910/9-88-201
©BA
Priority Wetlands Threat Assessment
January 20, 1988
Jones & Stokes Associates
Work Assignment 0-02
-------
PRIORITY WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
.Seattle, Washington 98101
By:
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.
1808 - 136th Place N.E.
Bellevue, Washington/ 98005
(206). 641-3982
January 20, 1988
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
£dS£
List of Tables ii
List of Figures ii
Section 1 - Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2. Study Objectives
Section 2 - Approach and Methodology 2
2.1 General Approach
2.2 Methodology
Identification of Growth Areas
Characterization of Wetland Resources
Inventory Base Wetland Resource Values
Threat Assessment
Section 3 - Candidate Areas/Priority List 8
3.1 Candidate High Growth Areas
3.2 Candidate High Growth/Wetland Resource Areas
3.3 Priority List for ADID
Section 4 - Summary and Conclusions 27
APPENDICES
A: Washington Wetland Resource Data Base
B: Oregon Wetland Resource Data Base
C: Idaho Wetland Resource Data Base
D: Summary of Wetland Resources in 32 Subareas
E: Contact List
F: Threat Assessment Checklist
Threat Summary Sheets
i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
lahlz liiia £as&
3-1 Preliminary List, Candidate High
Growth Areas 9
3-2 Candidate High Growth Areas (Final List) 10
3-3 Summary of Wetlands Resources in 31 Subareas 11
3-4 Candidate High Growth/Wetland Subareas 15
3-5 Summary: Threat Assessment Task 17
3-6 Wetland Threat Assessment: Recommended
Priorities 18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
3-1 Washington.Candidate High Growth Areas 11
3-2 Oregon Candidate High Growth Areas 12
3-3 Idaho Candidate High Growth Areas 13
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The Priority Wetlands Threat Assessment study was developed
in response to the need for identifying candidate areas for the
Advanced Identification (ADID) Program for Washington, Oregon and
Idaho. An AOID is a detailed examination of specific geographic
areas with high-value special aquatic sites that are subject to
heavy development pressure. One of EPA1s national 404 priorities
is to identify aquatic sites that would be deemed suitable or
unsuitable for fill. The ADID Program initiative, in turn, seeks
to assist local jurisdictions in protecting priority wetlands
which are threatened with imminent loss through development or
other conversion.
1.2 Study Objectives
The initial objectives of this study are to:
o assess the vulnerability of priority wetlands and other
aquatic sites in Oregon,. Washington, and Idaho;
o identify specific geographic areas in Oregon, Washington and
Idaho having high-value special aquatic site (wetland)
resource values that are threatened by development pressure;
o develop recommendations for future Advanced Identification.
(ADID) activities.
Subsequent to the initiation of the study, an additional
objective was added:
o To use the threat assessment phase of the study to gain
additional visibility for the ADID program, and to
facilitate the Region's outreach and public education
efforts.
1
-------
SECTION 2
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 General Approach
The overall approach to the study consisted of a three step
process designed to produce a prioritized list of 15 priority
wetland areas which could be considered for the ADID program.
The first step was to identify high growth areas within Oregon,
Washington, and Idaho. For 'the purposes of this study, growth
was defined as population, industrial or commercial development,
or agricultural conversion of wetlands-in other words, any
activity which could result in the potential conversion and loss
of wetlands.
Identification of high growth areas was accomplished in a
process starting from the state level and ending with the
smallest feasible subarea. The target number of subareas was 30;
34 were selected to provide flexibility in case any were dropped
subsequently for any reason.
The list of 34 high-growth subareas was then assessed for
wetland resources. This was accomplished using the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Wetland Inventory maps, which provided a
standardized base of information for all areas in all three
states. More refined mapping was used as well where it was
available, such as in King and Snohomish Counties,- Washington.
Using criteria developed for definition of wetland values,,
the top 15 areas were identified as priority areas. Since a
number of the subareas were located in King County, Washington
and share identical regulatory protection standards, the list was
expanded to 18 subareas in order to gain additional analysis.
The third and final step involved interviews and discussions
with county planners and wetland specialists to determine the
strength of existing and proposed wetland regulations in order to
assess the level of "threat" to wetlands within those
jurisdictions. By applying this information to the 18 remaining
candidate subareas, it was possible to rank the subareas in terms
of priority for the ADID Program.
2
-------
2.2 Methodology
Identification of High Growth Areas
The first task in approaching this part of the study was to
define growth. As indicated earlier, growth could include
population growth, commercial/industrial growth, or agricultural
activity resulting in land conversion of wetlands. Significant
population growth could be either numerical growth or rate of
growth; both were considered. This definition was incorporated
into a telephone interview questionnaire, which was used to
survey the three states under study. Contacts were made with
state planning agencies, state demographers or others in order to
obtain population estimates and forecasts, and an overview of
non-population-related projects involving land conversion. In
Oregon, the Center for Population Research and Census (which
maintains County and City population estimates) and the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) was
utilized. In Washington, the State Office of Fiscal Management
(OFM) and State Department of Planning and Community Affairs
provided initial data. In Idaho the statewide perspective was.
provided by the Department of Commerce. This initial inquiry at
the state level provided an identification of those counties
within the three states which were experiencing the highest
growth.
The second level of growth analysis was accomplished by
contacting counties, and in the case of Oregon, regional
representatives for LCDC as well, to identify high growth
subareas. These contacts were primarily with county planning
departments or county demographers. Whenever possible, the
planning subarea selected was one used by the local jurisdiction
in order to maximize the statistical value of the subarea.. For
example, King County,-. WA uses "Planning Areas" generally divided
along drainage basin lines; Snohomish County, WA uses census
tracts, and Pierce. County uses FAZ's or "Forecast and Analysis
Zones".
This effort resulted in the identification of 34 candidate
high growth areas. These are listed in Table 3-1.
Characterization of Wetland Resources
Wetland resources of the 34 candidate areas were defined by
first reviewing existing sources, of wetland information including
coastal zone maps, local government and state wetland data
sources (e.g., King County, WA, Wetland Notebooks [1983] and
Sensitive Area Map folio [19821; Snohomish County Stream and
Wetlands Survey Map Atlas [1987]), EPA Priority Wetlands List and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetland Inventory
Maps.
3
-------
Inventory Base. It became clear at the outset that
availability of wetland resource data was highly variable for the
candidate areas. Because the wetland resource base was to be
characterized by broad geographic areas (e.g., county planning
areas, census tracts, forecast and analysis zones, or
incorporated areas) rather than by individual wetland, it was
judged important to establish a methodology that would allow
comparison of common resources values among candidate areas.
Therefore, the USFWS Wetland Inventory Maps were chosen as that
common resource base.
The Wetland Inventory Maps have been used by many
jurisdictions as the wetland resource base. Several
jurisdictions have a more detailed county or city-wide wetland
database (e.g., King County and Snohomish County, Washington;
these were used whenever available) .
Wetland Inventory Maps for Washington and Idaho were
acquired from the EPA/Region 10 Water Resources Assessment
Section (WRAS). Maps for candidate areas in Oregon were ordered
directly from the USFWS. Of the initial list of 34 candidate
areas, the following were dropped from further consideration
because wetland inventory maps for those areas have not yet been
completed by the USFWS (Harrison pers. comm.).
o Ontario-Vale, Oregon;
o Pendelton, Oregon;
o Blaine County; Ketchum, Idaho;
o Sand Point, Idaho.
In King County the wetland notebooks (King County, 1983) and
sensitive area map folio (King County, 1982) were used in lieu of
the USFWS maps because equivalent wetland: information was
available from those sources.
Wetland Resource Values
Information on the resource values of the wetland resources
was found to be highly variable, inconsistent and ranged from no
information (e.g., Kootenai County, Idaho) to a detailed,
inventory for each wetland (King County, Washington).
Information on wetland functional values (e.g., flood control,
wildlife habitat, water quality, ecological productivity, etc.)
was found to be available primarily on individual high-value
wetlands that have been subject to study (EPA 1987). The
exception was in King County, Washington where detailed
inventories have been prepared for all wetlands within each
county planning area analyzed as a part of this report.
Since each candidate area in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho
could potentially include a large number of wetlands, some of
which had information on functional values (but most did not), it
4
-------
was decided that wetland resource values would be derived for
each individual wetland from information readily available on the
USFWS Wetland Inventory maps. The exception was in King County
where comparable information could be derived from inventory
sheets in the wetland notebooks. That information includes:
o Acreage (measured using an acreage template);
o Diversity of the wetland based on the number of (JSFWS
wetland types;
o Wetland location by USGS quad name/ township, range and
section (note: where section did not exist, such as in
Oregon along the Columbia River, numbers were assigned to a
standardized grid to allow sorting of data for presentation
of number/acreage by section for each area. See Apppendix A
for map examples).
The jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., planning area boundary,
city or county boundary) of each candidate area were defined on
the USFWS maps. Wetlands within each area were assigned an ID
number. Wetland resources of all candidate areas were
characterized using the aforementioned format. The results of
that analysis are presented in Appendix A. The data were entered
using Lotus 1-2-3.
Once the data for individual wetlands were compiled for each
candidate area,, the following wetland resource information was
summarized:
o Total number of wetland acres within the candidate
area;
o Average wetland diversity for entire candidate area
(based on averaging the- wetland types from the USFWS
maps);
o Total number of wetlands;
o Average size of wetlands;
o Number of wetlands greater than 10 acres in size;
o Number of wetlands less than 1 acre in size.
The above factors were used to screen the candidate areas to
the final list of priority areas.
King County (1983) has developed a similar wetland rating
system as a part of its inventory process. Wetlands are assigned
unique/outstanding ratings if they meet criteria associated with
presence of endangered and threatened species, wetland size
5
-------
greater than 10 acres, wetlands having three or more USFWS
wetland classes, wetlands with a near equal proportion of open
water to vegetative zones and the presence of plant associations
of infrequent occurrence.
Once the wetland resource information was completed from the
(JSFWS maps, area biologists in Washington, Oregon and Idaho were
contacted for information regarding endangered and threatened
species use of wetlands in each candidate area.
