organizations exist that act as
intermediaries by assisting Land Trusts with land preservation.
The Trust for Public Lands (TPL) is a national non-profit organization that assists
community Land Trusts, helping them gain non-profit status and providing them with
technical advice for land preservation. They also provide groups with land management
training, while maintaining a philosophy of land management for the public good.
Additionally, TPL may pre-acquire property for open space preservation. TPL then
turns the land over to a natural resource agency or a non-profit land trust organization
for long-term management. Agencies such as the Washington State Department of
Ecology (ECOLOGY) have worked with TPL and private land trust organizations by
providing start-up funds for land acquisition.
Transfer of Development Rights. The transfer of development rights allows a
landowner to develop a parcel of land beyond what is allowed under existing land use
plans, regulations or zoning in exchange for forfeiture of existing development rights on
another parcel of land. In this way, land that is suitable for designation as open space
may be preserved by transferring rights to develop said land for the right to develop
another parcel of land. King County considers this option within the Draft Open Space
Plan, with the stipulation that the land be donated to or a permanent conservation
easement be given to King County or a certified land trust organization (King County
Parks, Planning and Resources Department 1988).
Density Bonuses. Density bonuses are compensation given to a land owner or
developer for preserving natural areas or designating a portion of land as open space. If
a land owner chooses to preserve a portion of land through one program or another, the
density of the remaining land may be increased according to local government policy.
Federal, state and local governments have specific programs designed to set aside
land for preservation.
Federal Programs
Food Security Act (1985X The Food Security Act provides debt restructuring
options for farmers who cannot repay Farmer's Home Administration loans. These
farmers may donate a 50 year or longer conservation easement to the government in
-29-
-------
order to preserve wetlands on their property. In exchange for this donation, the land
owner will be granted reduced loan payments. (Frost 1990).
National Estuarine Reserve Research System (NERRS). Education and research
are the primary functions of this program, although, funding is also provided through
NERRS for acquisition and management of wetlands. The Padilla Bay National
Estuarine Reserve in Skagit County is one example of a NERRS project which is a joint
public-private habitat protection program. (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 1989).
Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration and Dingell-.Tohnson
Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Acts (1937 and 1950). These acts provide matching
funds to states for restoration of habitats, including wetlands. Matching funds are
collected from taxes on hunting and fishing equipment Restoration funds are available
for habitat enhancement and acquisition, as well as development, maintenance, and
research. Funding for habitat restoration on private land in eastern Washington has
recently been allocated to the Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). (Frost 1990).
State Programs
Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (Chapter 79.24 RCW). This account
provides funds for the purchase and protection of aquatic lands. The Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) administers these funds obtained from lease of state aquatic
lands and the sale of state land resources. Funding is available to state and local
agencies, but a 25 percent match is required from the applicant Recently, DNR
appropriated a portion of the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account funds for the
purchase of wetlands within the Puget Sound. (Frost 1990).
*
Migratory Waterfowl Stamp/Artwork Program (RCW 77.12.6701>. This program is
intended to preserve and enhance waterfowl habitat. Funds for this program are
administered by WDW and available to assist private, non-profit organizations with
wetland acquisition and enhancement. Public access must be available to lands procured
with funds from this program. (Frost 1990).
Open Space Tax Act (Chanter 8434.020 RCW). Washington State law allows
application for open space/open space current use taxation status under RCW 8434.020,
subsection (1) (b) (Whatcom County Planning Commission 1989). This law provides
county governments with options and guidelines for maintaining and preserving sensitive
or fragile lands for the use and enjoyment of natural resources. Designation of land as
open space is subject to approval under a Public Benefit Rating System. Local
governments define the criteria for rating lands such as wetlands, that are considered a
"public benefit" Applications must be submitted to local jurisdictions who will assess the
land's value and status for tax benefits.
The Open Space Tax Act (OSTA) program allows for property tax reductions on
lands defined as open space. Taxes for open space lands are based on current land use
rather than market value. For example, when a land owner chooses to designate
property as open space, thereby reducing returns from the land, taxes may be reduced
-30-
-------
accordingly. The OSTA program therefore encourages land owners to preserve sensitive
areas. Individual county programs for open space designation are discussed in following
sections.
The "Conservation Futures Tax" is a provision of OSTA which local governments
may utilize to purchase open space lands for preservation. If they choose this option,
they can establish a purchase fund from conservation futures taxes levied on properties
within their jurisdiction.
Puget Sound Wetlands Preservation Proyram (RCW 90.70.055). The Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority works with ECOLOGY and DNR in an effort to preserve
wetlands. ECOLOGY identifies high quality, significant wetlands in Puget Sound and
DNR is responsible for securing the wetlands. The DNR has been allocated funds from
the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account for this purpose. (Frost 1990).
County Programs
There are no counties in Washington that currently have a wetland preservation
program. However, local governments do have many options available by which they
may secure and/or preserve diked wetlands for restoration. They may establish their
own wetland preservation program, implement an OSTA program, or levy a conservation
futures tax. Private land owners also have many options for donation and preservation
of land which are acceptable to local governments. Outlined.below are land preservation
options available within those counties where suitable sites were found for restoration of
diked wetlands.