Threat Assessment
A refinement to the program introduced at the outset of
the threat assessment was to include a Region 10 representative
on the visits to local jurisdictions whenever possible, in order
to promote the Region's public outreach/public education goals.
Accordingly, the protocol included an initial introduction by the
EPA representative explaining the AOID program and the possible
opportunity for local participation. The occasion also provided
a forum for discussing the need for permit coordination, public
education on wetlands issues, and related topics.
The questionnaire (see Appendix C) provided a framework for
discussion which was designed to elicit. information concerning
existing local programs dealing with wetlands (zoning,, wetland
ordinances, comprehensive plans, subdivision regulation, grading
and clearing ordinances and similar mechanisms) . Where an
existing or proposed ordinance, regulation or program was
identified, sheets were available to fill in on each program.
These sheets included data on the administering authority; types
of activities regulated and exempted; types of wetlands
regulated; details on program administration designed to
understand conditioning of permits, variances and other related
matters; monitoring provisions; and enforcement provisions. The
form also provided an evaluation of existing programs, including
comprehensiveness, adequacy of penalties, frequency of agency
approval of wetlands development, adequacy of wetlands mapping
programs, adequacy of staffing and funding, and the level of
staff expertise. A final section of the form provided for
identifying proposed programs, including similar descriptive
information, and assessment of the adequacy of the program in.
terms of comprehensiveness and adequacy of penalties, and an
estimate of the- probability and timing of implementation. In
practice, the format was modified to fit the particular
situation.
A schedule was then prepared, setting dates for meeting with
jurisdictions, assigning staff and identifying contact people at
each agency. Due to some difficulty in arranging appointments,
particularly during the holiday season, this schedule required
frequent revision and updating.
6
-------
Prior to visits to jurisdictions, telephone calls were made
outlining the basic purpose of the visits and requesting that any
relevant materials be brought to the meeting, and encouraging
appropriate staff to attend.
Subsequent to the meetings, summary reports were prepared
highlighting the major points discussed, and converting the
questionnaire data to a narrative format. The summary report,
ordinances, and related materials gathered in the course of the
study are provided under separate cover for inclusion in the
Region 10 Project File. The contact list for the project is
contained in Appendix B, and the questionnaire form is provided
in Appendix C.
7
-------
SECTION 3
CANDIDATE AREAS/ PRIORITY LIST
3.1 Candidate High Growth Areas
Table 3-1 lists the 34 subareas preliminarily identified as
experiencing high growth. (Originally the target number was 30;
several additional areas were included in the event several might
be eliminated for any reason.)
The preliminary list of candidate areas was refined and
changed in several ways:
o Four areas were dropped due to the lack of USFWS
wetland inventory maps;
o On initial review of the USFWS maps, two areas were
dropped from further consideration due to the lack of
wetland resources within each area; and
o Several areas in Oregon (Sunset Corridor, and the south
shore of the Columbia-River) and Idaho were divided and
reorganized by jurisdiction for clearer definition of
candidate areas and to facilitate analysis of wetland
regulations of each jurisdiction. This resulted in an
increase in the total number of candidate areas.
The progressive refinement of candidate areas by state is
shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. Table 3-2 presents the final list
of 31 candidate areas.
3.2 Candidate High Growth/Wetland Resource Areas
The wetland characteristics of the candidate areas were then
examined and are shown in Table 3-3. At this point, Teton
County, Idaho was added to the list due to new information
concerning potential recreational development. The candidate
areas are shown geographically in Figures 3-1 (Washington), 3-2
(Oregon) , and 3-3 (Idaho).
Table 3-4 presents those subareas, selected from the high
growth areas, which exhibited the highest wetland resource
values.
3
-------
r
Table 3-1. Preliminary List, Candidate High Growth Areas
Area fnmnpnf-
WASHINGTON
King County
1. Bear Creek Planning Area
2. East Lake Sammanish Planning Area
3. Soos Creek Plannning Area
4. Northshore Planning Area
5. Federal Way Planning Area
6. Snoqualmie Planning Area
7. Newcastle Planning Area
8. Green River Valley Planning Area
9. City of Kent
Snohomish County
1. North Creek Planning Area
2. Census Tract 525
3. Census Tract 527
4. Census Tract 528.01
5. Census Tract 418.02
6. Census Tract 420
Kitsap County
1. Silverdale
2. Port Orchard to Soutbrorth
(Buy 160)***
Pierce County
1. Spanaway Area (FAZ* 400)
2. South Hill (FAZ 500)
3. Bonney Lake (FAZ 800)
4. Gig Harbor (FAZ 2220)
5. South. Pierce County (FAZ 2920)
OREGON
1. Sunset Corridor
2. South shore, Columbia River -
Confluence of Columbia River
and Willamette River to Troutdale
3. Gresham
4. Eugene-Springfield
5. The Dalles
6. Chtario-Vale**
7. Pendleton**
IDAHO
1. Southeast Boise Still growing relatively fast; arid
environment placing heavy pressure on^
Boise River
2. Blaine County/Ketchum**
3. Coeur d' Alene/Hayden Lake
4. Sand Point**
5. Idaho Falls***
* FAZ "Forecast and Analysis Zone"/ as defined by Puget Sound Council of
Governments.
** Dropped because USFWS wetland maps unavailable.
***Dropped because wetland resources insignificant (per USEWS maps).
Commercial/industrial activity
Technology Corridor; Maitby/CLearview
E. of Marysville; Pobes Hill area
Getchell area
North of Marysville
SE Paine Field (industrial growth, high
rate of population growth, but low
absolute growth)
Picnic Point/Harbour Pointe
Commercial development; extensive
residential platting activity
Industrial office, residential activity
Agricultural now, but zoned for
commercial/ industrial
9
-------
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Census Tract 418.02
Census Tract 420
Census Tract 519.04
KING COUNTY
Bear Creek
East Sanvnami sh
Federal Way
Green River
City of Kent
Newcastle
North Shore
SnoqualnHe
Soos Creek
KITSAP COUNTY
Silverdale
SCALE OF MILES
0 20 40 60
t
m
hs
PIERCE COUNTY
FAZ 400
FAZ 500
FAZ 800
FAZ 2220
FAZ 2920
STATE OF
WASHINGTON
Figure 3-1. Washington Candidate High
Areas
Growth
10
-------
WASHINGTON COUNTY
PORTLAND
bEAVERTON
HILLSBORO ]
MULTNOMAH COUNTY
GRESHAM
THE DALLES
STATE OF
OREGON
SC//IE OF MILES
20 40 60
EUGENE
Figure 3-2. Oregon Candidate High Growth Areas
11
-------
STATE OF
IDAHO
KOOTANI COUNTY
(Coeur d'Alene)
SCALE OF MILES
Figure 3-3. Idaho Candidate High Growth-Areas
; =
12
-------
Table 3-3. Wetland Characteristics of Candidate Growth Areas Cor ADID Evaluation.
Size
Area
WASHINGTON
King County
1. Sear Creek Planning Area
2. East Lake Sanaaaish Planning Area
3. Soos Creek Planning Area
4. Northshore Planning Area
5. Federal Way Planning Area
6. Snoqualmie Planning Area
7. Newcastle Planning Area
3. Green River valley Planning Area
9. City of Kent
Snohomish County
1. North Creek Planning Area
(Census Tracts 519.03 and 519.04)
2. Census Tract S2S
3. Census Tract S27
4. Census Tract 328.01
5. Census Tract 418.02
6. Census Tract 420
Kitaan Jaunty
1. Silver dale
2. Port Orchard to Southworth
Pierce Tauntv
1. Spanaway Area (FAZ 400)
2. South Hill (FAZ 500)
3. Bonney Lake (FAZ 300)
4. Gig Harbor (FAZ 2220)
5. South Pierce County (FAZ 2920)
OREGOH
1. Beaver ton
2. The Oalles
3. Eugene
4. Greshaa
5. Hillsboro
S. Multnomah County
7. Portland
3. Washington County
IDAHO
1. Boise
2. Blaine County/Ketchun
3*. Kootenai County
4. Sand Point
5. Idaho Falls
S. Teton Valley
of Growth
'Acres)
* of Wetlands
Acres of
Wetlands
Recognized
Uniaue Areas
26,544
33
51
32
1,055
yes
26,257
36
64
22
1,325
yes
44 ,478
37
63
24
3,653
no
25,109
32
26
S
262
no
24,535
33
61
22
1,432
no
111,627
167
36
81
3,553
yes
28,696
19
10
9
373
no
31,131
1
1.
0
6
no
3,300
7
3
4
127
no
9,600
7
4
3
193
no
7,630
6
6
0
16
no
16,000
25
22
3
42*
no
5,120
1
1
0
2
no
1,920
2
1
1
27
no
4,480
0
0
0
0
no
25,000
66
52
14
650
yes
dropped -
no wetlands
9,000
8
3
5
433
no
21,960
6
2
4
155
no
16,560
25
16
9
252
no
19,440
25
22
3
152
yes
21,760
19
15
4
142
no
8,300
22
15
7
233
no
3,340
49
44
5
174
yes
19,200
42
22
20
597
no
15,360
23
15
8
408
no
12,200
20
3
12
492
yes
23,000
58
36
22
1,125
yes
39,000
104
70
34
2,687
yes
45 ,000
114
33
31
1,422
yes.
20,500
22
19
3
97
yes
dropped -
no wetland
maps
60,200
112
37
25
1,117
yes
dropped
dropped
3.04,700
no wetlands
no wetland maos
12S 28"
93
21,393
yes
NOTE: FAZ (Forecast and Analysis Zones) defined by Puget Sound Council of Governments.
13
-------
Table 3-4. Candidate High Growth/Priority Wetland Resource Subareas
AREA
WASHINGTON
KENS COUNTY*
1. Bear Creek Planning Area
2. East Lake Sanmanish Area
3. Stooqualmie Planning Area
4. Federal Way Planning Area
SNCHCMISH OOCIHT?
5. Census Tract 527
(East of Marysville)
KITSAP COUNTY
6. Silverdale
PIERCE COUNTY
7. EAZ 2220
(South of Gig Harbor)
OREGON
8. Washington County
9. 3eaverton
10. Portland
11. Gresham
12. Mjltnomah County
13. Eugene
IDAHO
14. Boise
15. Kootenai County
16. Teton County
ADDITIONAL SITES (2)
17. Hillsboro, CR
18. Soos Creek, King County, WA
19. FAZ 800, Pierce County, WA
OTOER INVOLVED JURISDICTIONS
Redmond
Redmond, Issaquah
Mary sv ill e
Bremerton
Gig Harbor
Lane County
Ada County
Coeur d'Alene, Hayden Lake
Renton, Auburn, Kent, TUkwila
Bonney Lake, Sumner
* Since the degree of regulator/ protection will be identical for all King
County subareas, four additional growth areas have been added over the
target number of 15.
14
-------
3.3 Threat Assessment and Recommended Priority List for ADID
3.3.1 Threat Assessment
Based on the results of interviews with regional and local
agenciesf an assessment was made as to the level of wetland
protection or "threat" which exists or is forecast. The majority
of jurisdictions fell easily into two main categories: those with
a high awareness of the issues and an ongoing program, and those
with other, more basic, planning problems and priorities. Given
this fact, plus the inherent change and subjectivity of the
assessment of "threat", criteria of "adequate" or "inadequate"
were applied. These ratings, and the summary evaluation, are
presented in Table 3.5.
3.3.2 Recommended Priority List for ADID
Table 3-6 shows the recommended priorities of areas
examined. Areas are prioritized within two basic groups: 1) Those
whose jurisdictions do not have viable wetlands programs (and
therefore have a higher threat), but due to other more basic
planning needs or general lack of public education and political
motivation, may be less able to benefit from an ADID unless
accompanied or preceded by a public education effort; (Note: some
of the areas in this list represent project-specific cases, and
therefore are accorded a higher priority)- and 2) Those whose
jurisdictions have viable, effective programs which could benefit
from the assistance an ADID could provide, but for whom the
actual threat to wetlands is not as high as other areas which are
not as well mobilized.
3.3.3 Profile Evaluation of Priority Wetland Areas
specific wetlands
Note: Although both of the following wetlands were reviewed
for possible ADID application, neither is recommended and
therefore do not appear in Table 3-6.
Jackson-Frazier Wetland, QB. Agricultural property in
Benton County, Oregon, just outside Corvallis. Property owner
wanted to rezone and fill wetland for residential development.
Nature Conservancy offered to buy at fair market value. Half of
the wetland was recognized as an extremely rare example of a
plains wetland, with equally rare and diverse plants. Wetland is
recognized as important avian habitat, particularly for
waterfowl,, and because of habitat diversity. Diversity includes
forested, shrub-scrub, wet meadow and emergent, and open water
areas. The property owner drained and plowed the prairie
wetland portion (the portion that the Nature Conservancy was
especially interested in); Nature Conservancy withdrew its offer.
County was urged to zone property as permanent open space, but
15
-------
Table 3-5. Summary: Threat Assesanent Task
Summary
Eval.
Threat criteria
Existing
Comprehen-
siveness
Penalties,
Variance
ProBQsed
Ccmprehen-
siveness Admin, of
Area
1 r>£ Orrt-Rfw.
Arimin.
Enforce.
Manoina
nf nrd.Reas.
Penal
1.
Warranton, OR
High
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.
Silverdale HA
High
I
I
I
I
I
3.
Kootenai Co., ID
High
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.
Teton Valley, ID
High
Mod.
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.
Soos Creek Planning
Area, ma*
I
A
A
A
I
I
6.
S.E. Paine Field
Census Tract, wa
Mod.
I
A
I
A
A
A
.7.
North Creek Census
Tract, wa
Mod.
I
A
I
A
A
A
8.
Gig Harbor FM, MA
Mod.
I
A
I
A
A
A
9.
Hillsboro, OR
Mod.
I
A
I
A
A
A
10.
Washington Co., CR
Mod.
I
A
I
A
A
A
11.
Bonney Lake/
Sumner FAZ, WA
Mod.
I
A
I
A
A
A
12.
Bear Creek Planning
Area, MA
Mod.
A
A
A'
A
A
A
13.
Snoqualmie Planning
Area, WA
Mod.
A
A
A
A
A
A
14.
E. Lake Sammamish
Planning Area, WA
Mod.
A
A
A'
A
A
A
IS.
Federal Way Planning
Area, WA
Mod.
I
.A
I
*
A
A
16.'
Beaverton, CR
Mod.
I
A
i
A
A
A
17.
Eugene, OR
Mod.
I
A
i
A
A
A
18.
Portland, CR
Mod.
I
A
A
A
A
A
19.
Boise,. ID
Mod.
A
A
1
A
A
A
* King County has substantial wetland protection (existing and proposed}, but adjacent jurisdictions
do not, resulting in an overall "inadequate'' rating.
Legend
FRZ: Forecast and Analysis Zone
Summary Evaluation: High Level of Threat
Mod. (moderate) Level of Threat
Threat Criteria A Adequate
(Wetlands Protection) I Inadequate
MOTE-
Curing the threat assessment task, local wetland planners recommended additions or deletions to the
list. Reccrrmendations were evaluated, and changes made where warranted.
16
-------
Table 3-6. Recommended ADID Priorities
Group 1* High Threat
1. Warrenton, OR
2. Silver dale, WA
3. Kootenai County, ID
4. Teton Valley, ID
Group 2; Lower Threat* Area
1. Soos Creek, WA
2. Paine Field, WA
3. North Creek, WA
4. Gig Harbor, WA
5. Hillsboro, OR
6. Washington County, OR
7. Bonney Lake, Sumner, WA
8. Bear Creek, WA
9. Snoqualmie, WA
10. East Lake Sammamish., WA
11. Federal Way, WA
12. Beaverton, OR
13. Eugene, OR
14. Portland, OR
15. Boise, ID
* But regulatory structure is in place to make immediate and
maximum use of ADID assistance.
Notes:
1. The lower the number, the higher the priority.
2. Some areas were added during the threat assessment part of
the process, while several others were dropped.
17
-------
commissioners were concerned about "the taking issuer" and zoned
it exclusive agriculture. The zoning does not prevent some
agricultural practices such as ditching which would damage the
wetlands.
Evaluation: In view of the fact that only one wetland is
involved, that it has received considerable attention, and that
little would be gained by subjecting it to the ADID process, ADID
status is not recommended.
Botts Marsh. ££. In Tillamook County, south of Nehalem,
Oregon. Site is about 24 acres within estuary proposed for a
marina development. An intertidal sedge and spikerush wetland,
once diked, but now intertidal. A freshwater marsh is present in
upper reaches. Conflict between county, which favors the
development (area is economically depressed), and State Division
of Lands (DSL) which has refused to issue a fill and removal
permit. County's comprehensive plan included a marina site in
this vicinity, and was approved by DLCD. Inclusion of marina in
plan appealed to State Supreme Court, decided in County's favor.
Corps also involved.
Evaluation: In view of the extensive regulatory history on
the project, ADID status does not appear justified and is not
recommended.
Multiple Wetland Areas
City Warrenton. in Clatsop County, near Astoria.
Proposed commercial development is encroaching on wetlands
(currently, Fred Meyers development; other related shopping
center uses on 24-acre site, largely wetlands). Large expanses
of freshwater wetlands occur in association with lake areas lying
east of Columbia Beach and west of the Skipanon River and
estuarine wetlands in Youngs Bay and Tansy Point. Area
recognized in the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program
(CREDDP) studies conducted in 1983. Threat is considered high;
City favors development, and would not welcome EPA ADID
assistance at the present time. Land has been zoned commercially
for some time and is commercial in Comprehensive Plan. Value of
resource may warrant an effort to develop some understanding and
cooperation with the City.
Evaluation: Conduct further investigation to determine if
situation warrants ADID status.
Silverdale. Unincorporated portion of central Kitsap
County, fast becoming the regional commercial center of Kitsap
County. The area is experiencing a high rate of growth,
stimulated by the Trident Submarine Base at Bangor and other
employment centers. Most of the wetlands are in the Clear Creek
drainage. The Silverdale area has 66 wetlands totaling 650 acres
18
-------
and an average habitat diversity of 1.51. The potential for
conversion is greatest south of Waaga Way, which is generally
zoned for and is experiencing commercial development.
Conflicting policies exist in some areas between zoning and the
central Kitsap County Subarea Plan goals regulating preservation
of the Clear Creek corridor.
North of Waaga Way, County policy presently discourages
urban expansion, but pressure is building for such expansion.
The County does not have an active wetlands mapping program or
proposed legislation directed toward wetland protection.
Evaluation: Development pressure is relatively heavy and
the threat for the wetlands involved in the Silverdale area is
considered relatively high due to the lack of specific wetlands
planning and protection other than that afforded by the Subarea
Plan and SEPA.
Kootenai County. Ifi. The original area evaluated included
the county plus the cities of Coeur d'Alene and Hayden Lake.
Contacts with the cities indicated that the primary wetlands are
in the county. Over 110 wetlands totalling 1,100 acres are
within the planning area. Many of the wetlands are forested or
emergent and have an average habitat diversity of 1.43. Wetlands
are generally associated with Hayden Lake and Lake Coeur d'Alene,
and are threatened by recreational development. Development
pressure is low to moderate at present i The County is
understaffed and has no active wetlands protection programs.
Evaluation: While development pressure is not considered
intense, the threat is relatively high due to the lack of
protection at the local level. The appropriate course of action
appears to be more detailed analysis of the wetlands' values and
local support prior to final selection as an ADID site. A
concurrent public outreach effort, to provide the County staff
and elected officials with information on the problem and needs,
is recommended.
Teton County, Ifi. In eastern Idaho, about 60 miles west of
Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Population growth has been slow and
development pressure very light for last 3 years. The local ski
area is Grand Targee. Ski runs are in Wyoming, but access is in
Idaho. The area includes over 21,800 acres of wetlands, most of
which are associated with the meanders and braided channels of
the Teton River and runoff from the Targee National Forest. The
area has a habitat diversity rating of 2.19 (Note: average
diversity of wetlands is defined as the average number of Fish
and Wildlife Service wetland types per area. Wetlands have a
minimum of one type; the lower the average diversity, the fewer
wetland type there are in the area). The area does not meet the
original growth criteria for ADID, and is not included in the
current State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP).