Jefferson County
*
Wetlands in Jefferson County are protected under Washington's Shoreline
Management Act (SMA). This establishes joint state and local administration of land,
with lead responsibility resting on the local government.
Land may be designated as open space in Jefferson County following the OSTA
program guidelines. Application for this designation requires proof that the taxpaying
public will benefit and must be accompanied by a statement which addresses Jefferson
County's open space policies and comprehensive plan. Applications for open space are
reviewed by the county commissioners. The commissioners may require that certain
provisions be met, such as allowance of public access, although this is not a criteria for
qualification under OSTA. Further information and application for open space taxation
regulations can be obtained through Jefferson County Planning and Building
Department
Jefferson County does allow for density bonuses; however, these vary with current
zoning designations.
Jefferson County currently has no program for transfer of development rights or
establishment of conservation easements. However, the Jefferson Land Trust does
receive deeds to Conservation Easements through the state Conservation Easement
-31-
-------
program. It is assumed that property owners who donate land or property rights will be
duly compensated through tax reductions.
Skagit County
No specific wetland ordinances are in place in Skagit County. Instead, wetlands
are protected under the county's Shoreline Management Master Program, which is
consistent with the State SMA.
No specific land conservation related programs are in use now and proposals are
considered on an individual basis.
Skagit County does allow for density bonuses, and while the transfer of
development rights is possible, it has not been utilized in the past. Proposals and
applications regarding land preservation in Skagit County should be addressed to the
Skagit County Planning Department.
Snohomish County
Snohomish County wetlands are protected under the state SMA. Currently,
Snohomish County is in the process of developing the Aquatic Resources Protection
Program (ARPP) as a guideline for wetlands and sensitive areas protection.
Snohomish County legislature has the authority to grant classification of
unincorporated county land as open space. Incorporated lands are acted upon by a
committee comprised of three county and three city legislative members. The granting
authority may require public access and may also approve only a portion of the area for
which designation has been applied. Current use taxation valuation of open space land
is determined based only on uses currently being applied for, not potential uses of the
property. For open space land which has no current use, the taxation value assigned is
no less than that assigned for agricultural land. Agricultural lands have the lowest
taxation values. Snohomish County also has a conservation futures tax levy hi place.
Further information and application may be obtained from the Snohomish County
Assessor's office.
Snohomish County Land Trust is a citizens' organization dedicated to open space
preservation. Titles to land or conservation easements may be donated by an individual
to the Land Trust Information on local land trusts may be obtained from Snohomish
County Planning Division.
Snohomish County is currently working on the Snohomish River Flood
Management Plan aimed at restoring diked wetlands. The issue of land ownership has
yet to be resolved. Although Snohomish County has already engaged in land acquisition,
it is not financially feasible for the county to own all the lands to be preserved.
Thurston County
Thurston County has in place a program for implementing RCW 8434.020. Land
proposed for open space designation must meet the state requirements as well as the
-32-
-------
Thurston County Open Space Tax Program requirements. Criteria for enrollment in
Thurston Counties Open Space Tax Program is based on identification of twenty types of
priority resources. Reduction of property taxes for all or a portion of a parcel may be
obtained through enrollment of land in the Open Space Tax Program, Lands which are
accepted into the Open Space Tax Program will be taxed according to their current use
value, rather than the current market value. This current use value may not be lower
than the value assessed for agricultural lands. Thurston County uses a Public Benefit
Rating System for property tax assessment purposes. Under Thurston County's zoning
regulations, those lands which are zoned for maximum development potential do not
qualify for enrollment in the Open Space Tax Program. The creation of a conservation
easement is a qualification for enrollment of property in Thurston County's Open Space
Tax Program. More detailed information and application may be obtained from the
Thurston County Assessor's office. (Thurston County 1989).
Capitol Land Trust is a private land trust organization operating within Thurston
County to preserve natural areas. Capitol Land Trust establishes an Endowment Fund
for property on which they acquire conservation easements. The money from this fund is
used to protect the conservation values of the property and to enforce the conditions of
the Conservation Easement, if deemed necessary. (Martin 1989).
Whatcom County
Whatcom County has no specific wetland regulations as of yet; therefore, wetlands
within the county are protected under the state SMA. Currently, Whatcom County is in
the process of attempting to implement a sensitive areas ordinance.
Whatcom County does utilize an Open Space Taxation Program pursuant to RCW
8434.020. Whatcom County Planning assigns each application for open space
designation a Public Benefit Rating hi order to determine tax reduction values. Owners
of lands for which open space designation applications are submitted must include with
the application, proposed rules of conduct as well as an outline of public access
management. Whatcom County also requires that landowners post signs, identifying the
land as open space and open to public access. (Whatcom County Planning Commission
1989).
There are currently no programs for density bonuses or transfer of development
rights, although they are in the works.