19
-------
However, its recreational potential (winter and summer)/ the
possibility of a single major recreational developer entering the
scene, and the apparent value of the wetland resources along the
Teton River drainage favor ADID consideration.
Evaluation: Although the area meets none of the growth
criteria (population, commercial/industrial, major recreational
project, other), the situation could change overnight with a
proposal by a recreational developer. Land is readily available
in the basin, whereas virtually no land is available for
expansion in Jackson Hole, adjoining. This situation, plus the
presence of valuable wetlands, warrants AOID consideration.
Soos Creek. King County. WA. This area is essentially the
King County portion of the Kent Valley. It is ranked above
(higher threat) the other King County planning areas due to the
fact that it shares boundaries with a number of cities (i.e.,
Renton, Auburn, Kent, Tukwila) which as a rule do not have strong
wetland protection programs. The potential for annexation to the
adjoining cities is considered high, even though the cities
indicate passive annexation policies. One of the adjoining
cities, Auburn, expressed the view that the Mill Creek drainage
in the city has higher wetland values and may be subject to a
higher threat than the Soos Creek Planning Area. This view is
supported by separate studies conducted by Jones & Stokes
Associates biologists in' the Mill 'Creek drainage. Eighty-seven
wetlands in the Soos Creek Planning Area total 1,563 acres and
have an average diversity of 1.85. Wetland values of each
wetland have been defined in the King County inventory.
Evaluation: Threat to this area is judged to be higher than
the other King County areas in view of the likelihood of
annexation to jurisdictions with a lesser degree of wetlands
protection than that provided by the County. Before an ADID
program is started, further contact wth the adjoining communities
is recommended to include appropriate wetlands within municipal
boundaries, such as Auburn's.
Southeast gains Field Area. Snohomish County. This
area, near the Paine Pield airport, was not originally selected
as one of the final ADID candidate sites, but was requested by
the Snohomish County wetlands staff during the threat assessment
portion of the study. The USFWS Wetland Inventory defined only
three wetlands in the area. Snohomish County is conducting a
detailed survey of wetlands as a part of their "Stream and
Wetlands Survey Map Atlas." The area is already experiencing
fairly heavy pressure for industrial and commercial development.
Snohomish County is one of the leaders in the state of Washington
for wetlands planning and protection, and therefore the threat is
not a great as some of the other areas considered.
20
-------
Evaluation: Development pressure is already being felt in
this area, and existing wetland protection is not complete.
Proposed legislation is promising, however, and the staff is
extremely competent and ambitious; thus, the threat is considered
less than some of the other areas.
Miida ££££& Planning Area> Snohomish Countyr M. This area
includes the "Technology Corridor", which is placing most of the
development pressure on wetlands within the study area. This
area was also recommended by County wetland planners. The level
of threat is considered essentially similar to that in the S.E.
Paine Field area, in that development is active and identical
Snohomish County ordinances and staff capabilities apply. The
USFWS Wetland Inventory defined only seven wetlands (14 acres)
for this area having an average diversity of 2.00. A more
detailed survey of wetlands in this area is being undertaken by
Snohomish County.
Evaluation: Development is very active in this area, but
threat is considered moderate due to the capabilities and
programs of Snohomish County.
ESLShSLL A£2Am (unincorporated Pierce County ad-iacent
the City &£ Gig Harbor) This area has valuable wetlands and
is experiencing residential development pressure. The City of
Gig Harbor is not actively seeking annexations, but will respond
to requests. The City's Comprehensive Plan is out of date and
provides little wetland protection. SEPA provides the major
protection, and City policy is to tie annexation requests (and
development) to County standards. The wetland inventory for this
area identified 66 wetlands (650 acres) having an. average
diversity of 1.51. The County has a substantial wetlands program
underway including inventorying (completed), mapping, and will
complete a "wetlands management strategy" by June 1988, which may
result in legislation. A new grading, filling, and clearing
ordinance was enacted in November 1987 which appears to provide
significant wetland protection.
Evaluation: Level of residential development activity is
less than some of the other growth areas identified. Wetland
resources are fairly extensive. Threat is considered moderate
due to the fact that the County is still in the proposal stage of
legislation, and the present lack of adequate controls in the
City of Gig Harbor.
aillsboro, QR; Washington County, QR and Beaverton.
These three jurisdictions are part of the "Sunset Corridor," a
very active commercial and industrial corridor extending along
Sunset Highway from Portland city limits to Hillsboro. Wetland
resources are fairly extensive and are frequently in conflict
with development projects including road widenings and
extensions. Hillsboro contains over 490 acres of wetlands within
21
-------
the city limits, having an average diversity of 1.65, the highest
in the "Sunset Corridor" area. The threat to the wetland
resources is essentially the same for all three jurisdictions:
all areas are subject to state land use planning, including Land
Use Goal No. 5, relating to preservation of significant natural
areas, and are obligated to identify and protect these resources.
All have some local regulations protecting wetlands (notably
zoning ordinances), and all have completed some wetlands mapping.
Evaluation: Commercial and industrial development pressure
is expected to continue in the Sunset Corridor over the next 5
years. The threat is considered moderate due to lack of more
specific local wetlands regulations.
Bonney Lake and Sumner Area (FA2 800) (unicorporated Pierce
County). This portion of Pierce County is experiencing continued
residential growth resulting in conflicts with wetlands in a
number of cases. As mentioned in the discussion of the Gig
Harbor area, Pierce County is actively engaged in wetland mapping
and ordinance preparation; however, little specific legislation
is currently on the books (with the exception of the new grading
ordinance) . Bonney Lake and Sumner are small towns (population
5,000-6,000) without wetland protection ordinances (and without
planning departments); however, neither community is expected to
aggressively seek- annexations. Based on evaluation of the USFWS
Wetland Inventory maps, the Bonney Lake/Sumner area contains 25
wetlands totalling 252 acres with an average diversity of 1.28.
Wetland resources are primarily small (1 to 9 acres) and
scattered shrub and forested wetlands.
Evaluation: Growth is occurring now at a steady rate.
Threat is considered moderate due to the existence of some
protective mechanisms in the county (principally the new grading
ordinance and SEPA) and the probability of additional protective
legislation to be enacted in 1988 or 1989 (based on results of a
"Wetlands Management Strategy" to be developed in 1988) .
Bear Creek Planning Area, King County. M. This area,
located adjacent to the northwest boundary of the Snoqualmie
Planning Area, has been one of the fastest growing areas in
unicorporated King County (205 percent between 197 0 and 1986),
and is expected to grow particularly along its boundary with
Redmond. The Bear Creek Planning Area includes 83 wetlands
totaling 1,055 acres, having an average diversity of 1.83. Many
of the wetlands are wooded or shrub wetlands associated with the
Bear Creek floodplain. Threat to wetlands is considered more
critical than that indicated for the Snoqualmie Planning Area due
to a higher growth potential.
Evaluation: Threat is moderate due to growth potential,
value of wetlands, and status of protective mechanisms.
22
-------
Snoqualmie Planning Area. Kj,ng County> M. This area in
north central King County has been experiencing steady
residential growth (about 70 percent between 1970 and 1986), and
this is expected to increase substantially as major residential
communities, such as that proposed by Weyerhaeuser, are
developed. The wetland resources of this planning area are among
the most significant in King County. There are 167 wetlands,
totalling 3,553 acres, in the area. Most are associated with the
Snoqualmie River floodplain. Of the 167 wetlands, 81 are greater
than 10 acres in size. The average diversity is 2.02, the
greatest of any planning area studied as a part of this project.
King County staff capabilities are among the best in the region,
and have made excellent progress in wetland mapping and
preparation of proposed ordinances and regulations. However,
enforcement performance has not been noteworthy.
Evaluation: Threat is moderate, based on a balance between
assumed future growth potential and value of the wetland
resources, and status of King County wetlands protective
mechanisms (strong staff and good proposed regulations, but
existing regulations are not comprehensive and enforcement has
been weak).
L£ji£ Sanunamish. Kino County. M. This area, located
immediately south of the B'ear Creek Planning Area and west of the
Snoqualmie Planning area, has been the area of greatest growth in
unincorporated King county between 1970 and 1986 (225 percent).
This general magnitude of growth is expected to continue. The
Sammamish Plateau area includes 88 wetlands totalling 1,325
acres. Twenty-two of the wetlands are greater than 10 acres in
size. The average diversity is 1.91. Most of the wetland
resources are associated with streams or lakes in the area. The
level of threat is comparable to that described for the
Snoqualmie Planning Area.
Evaluation: Threat is moderate, due to growth potential,
value of wetlands, and status of protective mechanisms.
Federal Wav. King County. This area, which grew 7 5
percent between 1970 and 1986, is located just north of Tacoma.
Incorporation of Federal Way has been attempted several times in
the recent past. Growth is expected to continue at a steady
rate, and some of this growth will impinge upon wetlands in the
area. The number of wetlands (83) in this planning area is
comparable to Bear Creek (83) , East Sammamish (86) and Soos Creek
(87) planning areas. The average diversity of wetlands is 1.89.
Threat to wetlands is comparable to that indicated for the
Snoqualmie Planning Area.
Evaluation: Threat is moderate, due to growth potential,
value of wetlands, and status of protective mechanisms.
23
-------
Eugene. OR. Growth in the Eugene-Springfield area has been
relatively steady compared to other areas in Oregon. After a
drop in population and development in the early eighties tied to
the recession and slump in the forest products industry, Eugene
is back to about 106,000 population from about 99,000 in 197 8.
Growth is expected to continue at a steady pace. Eugene is
second only to Portland in terms of wetland protection in Oregon.
A re-inventory of wetland resources is in progress, ahead of
schedule. Efforts are underway to develop additional regulatory
mechanisms, and to conduct an AOID-type approach as part of the
planning process to provide greater certainty for developers and
other participants in the development process. A total of 42
wetlands totalling 597 acres were defined within the Eugene city
limits. A majority of the wetlands were associated with the
Willamette River and ephemeral streams in the southwestern part
of the city. Average wetland diversity is 1.41.
Evaluation: Growth is slow compared to urban areas in
Washington, but relatively steady for Oregon. Based on staff
capabilities, and planning and regulatory processes in place or
proposed, threat is considered moderate to low.
Portland. ££. Except for a drop in population in 1982 and
1983 similar to Eugene, Portland has been experiencing steady
growth, going from'367,000 in 1978 to 398,000 in 1986. Growth is
¦expected to continue at this rate or greater^ Particular
attention was given to the "southshore area" along the Columbia
River, which has substantial wetlands and is experiencing a great
deal of pressure for industrial and commercial development. The
Portland Planning Area had the greatest wetland acreage (2,6 87
acres) of any area evaluated in Oregon. Of the 104 wetlands
identified, 34 were greater than 10 acres in size, and having an
average diversity of 1.34. A majority of the wetlands were
associated with the Bybee and Smith Lake areas located between
the Willamette and Columbia Rivers.
Portland enjoys a very capable planning staff, and has
commenced or completed several significant planning activities,
including wetland mapping (underway), an "Environmental
Amendments" study which will likely result in wetland provisions
in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance (including "E-
overlay" zones). However, actual regulations in place and
providing protection are a little thin: no specific wetland
zoning, no special wetland ordinance, and no special reference to
wetlands in the Comprehensive Plan.
Evaluation: Growth is expected to continue at a steady rate
in the Portland area. The area of primary concern is along the
southshore of the Columbia River, near the airport. Much of this
area is in agricultural use, but zoned for industrial
development. A major portion of this general area, between 82nd
Avenue and 185th Avenue, is already receiving coordinated
24
-------
regulatory attention (essentially an ADID process, involving the
Corps, EPA and state and local government) and will result in a
"Regional Permit System" for this specific area. The adjoining
lands to the west also have valuable wetlands and could benefit
from the ADID process. Threat is moderate to low.
Boise, XD- Boise has experienced steady growth and due to
the scarcity of water resources in the Boise area, development
tends to impinge upon aquatic resources. In Boise, resources
tend to be wetlands and riparian habitat along the Boise River
rather than isolated wetlands. A total of 22 wetlands (97 acres)
were defined within the Boise City limits. The number of
wetlands is small because of the low rainfall and permeable soils
in the area. The average diversity was 1.00.' Current protection
of wetlands along the river appears to be relatively strong, due
to adherence to the provisions of the Boise River Plan, a part of
the Metro Plan. The plan provides for floodplain protection;
recreation, protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife
habitat in conjunction with development. The shortcoming of the
plan is that it does not cover the other parts of the city
(although, most of these areas are in municipal ownership). This
situation should be corrected with the expected passage of a
proposed "River Protection Ordinance". The major problem appears
to be enforcement after development occurs, with infringement
occurring in buffer areas. Many times, this- may be through
ingnorance of impacts rather than deliberate circumvention of
conditions imposed on a particular development. An adjoining
area of threatened aquatic resources is Garden City, a
municipality surrounded-by Boise on three sides.
Evaluation: Growth is slow compared to many of the areas
evaluated for ADID? however, the value of the aquatic resources
in the arid climate of Boise places a relatively high value on
the resources. The threat is considered moderate, considering
the relative success of existing regulations, but recognizing
that regulation and enforcement are not totally adequate to
prevent loss of an irreplaceable resource.
25
-------
SECTION 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The "Conclusions and Recommendations" section is divided
into two major sections: Conclusions regarding the assessment of
threat to priority wetlands and the process itself, and
recommendations concerning the use of the priority list and
follow-up activity.
4.1 Conclusions
4.1.1 Status of Wetland Planning and Protection
General: none of the three states involved have enacted
legislation requiring counties or cities to conduct wetlands
planning. Washington Department of Ecology has several study
initiatives underway which may result in standardization of
inventories, mitigation and wetland protection regulations.
Oregon has state goals covering estuaries, wetlands and
shorelands, but implementation of wetlands mapping and protection
at the lccal level is not as strong for wetlands as for estuaries
or shorelands (protection for significant wetlands within
shorelands is the exception). Idaho has no present or proposed
legislation for wetland.identification or protection.
All three states are required under the provisions of the
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 to prepare a wetlands
priority plan as an addendum to the statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). However, these plans are
directed toward acquisition for outdoor recreation rather than
statewide planning and protection. This is the first year these
addendums have been prepared (Idaho's is not completed yet), so
it is premature to say what they may achieve in terms of
awareness and protection.
Oregon
The larger cities and urbanized counties are doing a
creditable job in wetland planning and protection. As with
Washington state urban cities and counties, however, staff are
currently working with less than adequate legislation and
regulations, with much better protective legislation and
regulations slated for implementation in 1988. Without exception,
none of the cities or counties contacted had adequate staff
resources to deal with administration and enforcement of wetland
ordinances and regulations.
Portland, in particular, is a leader in planning and
protection. Eugene is also developing an excellent program.
26
-------
The most serious wetland threats in Oregon are occurring in
rural or urbanizing areas as the result of specific projects or
land use actions: situations that would not necessarily become
apparent during the growth analysis phase of the threat
assessment process. These projects came to light during the
threat assessment phase and the study process was adapted to
accommodate them, insofar as possible.
Washington
Most of the growth activity in Washington is concentrated in
the four central Puget Sound counties: Ring, Snohomish, Pierce
and Kitsap. All but Kitsap have active wetland planning programs
and some form of protective legislation. King County and
Snohomish County, in particular, have put significant resources
into wetland protection, and possess exceptionally capable and
effective staffs. Pierce County is making excellent progress
with their mapping program and legislation. All three counties
have significant protection measures proposed for adoption in
1988. Kitsap County has more basic planning needs and does not
have mapping or proposed legislation scheduled. Kitsap County
currently relies on Subarea Plan policies, SEPA and the 404
process for wetlands protection in the case of specific
development proposals.
Idaho.
As with Oregon, the principal wetland threats appear to be
in rural areas, where specific development projects are proposed.
For Idaho, these are generally recreation or tourist-related
proposals, and the two areas identified as having development
pressure on wetlands are the Teton Valley area adjacent to
Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and Kootenai County. Boise has
development pressure along the Boise River, and the resource is
especially valuable in this arid climate; however, the city is
active in its protection efforts.
4.1.2 Areas of Greatest Need
In assessing the threat to wetlands, responsibility of
jurisdictions fell sharply into two categories: the more urban
and sophisticated agencies that were able to devote significant
staff resources to wetland planning and protection, and the more
rural communities and counties whose primary problems are much
more basic and who are unable to dedicate significant resources
to wetland planning. The latter situation is not surprising and
parallels the norm in land use planning where growth problems
generally precede the tax base necessary to cope with such
problems. In these cases, a companion need is for public
education in order to build a constituency which will understand
the issues and demand solutions.
27
-------
The major question isr does EPA apply the ADID process (and
commit resources) to those agencies which are already on track to
protecting wetland resourcesf are receptive to EPA assistance,
and therefore can achieve the most result for the dollars spent;
or should the ADID process be applied to agencies where the
probability of lost resources is actually greater, but which may
require major efforts in public education and basic planning
capabilities before ADID funds could be effectively used. The
solution to this quandry is not simple, but neither is it
unsolvable. Each of the jurisdictions involved have their own
set of constraints and opportunities for the AOID process. By
starting with those jurisdictions with the higher threat, and
hypothesizing how the AOID process could be made to work,
identification of areas with the greatest need and a potential
for cost-effective implementation of an AOID process should
become clear with relatively little effort.
4.1.3 ADID Priorities
In view of the disparity among responsible jurisdictions in
terms of capability to cope with wetland threat, the priority
list for AOID is presented in severed groups depending on their
ability to use the ADID process, or their need 'for more basic
planning and public education assistance before wetland issues
can be successfully addressed.
Additionally, the priorities within a group are not
absolute, and should be used more as a starting point than as a
conclusion. The reason for this is that the "growth" and
"threat" components of the analysis are quite dynamic, and will
change with time. An additional consideration is the question of
local desire for assistance. While this is generally a
prerequisite for ADID, there may be situations in which local
desire will not be forthcoming until a strategy of public
education and political pressure is brought to bear on the
problem. Accordingly, the priority list includes several
potential ADID sites where local support does not currently
exist.
4.1.4 The ADID Priority Process
As noted in sections of this report, the methodology for
this studydesigned to produce an ADID Priority Listwas to
follow a three-step process of growth identification: assessment
of wetland/aquatic resources in the highgrowth areas, reduction
of candidate areas to a list of highgrowth/high resource areas,
and assessment of the degree of risk within this group. The
following conclusions relate to this process.
28
-------
1. Some of the growth areas identified did not have USFWS
wetland inventory maps available and therefore had to be dropped
from further consideration. This may have resulted in some ADID
candidate areas being missed.
2. Wetland planners were not consulted until the third step
of the process, when the assessment of threat was conducted. As
anticipated, this resulted in some additional areas being
identified (generally project-related) and some reordering of
areas within a jurisdiction's boundary (e.g., Snohomish County).
The process did not specifically address the question of local
desire for assistance; this is complex in most cases, and as
discussed elsewhere, should not necessarily be considered
exclusionary for an ADID.
3. The decision was made early in the process to combine
the threat assessment visits with public outreach/public
education. This proved to be exceptionally valuable, with local
jurisdictions responding very positively to the opportunity to
discuss the ADID process and wetland issues with EPA staff.
4.2 Recommendations
1. The ADID priority list should be used with flexibility,
recognizing, that the question of priority in this .case does not
lend itself to numeric values.
2. If possible, at least one ADID should be negotiated
within each state during the coming year, to develop a model that
has high visibility.
3. The public outreach/public education effort should be
accelerated to the maximum degree possible, in order to bring
more jurisdictions up to a minimal level of awareness and
activity relative to wetland protection.
4. Consideration should be given to the need identified in
the study for standardized wetland management guidelines, much as
Washington State's Shoreline Management Act provided for
shorelines, either in the ADID or other program. While the ADID
is designed to respond to area-specific needs, it is not
fulfilling the need for generic (and standardized) wetland
protection guidance.