Whatcom County Land Trust assists individuals and groups with land preservation
through the use of conservation easements and donations of title. In the future, the
Trust plans to implement outright purchase and trade of lands for preservation and
protection.
Discussion
There are multiple factors to weigh when considering restoring diked lands to
tidal influence. The purpose here is not to draw conclusions as to the relative value of
-33-
-------
restoring diked lands, but rather to present some of the factors that need to be
considered when conducting a case by case analysis of whether to restore a specific site.
Within this document care has been given in using the term "tidal influence"
rather than "estuary" because many of these sites are not technically within estuaries.
Estuaries, as defined by Pritchard (1967), are "a semi-enclosed coastal body of water,
which has a free connection with the open sea, and within which sea water is measurably
diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage."
Many of the sites under consideration are within embayments of Puget Sound
(which itself could be considered an estuary). However, there may be no direct input of
fresh water in the form of streams or rivers to individually identified sites. The Fidalgo
Bay site is a good example of a site at the head of an embayment where there is no
direct input of freshwater into or near the restoration site.
The presence/absence of a stream or river resource associated with a site
becomes significant hi consideration of fisheries impacts. Simenstad (1982) disclosed the
very significant use of estuaries by salmonids in nearly every stage of their life cycles.
Fry migrate downstream into estuaries and feed on abundant prey species, while the
vegetated shallows provide important refuge from predators. Juveniles and yearlings of
different salmonid species utilize estuarihe habitats for variable time spans.
Simenstad notes that juvenile chum and pink salmon may prefer eelgrass habitats
within embayments and that large sub-yearlings of chinook salmon may utilize mudflats
and foreshore areas prior to moving into deep water habitats (1982).
Diked tidelands located at the mouth of rivers and streams that provide fish
habitat may provide important fisheries benefits if they are restored to tidal influence.
Other potential restoration sites which may not be directly associated with a river or
stream may still have beneficial impacts on fisheries because of overall increases in
primary productivity exported to the whole of Puget Sound.
Multiple studies have indicated that tidal marshes are the most productive
ecosystems in the world (Mitsch 1986). Above ground biomass, soil algae, and
phytoplankton production all contribute to the overall primary productivity of these
systems. This productivity is most effective when it can be moved "downstream" to be
utilized within a larger system.
One of the most compelling reasons for restoring diked lands to tidal influence is
to restore the input of nutrient cycling back into the larger system of Puget Sound.
Diked lands under agricultural use contribute little to the overall productivity of Puget
Sound and associated wildlife populations. Impounded freshwater wetlands may not
disperse primary productivity directly into Puget Sound; but this does not preclude
significant secondary production for prey and predator species.
There are recommendations within this report for the maintenance of some
freshwater systems which may have been formerly tidal or that would be feasible to
restore to tidal influence. The rationale for recommending that some of these systems
be maintained as freshwater wetlands, is to maintain functioning stable habitats which
-34-
-------
increase overall habitat diversity of a region. If a site is providing diverse complex
freshwater wetland habitat it may be more beneficial to leave it in place rather than
restoring it to tidal influence. Such a decision must be made on a site specific basis and
must consider the type of inter-tidal habitat that could be restored, and the relative
abundance of that habitat type within the vicinity.
Physical feasibility of restoration is perhaps more easily assessed in considering a
site's potential for restoration. Often, a site that would benefit biologically from the
influence of a tidal regime is located in such a way that restoration is not feasible.
Creating connections under existing road or rail beds is often impractical, both
because of the cost of construction, and because of the long-term implications. The
movement of tidal water in and out of a system through a constructed outlet/inlet can
cause impressive amounts of sediment movement and channelization.
If outlet/inlet structures can be designed to withstand the pressures of moving
water, the next concern must be the movement of water into, through, and out of the
restored wetland. A single source outlet/inlet may limit the depths and duration of tidal
regime. Multiple, unrestricted outlet/inlets would most closely approximate natural
conditions and would allow the most effective movement of water and nutrients into and
out of the system.
Summary
Sixty-three preliminary sites were identified for potential restoration to tidal
influence. Initial identification was based on the data compiled in Phase 1 of the study
with additional sites identified at the beginning of this study. Preliminary site
identification was conducted by reviewing NWI maps, soils maps, USGS quad maps,
aerial photographs, and through personal communications with experienced field
professionals.
Property owners were contacted to obtain written access permission prior to field
visits. Property owner identification for each site was compiled based on review of
assessor's tax-lot information. Letters requesting permission to access sites were sent to
each identified tax-payer with a self-addressed return postcard for response.
One hundred and eighty-eight letters requesting access permission were sent.
Sixty percent of the 188 requests received responses: 38.8 percent (72 taxpayers) granted
permission to access, 213 percent (40 taxpayers) denied access. Thirty-five percent (60
taxpayers) did not respond to the letter of request Where sites were located on public
lands, or there was public access for viewing the site, no permission to access was
requested.
Of the 63 preliminary sites identified as potential restoration sites, 51 percent (32
sites) were field visited, 11 percent (7 sites) were viewed without trespassing, and 37
percent (23 sites) were not field checked in any manner.
-35-
-------
Access permission was most significant in the large deltas of the Skagit,
Snohomish, and StiUaguamish Rivers where much of the land is in large private holdings
and is actively farmed.
Criteria for determining site feasibility for restoration were established following
field work. Criteria were based on existing site conditions including habitat value and
relative abundance, and physical feasibility including the presence of structures or septic
systems, and the feasibility of restoring tidal influence through dikes, roadways, or
railroad fills.
Four sites have been identified as clearly feasible for restoration; an additional
site, Spencer Island, has been proposed to be restored to tidal influence by staff of
Snohomish County. Lummi Bay Seapond has been included based on its potential for
restoration.
The identified sites are Quilcene Bay on Hood Canal, Nisqually Delta in south
Puget Sound, Fidalgo Bay on north Puget Sound, and Biringer Farm on the Snohomish
River Delta.
Restoring sites to tidal influence must consider the factors of habitat value of the
existing site, the placement of the site m relation to the surrounding estuary or
embayment, the potential role of the site hi overall productivity for fisheries resources, as
well as productivity and habitat diversity for Puget Sound in general.
-36-
-------
LITERATURE CITED
References
Adams, L.W. and L.E. Dove. 1989. Wildlife Reserves and Corridors in the Urban
Environment: A Guide to Ecological Landscape Planning and Resource
Conservation. National Institute for Urban Wildlife. Columbia, Maryland. 91
pp.
Bortleson, G. C, M. J. Shrzastowski, and A. K. Helgerson. 1980. Historical Changes of
Shoreline and Wetland at Eleven Major Deltas in the Puget Sound Region.
Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, U. S. Geological Survey. Atlas HA-617.
Burg, M. 1984. Habitat Change in the Nisqually River Delta and Estuary since the Mid-
1800s. Master of Science thesis. University of Washington. 113 pg.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, R. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological
Services, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, D.C.
Frenkel, R., and J. Morlan. 1990. Restoration of the Salmon River Salt Marshes:
Retrospect and Prospect Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon. 139 pp.
Frost, Jane R. 1990. Wetlands Preservation: An Information and Action Guise.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 62 pp.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1988. Diked Wetlands Restoration Potential.
Environmental Protection Agency. Work Assignment #10.
King County Parks, Planning and Resources Department, Natural Resources and Parks
Division. 1988. Draft Open Space Plan, King County Open Space Program.
King County, Washington.
Kunze, L. 1984. Puget Trough Coastal Wetlands. Washington Natural Heritage
Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, Washington.
154 pg.
Martin, Stuart 1989. One Year Later ..., Capitol Land Trust News, Issue No. 2,
August, 1989. Lacey, Washington.
Mitsch, M. J. and J. B. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. 539 pg.
O'Brien, Paddy. 1989. Conservation Easements, Capitol Land Trust News, Issue No. 2,
August, 1989. Lacey, Washington.
-37-
-------
Pritchard, D. W. 1967. What is an estuary: physical viewpoint, pp. 3-5. In: GJL Lauff
(ed.), Estuaries. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Pub. 83,
Washington, D.C
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1989. Draft Issue Paper, Protecting Fish and
Wildlife Habitat in Puget Sound. Seattle, Washington.
Sand, Duane. 1988. Implementing Conservation Easements: A View, Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation, Vol. 43, No. 1, pg. 32.
Simenstad, C A., K. L. Fresh, and E. O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and
Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of the Pacific Salmon: an
unappreciated function. Pages 343-364 in V. S. Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine
Comparisons. Academic Press, Inc. New York. 709 pg.
Thurston County. 1989. Thurston County Open Space Tax Program, Thurston County
Ordinance 8075, Olympia, Washington.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, December 1988. Lummi Bay Marina, Whatcom County,
Washington. Final Environmental Impact Statement
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981- 1987. National Wetlands Inventory. St. Petersburg,
Florida.
Whatcom County Planning Commission. 1989. Whatcom County Open Space Policy
and Criteria and Public Benefit Rating System, Council Resolution No. 89-38.
Bellingham, Washington.
Personal Communications
Cochrane, Michael, Fisheries biologist, Lummi Tribe. January 1990.
McKay, Michael, Fisheries Biologist, Lummi Tribe. January 1990.
-38-
-------
APPENDIX A - ACCESS
PERMISSION REQUEST LETTER
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 981 01
REPLY TO wn-
ATTNOF: WD
SUBJECT: Property Near Dugalla Bay, in Island County
Dear
We are conducting field work this summer to identify diked
tidelands which have a potential for being restored to the tidal
influence of Puget Sound. Your property near Dugalla Bay, in
Island County has been identified as potentially containing diked
land. We would like your permission to go onto the property for
a brief (no more than two or three hours) look at the conditions
of the site. We've made this preliminary identification based on
review of aerial photographs and it may be that your specific
property does not contain such an area.
The purpose of this study is to establish a list of wetlands
within the Puget Sound region which have the biological potential
of being restored to tidal influence to restore salt marsh
habitats.