5. Follow-up visits or contacts should continue in those
areas where additional information is needed, such as Kootenai
County or Teton Valley, Idaho. Several specific areas for
follow-up are noted in the summaries of visits during the threat
assessment task which are provided in separately as part of the
project file.
29
-------
APPENDICES
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR APPENDICES
Appendix A - Washington
King County A-1
Bear Creek A-3
East Lake Saxiunamish A-3
Federal Way A-13
Green River A-18
City of Kent A-19
Newcastle A-20
North Shore A-21
Snoqualmie A-24
Soos Creek A-43
Kitsap County A-48
Silverdale A-51
Pierce County A-53
FAZ 400 A-54
FAZ 500 A-55
FAZ 800 A-56
FAZ 2220 A-58
FAZ 2920 A-61
Snohomish County A-6 2
Census Tract -418.02 A-6 3
Census Tract 420 A-65
Census Tract 519.03 A-66
Census Tract 519.04 A-66
Census Tract 525 A-69
Census Tract 527 A-70
Census Tract 528.01 A-72
Appendix B - Oregon
Oregon B-l
Beaverton B-2
Eugene B-5
Gresham B-8
Hillsboro B-10
Portland B-l3
Multinomah County B-l7
Washington County B-20
The Dalles B-26
Warrenton B-28
Appendix C - Idaho
Idaho C-l
Boise C-2
Kootenai County C-5
Teton Valley C-10
i
-------
Appendix D - Summary of Wetland Resources in 32 subareas
Appendix E - Contact List
Appendix F - Threat Assessment Checklist
Threat Summary Sheets
ii
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX A
WASHINGTON WETLAND RESOURCE DATA BASE
- Wetland Resource Summary
- Wetland Diversity by Planning Area
- Wetland Data Sheets.
- Maps and Matrix Showing Numbers and
Acreage of Wetlands by Section
-------
WASHINGTON
-------
KING COUNTY, WA
o Bear Creek
o East Lake Sammamish
o Federal Way
o Green River
o City of Kent
o Newcastle
o North Shore
o Snoqualmie
o Soos Creek
-------
KING COUNTV PLANNING AREAS WASHINGTON
180
160
80
DIUERSITY
(within each
wet land)*
~ 4
or more
II 3 Types
2 Types
1 Type
* Diversity is
hased on U.S.
Fish and Wildlife
Service wetland
classif ication
system.
Bear ELake Fed
CreekSamma Way
Green City New- Nrth Snoql Soos
River Kent cast 1 Shore mi Creek
Figure A-l.
-------
KINS COUNT? HYDRCLCGIC BASIN NAMES
ABBREVIATION
BASIN
AmesLake
Ames Lake
BgBeardc
Big Bear Creek
Black Rvr
Black River
CherryCr
Cherry Creek
Coal Crk
Coal Creek
CvngtnCr
Covington Creek
DsMoines
Des Moines
EFrklsaq
East Fork Issaquah Creek
ELkSaman
East Lake Sammamish
ELkWashg
East Lake Washington
EvansCrk
Evans Creek
GiffinCk
Giffin Creek
HarrisCr
Harris Creek
Hylebos
Hylebos Creek
IssaqCrk
Issaquah Creek
JenknsCr
Jenkins Creek
JuanitaC
Juanita Greek
LIBearCk
Little Bear Creek
LwrCdrRv
Lower Cedar River
LwrGrnRv
Lower Green River
LwrGrnRvr
Lower Green River
LwrPugSd
Lower Puget Sound
MFSnqulm
Middle Fork Sncqualmie River
May Crk
May Creek
MdlGrnRv
Middle Green River
Mill Crk
Mill Creek
NFSnqulm
North Fork Sncqualmie River
NFrklsaq
North Fork Issaquah Creek
NorthCrk
North Creek
PatrsnCk
Patterson Creek
PvrtyBay
Poverty Bay
RagingRv
Raging River
Kenton
Renton
SFSnqulm
South Fork Sncqualmie River
SamamRvr
Sammamish River
SnqulmiR
Sncqualmie River
Soos Crk
Soos Creek
SwampCrk
Swamp Creek
Tate Crk
Tate Creek
TokulCrk
Tokul Creek
Tolt Rvr
Tblt River
Tusk Crk
Tuck Creek
WhiteRvr
White River
A-2
-------
? flound
^ Lake
'***. A
£
*n/<.
Figure a-2 . Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Bear Creek Planning Area
King County, Washington
NORTH
1" = 8.500'
A-3
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA \2
BEAR CREEK Planning Area King County, WA
Basin
Quality No.**
ID
Basin
Wetland
Acres Rating1
* Types
Sec Tvn Sng
u
ii
u
ii
ii
¦I
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
II
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
33333SS83
u
ii
ii
u
u
ii
«
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
saasss
u
ii
ii
u
u
u
1
SnqulmiR
1
2.4
2
2
2
26 6
2
SnqulmiR
7
11.5
2
1
22
26 6
3
SnqulmiR
24
19
1
c 4
27
26 6
4
SnqulmiR
45
1.3
1
d 1
3
26 6
5
Tuck Crk
9
10
2
2
4
26 6
6
Tuck Crk
10
13.5
2
1
3
26 6
7
Tuck Crk
11
7.1
2
3
3
26 6
8
Tuck Crk
12
1.6.
2
2
9
26 6
9
Tuck Crk
12
5.1
2
2
4
26 6
10
AmesLake
4
26
1
a,d 2
18
25 7
11
AmesLake
51
12
2
1
12
25 6
12
AmesLake
52
1
1
b 3
19
25 7
13
AmesLake
54
9
2
2
19
25 7
14
AmesLake
55
0.7
2
2
18
25 7
15
AmesLake
60
0.7
3
1
18
25 7
16
BgBearCk
3
36.7
2
3
5
26 6
17
BgflearCk
6
7.7
2
1
5
26 6
13
BgBearCk
7.
1.'4
2
3
8
26 6
19
BgBearCk
10
71.6
2
1
7
26 6
20
BgBearCk
11
3.2
2
3
7
26 6
21
BgBearCk
12
6.7
1
a 2
8
26 6
22
BgBearCk
13
10.3
2
1
9
26 6
23
BgBearCk
14
0.7
2
2
8
26 6
24
BgBearCk
15
0.5
2
8
26 6
* Mote: Quality rating is determined by King County Planning
Division. Definitions are as follows:
1 - Wetlands considered unique or outstanding
2 - Wetlands considered significant
3 - Wetlands considered of low concern
Letters a, b, or c after a number relates to reason for
unique classification. See text for description of rating
system.
** Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
A-4
-------
BEAR CREEK Planning Area King County, WA (Page 2)
Basin
Quality No.
ID
Basin
Vetland
Acres Rating* Types
Sec Twn Rng
SSS
333333333333
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
U
ii
ii
ii
i
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
n
n
S33333
333333
25
BgBearCk
16
0.7
2 1
8
26 6
26
BgBearCk
17
5.6
2 1
7
26 6
27
BgBearCk
18
7.5
2 1
7
26 6
28
BgBearCk
19
46.8
Id 4
17
26 6
29
BgBearCk
21
0.5
3 1
17
26 6
30
BgBearCk
22
1
2 2
20
26 6
31
BgBearCk
23
6.8
Id 2
15
26 6
32
BgBearCk
24
5.2
2 3
21
26 6
33
BgBearCk
25
1.2
2 3
21
26 6
34
BgBearCk
26
20.6
lb 3
22
26 6
35
BgBearCk
27
14.3
2 1
21
26 6
36
BgBearCk
28
1.4
2 2
20
26 6
37
BgBearCk
30
31
2 1
20
26 6
38
BgBearCk
31
1.1
2 1
19
26 6
39
BgBearCk
32
15.6
1 d 2
19
26 6
40
BgBearCk
37
0.8
2 2
30
26 6
41
BgBearCk
39
'7.2
1 a 2
30'
26 6
42
BgBearCk
44
80.3
2 4
27
26 6
43
BgBearCk
45
24.1
Id 2
34
26 6
44
BgBearCk
46
1.1
2 2
33
26 6
45
BgBearCk
47
1.2
2 3
33
26 5
46
BgBearCk
48
1.1
2 2
32
26 6
47
BgBearCk
50
5.5
2 1
5
26 6
48
BgBearCk-
52
27.5
1 b,d 2
34
26 6
49
BgBearCk
53
2.3
1 d 1
34
26 6
50
BgBearCk
54
3.2
2 1
3
25 6
51
BgBearCk
55
1.7
2 1
5
25 6
52
BgBearCk
56
5.6
2 4
9
26 6
53
BgBearCk
57
13.1
2 1
7
26 6
54
BgBearCk
59
19.3
la 2
8
26 6
55
BgBearCk
60
12.1
lb 1
5
26 5
56
BgBearCk
62
26.5
la 1
30
26 6
57
BgBearCk
63
5.5
2 2
32
26 5
58
BgBearCk
64
4
2 2
32
26 6
59
BgBearCk
65
0.3
3 1
7
26 5
SO
EvansCrk
1
0.3
3 1
5
25 6
61
EvansCrk
2
1.4
2 1
8
25 6
52
EvansCrk
3
34.4
2 2
4
25 6
53
EvansCrk
4
33.8
2 1
3
25 6
54
EvansCrk
5
13
2 2
3
25 6
55
EvansCrk
6
53
1 d 3
3
25 6
66
EvansCrk
7
37
la 3
11
25 6
67
EvansCrk
8
7.5
1. a 3
10
25 6
58
EvansCrk
9
0.5
3 1
10
25 5
59
EvansCrk
10
3.4
2 1
9
25 6
A-5
-------
BEAR CREEK Planning Area Kin? County, WA (Page 3)
Basin Quality No.