The purpose of the study is to identify feasible sites for
restoration so that resource agencies can work with willing
property owners in the future who are interested in helping to
restore estuarine wetlands along Puget Sound. The study has no
implications for you as a property owner, we are simply attempting
to gain access to the sites to be able to look at the biologic
conditions which exist there.
It is our hope that by cataloging these areas now, wining
property owners may be located who wish to participate in a program
to help restore some of these wetlands to tidal influence. Through
restoration we hope these sites will provide some of Uicii former
outstanding wildlife habitat functions.
A-l
-------
-2-
Enclosed you will find a stamped postcard with check points
for you to grant us permission to access the property or not. We
are attempting to begin our field work on August 1, or soon
thereafter, so we would appreciate hearing from you by July 31.
If you have any questions regarding this study, please call
me at (206) 442-1412. I will gladly answer any of your questions
or concerns.
Sincerely,
William M. Riley, Chief
Water Resources Assessment Section
SAMPLE RETURN POST CARD
Please check the appropriate boxes and sign
on the signature line below.
You have my permission to survey
my property for this project.
Please send me a copy of the final report.
I am not interested in participating
in this project.
Signature
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B - FIELD
FORM AND METHODOLOGY
-------
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SITE:
DATE: TIME:
VEGETATION
POW PEM
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2.
WATER
Depth
TIDE-
PHOTOS (Roll #, Shot #):
PSS.(%> PFQ (%\ £2 Upland
Periodicity Quality
3. SOIL
Munsell
Description Native?
Sat?
4. HABITAT Rating:
Features Observed Expected
5. PROBLEMS?
6. GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION:
QUALITATIVE FUNCTION/VALUE ASSESSMENT
OVERALL RATING:
B-l
-------
RESTORATION POTENTIAL
7. DIKE(S)
Height Length
Condition
?Breach
8. TIDE GATE(S)
? Functioning
Number/Size
? Removable
9. ELEVATIONS
Bench Mark PL! Pt.2 Pt.3 Pt.4 Pt.5 Pt.6
10. PROBLEMS ? (structures, roads, erosion)
1L SOLUTIONS ?
12. POTENTIAL CONDITIONS
Water regime/depth/periodicity
Habitat Components
13. ASSESSMENT
B-2
-------
FIELD FORM METHODOLOGY
The field form was developed to assess the existing conditions and the restoration
potential for each site. The first page of the two-sided form focuses on the existing natural
site conditions such as wetland classification (if wetland is present), vegetation, water
conditions, soil, and habitat features.
The second page is for the collection of data regarding the dikes, tidegates, relative
site elevations, existing potential problems such as the presence of structures, an assessment
of potential conditions if the site is restored to tidal influence, and a general summary
assessment of the site and it's restoration potential.
The data form explanation is as follows:
Basic information such as site name and date of field work will be noted. The roll#
and shot# for photographs will be noted and the field map will be marked for each photo
position.
1. Vegetation
Identify what wetland classes, if any, occur on the site. If no wetland is present, then
a description of the upland species present will be compiled. Space is provided to list the
five most dominant plant species within each classification, and their relative percent cover.
Signs of tidal influence on vegetation will be noted.
2. Water
Data regarding approximate water depth, what periodicity (if any) is exhibited, and
relative observations of water quality will be made. No detailed water quality sampling will
be conducted, this notation is for observation of degraded water quality, sediment input, or
tidal influence on the system.
3. Soil
Soil will be sampled and the Munsell rating noted, in addition a soil description
including the assessment of the presence of native soils will be recorded. Sign of past or
continued soil disturbance such as compaction from agricultural activities, fill placement, or
grading will be noted.
4. Habitat
Any significant habitat features such as snags, logs, perches, wires or beaver dams will
be noted. In addition observed species will be recorded, and species which would be
anticipated to use the site but were not present due to timing of the field work will be
recorded. An assessment of relative habitat value will be made based on existing conditions
including proximity of disturbance.
B-3
-------
5. Problems
Any existing adverse impacts to wildlife use or wetland functions or value will be
noted. This may be human impacts from adjacent residences, agricultural or industrial
runoff, filling, grading, or active agricultural use. This section is to identify existing
conditions which limit the existing functions and values of the site.
6. General Site Description: Qualitative Functions/Values
This section is for a broad overview of the existing site, and a qualitative assessment
of its existing functions and values. The value of existing habitat will be noted, as will the
wetlands ability to improve water quality or provide stormwater storage. The assessment
overview will be based on the field visit in conjunction with available data.
7. Dikes
Any dikes present will be noted and their current condition described including
height, length, and whether or not it appears physically feasible to breach them.
8. Tide Gates
Presence or absence of tide gates will be noted. The type of gate (if it is observable)
and whether or not it is functioning will be noted, as well as the number and size of the
gates. An assessment of whether or not the gate could physically be removed and what the
impacts to the associated berm will be made.