ID
Basin
Vetland
Acres
Rating* Types
Sec
Twn Rng
70
EvansCrk
11
1.5
2 1
9
25 6
71
EvansCrk
12
1.4
2 1
9
25 6
72
EvansCrk
13
1.9
2 2
9
25 6
73
EvansCrk
15
65.1
2 3
8
25 6
74
EvansCrk
16
30.8
2 2
7
25 6
75
EvansCrk
17
1
3 1
18
25 6
76
EvansCrk
19
6.9
2 1
9
25 6
77
EvansCrk
21
15
Id 4
16
25 6
78
EvansCrk
51
21
1 d 1
3
25 6
79
EvansCrk
52
1
2 1
9
25 6
80
EvansCrk
53
40
2 2
6
25 6
81
EvansCrk
54
2.5
2 1
5
25 6
82
EvansCrk
61
14.7
2 1
3
26 6
83
BgBearCk
61
5.5
2 2
19
26 6
A-6
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT -HA 2
BEAR CHEEK Planning Area King County, WA
Number of Total
Section Township Range Wetlands Acreage
22
6
6
1
20.6
3
25
6
5
124
4
25
6
1
34.4
5
25
6
3
4.5
6
25
6
1
40
7
25
6
1
30.8
8
25
6
2
66.5
9
25
6
6
16.1
10
25
6
2
8
11
25
6
1
37
12
25
6
1
12
16
25
6
1
15
18
25
7
3
27.4
18
25
6
1
1
19
25
7
2
10
2
26
6
1
1.4
3
26
6
4
36.6
4
26
6
2
15.1
5
26
6
4
62
7
26
6
5
101
8
26
6
6
29.3
9
26
6
3
17.5
12
26
5
1
0.3
15
26
6
1
6.8
17
26
6
2
47.3
19
26
6
3
22.2
20
26
6
3
33.4
21
26
6
3
20.7
22
26
6
1
11.5
27
26
6
2
99.3
30
26
6
3
34.6
32
26
6
3
11.6
33
26
6
2
2.3
34
26
6
3
53.9
A-7
-------
Slkag /
Lake
MMBt
iruds
i
Figure a-3. Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - East Lake Sammamish Planning Area
King County, Washington
NORTH 1" = 3,500'
A-8
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 12
EAST LAKE SAMMAMISH Planning Azea King County, VA
Basin
Quality No.
ID
Basin
Wetland
Acres Rating* Types
Sec Twn Rng
S333
it
u
u
ii
u
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
assssssas
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
¦i
ssssaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
SS3S3
II
11
It
II
II
II
1
EFrklsaq
l
2.3
2 2
25
24 6
2
SFrklsaq
2
8.8
2 3
30
24 7
3
EFrklsaq
3
7.6
2. 3
30
24 7
4
IssaqCrk
1
2.8
la 2
16
24 6
5
IssaqCrk
2
34
la 1
20
24 6
6
IssaqCrk
3
7
2 2
20
24 6
7
IssaqCrk
51
9.5
2 1
21
24 6
9
IssaqCrk
53
1.2
2 1
21
24 6
9
NFrklsaq
1
1.5
2 1
11
24 6
10
NFrklsaq
2
1.6
2 2
11
24 6
11
NFrklsaq
3
1.4
2 2
14
24 6
12
NFrklsaq
4
2
2 2
14
24 6
13
NFrklsaq
5
22
1 b,c 4
14
24 6
14
NFrklsaq
7
51
lb 2
14
24 6
15
NFrklsaq
9
1.6
2 1
27
24 6
16
PatrsnCk
9
73.8
2 2
26
25 6
17
PatxsnCk
10
1.7
2 1
8
24 6
18
PatrsnCk
11
301
2 3
30
25 7
19
PatrsnCk
12
3.7
lb 3
36
25 6
20
PatrsnCk
13
4.1
2 1
36
25 6
21
PatrsnCk
14
2.6
2 1
36
25 6
22
PatrsnCk
15
4.6
2 1
1
24 6
23
PatrsnCk
16
3.4
2 2
1
24 6
24
PatrsnCk
17
2.8
1 d 2
1
24 6
* Note: Quality rating is determined by King County Planning
Division. Definitions are as follows:
1 - Wetlands considered unique or outstanding
2 - Wetlands considered significant
3 - Wetlands considered of low concern
Letters a, b, or c after a number refer to reason for
unique classification. See text for description of rating
system.
** Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
A- 9
-------
EAST LAKE SAMMAMISH Planning Area King County, WA (Page 2)
Basin
Quality No.
ID
Basin
Zetland
Acres Rating* Types
Sec Twn Rng
355
w 3 mt
25
PatrsnCk
18
10.1
Id 2
12
24 6
26
PatrsnCk
20
28.7
2 1
13
24 6
27
PatrsnCk
22
5.5
1 b 2
25
25 6
28
PatrsnCk
23
7.8
2 1
12
24 6
29
PatrsnCk
24
1.8
1 d 2
12
24 6
30
PatrsnCk
25
4.7
2 2
1
24 6
31
PatrsnCk
26
3
2 1
1
24 6
32
EvansCrk
18
93
2 3
16
25 6
33
EvansCrk
22
161
1 a,c 4
22
25 6
34
EvansCrk
23
3.2
1 a,d 3
22
25 6
35
EvansCrk
27
11
1 d 2
27
25 6
36
EvansCrk
28
3.2
2 2
28
25 6
37
EvansCrk
29
5.5
2 1
28
25 6
38
EvansCrk
30
7.6
2 1
27
25 6
39
EvansCrk
31
13
2 3
27
25 6
40
EvansCrk
32
5.5
2 4
27
25 6
41
EvansCrk
35
1.4
2 1
18
25 6
42
EvansCrk
36
0.7
3 1
17
25 6
43
EvansCrk
37
1.8
2 2
35
25 6
44
EvansCrk
38
14.7
1 c 3
26
25 6
45
EvansCrk
39
25
6
26
6
46
EvansCrk
40
5.1
2 2
26
25 6
47
EvansCrk
41
5.7
2 3
26
25 6
48
EvansCrk
42
2.3
2 1
26
25 6
49
EvansCrk
43
1.2
3-1
35
25 6
50
EvansCrk
55
6
2 2
17
25 6
51
ELkSamam
2
1.8
2 1
31
25 6
52
ELkSamam
9
55
1 d 4
34
25 6
53
ELkSamam
10
31.3
1 b,c 4
35
25 6
54
ELkSamam
11
3.6
2 2
34
25 6
55
ELkSamam
12
0.7
3 2
33
25 6
56
ELkSamam
14
2.8
2 1
4
24 6
57
ELkSamam
17
32
I 1
4
24 6
58
ELkSamam
18
17.2
2 4
3
24 6
59
ELkSamam
19
1
2 2
35
25 6
60
ELkSamam
21
13.4
1 d. 1
1
24 6
61
ELkSamam
24
0.9
2 3
11
24 6
62
ELkSamam
26
37
1 d 3
3
24 6
63
ELkSamam
29
2.5
2 3
8
24 S
64
ELkSamam
30
54
Id 3
9
24 6
65
ELkSamam
32
0.8
3 2
9
24 6
66
ELkSamam
33
1.2
2 1
9
24; 6
67
ELkSamam
34
17.5
1 d 3
11
24 6
68
ELkSamam
35
4
2 2
11
24: 6
A-10
-------
EAST LAKE SAMMAMISH Planning Area King County, WA (Page 3)
Basin Quality No.
ID
Basin
Wetland
Acres Rating
Types
Sec
Twn Rng
8333
tSS3S58S33S3
-
69
ELkSamam
38
6.5
2
1
10
24 6
70
ELkSamam
39
21
2
2
10
24 6
71
ELkSamam
40
12.4
2
2
15
24 S
72
ELkSamam
52
5.8
2
1
15
24 6
73
ELkSamam
54
1.4
3
1
35
25 6
74
ELkSamam
55
0.9
3
1
2
24 6
75
ELkSamam
57
1.3
2
1
1
24 6
76
ELkSamam
58
3.7
1
d 1
9
24 6
77
ELkSamam
59
6.3
3
1
34
25 6
78
ELkSamam
61
5
1
b 4
4
24 6
79
ELkSamam
62
0.4
3
1
33
25 6
80
ELkSamam
63
2.8
2
2
5
24 6
81
ELkSamam
64
4
2
1
32
25 6
82
ELkSamam
65
7.5
2
1
6
24 6
83
ELkSamam
66
2.1
2
1
3
24 6
84
ELkSamam
67
2.5
2
1
11
24 6
85
ELkSamam
70
3.1
2.
1
10
24 6
86
ELkSamam
90
5.8
2
2
16
24 6
A-11
-------
WETLAND THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 2
EAST LAKE SAMMAMISH Planning Area -- King County, VA
Number of Total
Section Township Range Wetlands Acreage
1
24N
6E
7 33.2
2
24N
6E
1 0.9
3
24N
6E
3 56.3
4
24N
6E
3 39.8
5
24N
6E
1 2.8
6
24N
6E
1 7.5
8
24N
6E
3 5.9
9
24N
6E
4 59.7
10
24N
6E
3 30.6
11
24N
6E
6 28
12
24N
6E
3 19.7
13
24N
6E
1 28.7
14
24N
6E
4 76.4
15
24N
6E
2 18.2
16
24N
6E
3 101.6
17
25N
6E
2 6.7
18
25N
6E
1 1.4
20
24N
6E
2 41
21
24N
6E
2 10.7
22
25N
6E
2 164.2
25
24N
6E
2 8.7
25
25N
7E
1 301
25
25N
6E
1 5.5
26
25N
6E
5 86.9
27
24N
6E
1 1.6
27
25N
6E
4 37.1
28
25N
6E
2 8.7
30
24N
7E
2 16.4
31
25N
6E
1 1.8
32
24N
6E
1 4
33
25N
6E
2 1.1
34
25N
6E
3 64.9
35
24N
6E
1 1
35
25N
6E
5 50.4
36
25N
6E
3 10.4
A-12
-------
r ruirp
Hat fair
Robinson
Point
1
SALTWATER
ATE PARK
etnv
wzrtv
Oh/i ro/Pr
aopmi
i, ofimtfMCc'me'MC
cjii i.