9. Elevations
An attempt will be made to measure the ground or water surface elevations within
the diked area relative to an appropriate bench mark. It is anticipated that these elevations
will give some insight to the site response to inundation if the dikes are removed. The
elevations accuracy are problematic depending upon the available bench mark and access
to ground level within the dikes.
10. Problems
This section is for the'notation of any existing structures, railroads, roadways, bridges,
or unstable sideslopes which may be adversely impacted within the area to be restored to
tidal influence. Estimates as to amount of tidal flux will have to be conducted in order to
assess potential impacts.
11. Solutions
This section is to note if any of the anticipated problems noted above could be
"simply" addressed. An example may be the construction of a new dike interior of the one
to be breached in order to protect an existing structure or roadway.
B-4
-------
12. Potential Conditions
Best estimates of what may be expected if dikes or tide gates are removed from the
system. Estimates as to potential water regime and habitat components will be attempted.
These estimates will be based on the existing conditions, known tidal fluctuations from the
tide charts, site topography and limiting conditions such as structures or other obstructions.
It may be possible to estimate amount of mudfiat versus vegetated fiats, however such
an estimate may not be feasible given the wide range of variables which will remain
unknown.
13. Assessment
This will be a summary of the field findings hi the form of an assessment of what
existing functions and values the system is providing compared to what is estimated the
"restored" system would provide. This assessment will be "quick and dirty", based on the
observations in the field.
B-5
-------
APPENDIX C - FIELD DATA FORMS
FOR POTENTIAL RESTORATION SITES
y^fti^'^TTJT**''-*-''fj'J***~*f''-**l.- ^.-i"r»C J?fc^j.'- -sc. ••'• •'•--'- ~:..-^'- ••-•,;-•• -' '•••V .->•••>•:-••..
-------
Site Name: Quilcene Bay Photos:
Date: 9/21/89 Time: 1:00 pjn. Tide: high at 11:25 sun., 10.5 ft
1. Vegetation
PALUSTRINE EMERGENT MARSH (PEM)
INSIDE DIKES
redtop bentgrass (Agrostis alba)
fan^a thistle (Cirsiian arvensc)
creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens)
creambush oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor)
soft rush (Juncus effusus)
slender rush (Juncus tenuis)
Note: The site is a grazed pasture.
2. Water
Water present only in excavated ditches on the inside of the berm. The water quality appears to be good.
3. Soil
Munsell
Color
10YRM
10YR3/3
Texture
loamy sand
gravelly sand
Depth
6"
12"
Saturated?
no
yes
Native?
yes
yes
Hydric?
no
no
4. Habitat
Habitat features include a grazed pasture with hedgerows along the berms and excavated channels. Stands of
thistle and rush are present The site probably provides good prey habitat. It is unlikely that standing water is
present, and therefore, the site is not expected to be used by waterfowl. Outside of the berm, in the existing
estuarine marsh, osprey, northern harrier, waterfowl, and shorebirds were observed. Several snages are present
on the ben these probably provide perches for raptors
5. Problems
The site currently has little structural or vegetative diversity and is grazed by horses. The habitat values are
low.
6. General Site Description/ Qualitative Function and Value Assessment:
Overall functional values of the existing site are relatively low.
7. Overall Habitat Rating
Low habitat value in it's current state due to grazing.
8. Dike
Dikes are present on the east and south sides of the site; these dikes are roughly eight feet high.
9. Tide Gate?
Yes, one 12" tide gate is present
C-l
-------
10. Elevations (in feet)
edge of rd.
0
top of
culvert
-10.65
High
tide
-11.3
bottom of
culvert
-15.65
top of
berm
-3.45
Inlet
-13.45
bottom of
dltcb
-16.3
E2
(Descbimpsla)
-13.45
Inside
berm
-10.95
£2
(Carex)
-15.45
inside bcnn
in higher devuiom, Carex in lower treai
11. Problems?
An old bam is located at the far west end of the pasture area; there is some possibility that this would be
flooded.
12. Proposed Solutions
Conduct detailed topographic survey to determine if barn would be affected. If necessary, a new auxilliary
berm could be constructed between the bam and the proposed restoration site.
13. Potential Conditions
The site could have water at or near the surface on a regular basis. The estimated high tide elevation is
roughly 0.5 feet less than the elevation of the existing pasture. It is likely that with a re-introduction of
active tidal hydrology, a salt marsh community will become re-established.
14. Assessment
Appears to be ideal opportunity for restoration. The only potential problem is an existing old bam. The
dike adjacent to the river could be maintained. Biologically, the site has a high potential for restoration.
C-2
-------
Site Name: Nisqually Photos:
Date: 9/27/89 Time: Tide:
1. Vegetation
INSIDE DIKE
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)
fireweed (Epiiobium angustifolia)
orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata)
white-top aster (Aster curtus)
reed canarygrass (Phalaris arwu&nacea)
red alder (Alnus rubra)
willow (Salix sp.)
ESTUARINE (E2) - OUTSIDE OF BERM
Deslchampoa '
white-top aster (Aster curtus)
slough sedge (Cora obnupta)
pickleweed (Salicornia virginica)
saltgrass (Distichlis spicatd)
2. Water
Water present only in excavated ditches on the inside of the berm. The water quality appears to be good.
3. Soil
4. Habitat
Habitat features include mowed pastures with hedgerows along the betms and excavated channels. Stands of
thistle and soft rush are present in pockets. The site probably provides habitat for passerine birds and small
mammals. Raptors may hunt for small mammals in this area. It is unlikely that the area inside the dike is
used by waterfowl. Outside of the berm, in the existing estuarine marsh, numerous waterfowl were observed.
5. Problems
The site currently has little structural or vegetative diversity, and has an upland moisture regime. The habitat
values ate low.
6. General Site Description/ Qualitative Function and Value Assessment:
Overall functional values of the existing site are relatively low.
7. Overall Habitat Rating
Low habitat value in it's current state.
8. Dike
A large dike is present around the refuge. A second dike is present that was placed to protect the refuge from
flooding during a failure of the larger dike.
9. Tide Gate?
C-3
-------
10. Elevations (in feet)
Elevations were not measured at this site.
11. Problems?
12. Proposed Solutions:
13. Potential Conditions
14. Assessment
Appeals to be ideal opportunity for restoration. The dike could be moved back to maintain hayed pasture
areas, if desired. Biologically, the site has a high potential for restoration.
C-4
-------
Site Name: Fidalgo Bay
Date: 9/28/89
1. Vegetation
Photos:
Time: 1:30 pm
Tide: 4 hrs. after low GOW
ft)
2.8
PALUSTRINE EMERGENT MARSH (PEM) UPLAND (U) - UPLAND PORTIONS
INSIDE BERM
redtop bentgrass (Agrosas alba)
common cattail (Typha laofotia)
black nightshade (Solomon dulcamara)
saltbush (Atriplex patula)
reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea)
ESTUARINE (E2) - OUTSIDE OF BERM
brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia)
pickleweed (Salicornia virgimca)
American threesquare (Scirpus americanus)
saltgrass (Distichlis spicata)
INSIDE AND ON TOP OF BERM
fireweed (Epihbium angustifolia)
Canada thistle (Cirstum arvense)
common orchard grass (Daciylis glomerata)
white-top aster (Aster curtus)
Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius)
2. Water
No water was observed inside the dike during the field visit It is likely that the area is saniratF-d during the
winter. It is expected that this site receives roadway runoff from March Point Road and Route 20.
3. Soil
Outside bom (E2):
Inside bom (PEM)
Munsell Color
5Y5/1
Texture
fine silty clay
fine silty cUy
Native?
yei
yet
Saturated?
yes
no
Hydric
yes
yes
4. Habitat
Inside the dike, dense stands of common cattail are dominant. It is expected that this area would be used
primarily by passerine birds and small mammals. Raptors may occasionally hunt in this area; however,
perching opportunities are limited to a few shrubs (Scot's broom) and small (< 1' dbh) dead trees on the term.
5. Problems
In it's present condition, the site affords little habitat value due to it's lack of structural diversity, and noise and
activity associated with adjacent roadways. Some fill has been placed in the eastern portion of the site. In
addition, farm waste and oyster shells have been dumped in the site fairly recently.
6. General Site Description/ Qualitative Function and Value Assessment
Vegetation consists primarily of invader species; there is little species or structural diversity. Fill of varying
ages is present in the east portion of the site.
7. Overall Habitat Rating
Low habitat value in it's current state.
8. Dike
± 1000 feet long, intact.
C-5
-------
9. Tide Gate?
None.
10. Elevations (in feet):
Bench
Mark
Hwy 20 shoulder
Mod
flat
8.35
Est. high
tide
6.65
Top or
berm
3.4
ditch in-
side herm
10J
Typha
stand
9.48
R 0.0
•
1 -1.1 _
a
t -22_
I
m
' -M
f «.
e - ft
\ "'-
0
» -93
•
^
M AppnuLnigh
V
Mndfltt
w
^
•
fill in SE
corner
4
CL of
March Pt. Rri.
4.7
Highway 20
11. Problems?
Concern over potential impacts to Highway 20 and March Point Road.
12. Proposed Solutions:
• Place new birm or rip-rap at base of existing roads
• Remove high-nutrient fill from site
• Spread oyster shells within new flood zone
13. Potential Conditions
Site could potentially become mud flats, and would be inundated during high tides. It may be desireable to do
some grading to create a shallower water regime and increase opportunities for establishment of emergent
marsh.
14. Assessment
The site has good potential for restoration.
C-6
-------
Site Name: Biringer Farms Photos:
Date: 9/29/89 Time: 3:30 p.m. Tide: *No info, on tide in
Snohomish R.
1. Vegetation
PALUSTRINE EMERGENT MARSH (PEM)
INSIDE BERM
black nightshade (Solomon dulcamara)
saltbush (Atriplex patula)
suckling clover (Trifolium dubium)
white clover (Trifolium repens)
brass buttons (Cotul&coronopifolia)
saltgrass (Distichlis spicata)
Note: The majority of the site is hayed and seeded with upland grass mixture.
2. Water
No water was observed inside the dike during the field visit
3. Soil
Soils have been disturbed due to agricultural activity. Information below is from a relatively undisturbed area.
In disturbed areas, soil is homogenous to ±14*. At 14", soil is 10YR 4/2 with mottles of SYR 4/6.
Munsell Color Texture Native? Saturated? Hjdric
Matrix 1QYR 3/2 silly sandy clay yes yes yes
Mottle (at 8") 2.5YR 4/8
4. Habitat
Habitat values are low in the hayed portion of the site. A small open water pond is present that is used by
waterfowL
S. Problems
The area immediately north is currently being filled with approved permits. Fill material includes cement slabs
and other construction debris.
6. General Site Description/ Qualitative Function and Value Assessment
Site was formerly a marsh; however, the majority of the site has been actively tilled and hayed for several
years. Some small pockets of emergent marsh habitat remain.
7. Overall Habitat Rating
Low habitat value in it's current state.
8. Dike
Intact.
9. Tide Gate?
None. No culvert evident in pond/fill area.
C-7
-------
10. Elevations (in feet):
Bench
Mark
Top of
berm
inside
berm (1)
12.605
Snohomish Mad
River flat
14.23 11.78
inside
berm (2)
14.125
Est. high
tide
6.65
Point in
Pasture
14285
Top of
berm
5.015
top of bom
Soobonub Rlvar
11. Problems?
The site is currently actively used agriculturally. The owner is actively pursuing developing the land, which is
zoned Business Park. There are currently no structures on the parcel.
12. Proposed Solutions:
• Discuss situation with \
-------
APPENDIX D -
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
-------
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
The following is a list of national, state, and local non-profit organizations involved
in wetlands preservation within the Puget Sound Area, This list was compiled from a
wetlands preservation guide published by ECOLOGY (Frost 1990). Other agencies operate
hi the Puget Sound area to preserve wetlands, but are not included in this list because their
objectives aren't immediately pertinent to the restoration of diked wetlands. The Trust for
Public Lands can assist those who are interested in getting a land trust started in their area
(see contact listed below).
National
Ducks Unlimited
John Egger, State Chairman
279 South Main
Colvffle,WA 99114
(509) 684-4491
Land Trust Exchange
{Catherine Barton, Associate Director
1017 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 683-7778
National Audubon Society
Kris Fleming, Office Manager
National Audubon Society
P.O. Box 462
Olympia,WA 98502
(206) 786-8020
The Nature Conservancy
Elliot Marks, Fayette Krause, Laura Smith
1601 Second Avenue, #910
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 728-9696
Trust for Public Lands
Celia Barry, Project Associate
Smith Tower, Suite 1510
506 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 587-2447
D-l
-------
State
Washington Wildlife Heritage Foundation
Larry Minkler
32610 Pacific Hwy. South
Federal Way, WA 98003
(206) 874-1800
Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition
Russ r!ahillt Executive Director
Joe La Tourette, Deputy Director
112 East 4th Street #202
Olympia,WA 98501
(206)754-1898
Local
Bainbridge Island Land Trust
Nate Thomas, President
P.O. Box 10144
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
(206) 842-1024
Capitol Land Trust
Stuart Martin
P.O. Box 3077
Lacey, WA 98503
(206) 357-8785
Hood Canal Land Trust
BUI Hunt
P.O. Box 861
Belfair, WA 98528
(206) 275-2180
Indianola Land Trust
John C Hansen
P.O. Box 68
Indianola, WA 98342
(206) 297-3287
Jefferson County Land Trust
Virginia Digman, President
P.O. Box 1610
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(206) 385-1215
D-2
-------
Kitsap Land Trust
Gary Cunningham, Attorney
Drawer SS, Wycoff Station
Bremerton, WA 98312
(206) 377-7691
Doug Mason, Agent
2404 35th Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
(206) 85-1517
Nisqually River Basin Land Trust
Nisqually River Basin Land Trust
P.O. Box 1148
Yelm,WA 98597
Seattle-King County Land Trust
Padriac Burke
P.O. Box 4054
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 624-9635
The San Juan Preservation Trust
Bob Myhr
Box 327
Lopez Island, WA 98261
(206) 468-3202
The Snohomish County Land Trust
Snohomish County Land Trust
P.O. Box 556
Everett, WA 98206
Phil Zalesky, President
(206) 337-2479
George F. Walter
P.O. Box 303
Roy, WA 98580
(206) 456-5221
Whatcom County Land Trust
Sue Webber
P.O. Box 4455
Beffingnam, WA 98225
(206) 676-2170
D-3
-------
Whidbey-Camano Land Trust
P.O. Box 271
Coupevffle, WA 98239
Gloria Koll (206) 321-5014
Rob Harbour (206) 678-5705
Dwaine Colby (206) 387-1705
D-4
------- |