J6
Pacific
Figure a-4 . Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Federal Way Planning
Area, King County, Washington
NORTH 1" = 8,500'
A-13
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 42
FEDERAL WAY Planning Area ~ King County, WA
ID
Basin
Basin
Wetland
Quality No.**
Acres Rating* Types
Sec
Twn Rng
(1)
LwrPugSd
1
253
1 a,d 2
10
21 3
2
LwrPugSd
4
5.5
2 2
33
22 4
3
LwrPugSd
5
1.3
1 b 4
32
22 4
4
LwrPugSd
6
12.2
2 1
8
21 4
5
LwrPugSd
7
20
2 1
7
21 4
6
LwrPugSd
3
1.8
2 3
7
21 4
7
LwrPugSd
9
19
2 1
12
21 3
3
LwrPugSd
10
4.6
2 1
14
21 3
9
LwrPugSd
11
5.1
1 a 2
11
21 3
10
LwrPugSd
12
1.3
2 1
11
21 3
11
LwrPugSd
13
6
2 1
14
21 3
12
LwrPugSd
14
3
2 1
11
21 3
13
LwrPugSd
15
9.6
2 2
14
21 3
14
LwrPugSd
16
10
2 2
14
21 3
15
LwrPugSd
17
2.3
2 1
13
21 3
16
LwrPugSd
13
1.8
2 1
13
21 3
17
LwrPugSd
19
2.6
2 3
18
21 4
13'
LwrPugSd
21
2.1
2 2
7
21 4
19
LwrPugSd
22
3.4
2 1
7-
21 4
20
LwrPugSd
23
1.9
Id 4
7
21 4
21
LwrPugSd
24
2.8
2 2
7
21 4
22
LwrPugSd
25
10
1 b,d 3
7
21 4
23
LwrPugSd
27
4.5
1 b,d 3
18
21 4
24
LwrPugSd
28
3.7
2 1
18
21 4
* Mote: Quality rating Is determined by King County Planning
Division. Definitions are as follows:
1 - Wetlands considered unique or outstanding
2 - Wetlands considered significant
3 - Wetlands considered of low concern
Letters a, b, or c after a number refer to reason for
unique classification. See text for description of rating
system.
** Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and wildlife
Service.
A-14
-------
FEDERAL WAY Planning Area Xing County, VA (Page 2)
Basin
Quality
Mo.**
ID
Basin
Vetland
Acres Rating*
Types
Sec
Tvn
25
LvrPugSd
29
8.5
1 b
4
13
21
26
LvrPugSd
31
3
2
2
18
21
27
LvrPugSd
32
1.8
2
1
19
21
28
LvrPugSd
33
6
2
1
24
21
29
LvrPugSd
50
4.3
2
2
32
22
(30)
LvrPugSd
51
253
1 a,
d 2
11
21
(31)
LvrPugSd
61
253
1 a,
d 3
32
31
32
Hylebos
1
1.8
2
2
4
21
33
Hylebos
2
12.9
1 c
2
4
21
34
Hylebos
4
4.6
2
2
9
21
35
Hylebos
5
6.2
1 d
2
16
21
36
Hylebos
7
10.3
2
2
15
21
37
Hylebos
9
5.5
2
1
21
21
38
Hylebos
10
2.8
2
2
20
21
39
Hylebos
11
2.5
2
2
12
21
40
Hylebos
12
11.5
1 c
3
19
21
41
Hylebos
13
3.5
2
2
20
21
42
Hylebos
14
4
2
1
21
21
43
Hylebos
15
37.7
2
3
22
21
44
Hylebos
16
2.7
2
2
20
21
45
Hylebos
17
5.1
2
1
i9
21
46
Hylebos
18
93
1 c
3
20
21
47
Hylebos
20
6.9
1 b
2
25
21
48
Hylebos
21
3.5
2
1
30
21
49
Hylebos
22
1.8
2
2
29
21
50
Hylebos
23
1.8
2
1
29
21
51
Hylebos
24
0.5
3
2
29
21
52
Hylebos
25
4.8
2
2
27
21
53
Hylebos
26
2.1
2
2
28
21
54
Hylebos
28
1.2
2
2
32
21
55
Hylebos
29
8
2
2
29
21
56
Hylebos
32
0.2
3
1
29
21
57
Hylebos
33
3.1
2
2
32
21
58
Hylebos
34
1.4
1 d
2
33
21
59
Hylebos
35
2.3
2
1
32
21
$0
Hylebos
36
1.2
2.
1
33
21
61
Hylebos
37
2.3
2
2
32
21
62
Hylebos
39
2.1
2
1
17
21
63
Hylebos
41
2.8
2
1
33
21
64
Hylebos
42
0.7
2
1
33
21
65
Hylebos
43
9.3
2
1
32
21
66
MlllCrk
2
"4.7
2
8
3
21
67
Nllicrk
3
1.7
2
1
3
21
63
Miller Je
4
27
1 0
3
10
21
A-15
-------
FEDERAL WAY Planning Azea King County/ WA (Page 3)
Basin
Quality
Mo.**
ID
Basin
Wetland
Acres Rating*
Types
Sec
Twn
69
MillCrk
5
1.2
2
1
10
21
70
MillCrk
6
2
2
1
14
21
71
MillCrk
8
7.1
2
2
22
21
72
MillCrk
9
28.2
1
3
22
21
73
MillCrk
18
17
1
3
3
21
74
WhiteRvr
1
1.4
2
1
27
21
75
WhiteRvr
2
9.5
2
3
26
21
76
WhiteRvr
3
2.9
2
1
27
21
77
WhiteRvr
4
52
2
2
27
21
78
WhiteRvr
5
22.4
2
2
34
21
79
LwrGrnRvr
6
18.8
2
2
27
21
80
LwrGrnRvr
14
31
2
2
34
22
81
LwrGrnRvr
15
12.7
1 b,
c 6
34
22
82
LwrGrnRvr
16
13.6
2
1
4
21
83
LwrGrnRvr
17
2
3
1
4
21
A-16
-------
Data for preliminary map WETLANDS THREATS
FEDERAL WAY
NUMBERS OF WETLANDS
AND
ACREAGE,
BY SECTION
Sec Tvn Rng
i ACREAGE
34
22 4
3 66.1
33
22 4
1 5.5
33
21 4
4 6.1
32
22 4
3 258.6
32
21 4
5 18.2
30
21 4
1 3.5
29
21 4
5 12.3
28
21 4
1 2.1
27
21 4
5 79.9
26
21 4
1 9.5
25
21 3
1 6.9
24
21 3
1 6
22
21 4
3 73
21
21 4
2 9.5
20
21 4
4 102
19
21 4
3 18.4
18
21 4
4 13.8
17
21 4
1 2.1
16
21 4
1 6.2
15
21 4
1 10.3
14
21 4
1 2
14
21 3
4 30.2
13
21 3
2 4.1
13
21 4
1 8.5
12
21 4
1 2.5
12
21 3
1 19
11
21 3
4 262.4
10
21 3
1 253
10
21 4
2 5.8
9
21 4
1 4.6
8
21 4
1 12.2
7
21 4
7 42
4
21 4
4 30.3
3
21 4
3 23.4
A-17
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT ~ WA #2
GREEN RIVER Planning Area King County, WA
Basin Quality No**
ID Basin Wetland Acres Rating* Types Sec Twn Rng
SSS33333333SSSSS33SS385SS33SSS3SSS3SSSSS353SSS33S333333SSS3::
1 Mill Crk 1 6.2 2 1 36 24 4
* Note: Quality rating is determined by King County Planning
Division. Definitions are as follows:
1 - Wetlands considered unique or outstanding
2 - Wetlands considered significant
3 - Wetlands considered of low concern
Letters a, b, or c after a number refer to reason for
unique classification. See text for description of rating
system.
** Number of types'refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the' Fish and Wildlife
Service.
A-13
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 12
CITY OP KENT Planning Area King County, WA
Basin No.
ID Basin Wetland Acres Types* Sec Twn Rng
1 Renton
l
50
31 23 5
2 PvrtyBay
l
1
27 22 4
3 DsMoines
i
26
10 22 4
4 DsMoines
2
5
11 22 4
5 DsMoines
3
16
11 22 4
6 DsMoines
4
6
14 22 4
7 DsMoines
5
. 23
22 22 4
sasassssasasssssas
35SSSS
u
u
u
ii
u
ii
ii
H
11
II
II
II
II
II
U
II
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
A-19
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT VA #2
NEWCASTLE Planning Area King County, WA
Basin
Quality
No.**
ID
Basin
Wetland
Acres Rating*
Types
Sec Twn Rng
sss
333333333333
u
u
u
u
ii
ii
u
u
u
ii
u
u
ii
ii
ii
a
u
II
u
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
u
II
II
=======
ii
ii
u
ii
u
ii
ii
===
1
Coal
Crk
2
1.1
2
2
8
6 81
2
Coal
Crk
3
2
2
2
27
24 5
3
Coal
Crk
4
0.5
1
27
24 5
4
May
Crk
1
61
1 a
3
1
23 6
5
May
Crk
2
11
1 b,c
3
13
23 5
6
May
Crk
3
8.2
2
2
11
23 5
7
May
Crk
4
13.3
2
2
34
24 5
8
May
Crk
5
142
1 a
2
2
23 5
9
May
Crk
6
3.8
2
2
3
23 5
10
May
Crk
7
10
2
2
34
24 5
11
May
Crk
8
32
1 c
3
28
24 5
12
May
Crk
9
10
2
2
33
24 5
13
May
Crk
11
16.5
2
2
35
24 5
14
May
crk
12
1.2
2
1
33
24 5
15
May
Crk
13
5
1 a
1
6
23 6
16
May
Crk
'14
3
2
2
7
23 6
17
May
Crk
15
51
2
2
7
23 . 6
18
LwrCdrSv
1
0.5
2
2
13
23 5
19
LwrCdrRv
7
0.9
3
1
24
23 5
SSS
u
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
S35S3
u
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
SSSSS3S33SSS3SS5SSS
II
II
II
II
It
II
II
-----
* Mote: Quality rating is determined by King County Planning
Division. Definitions are as follows:
1 - Wetlands considered unique or outstanding
2 - Wetlands considered significant
3 - Wetlands considered of low concern
Letters af b, or c after a number refer to reason for
unique classification. See text for description of rating
system.
** Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
A-20
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA #2
NORTH SHORE Planning Area ~ King County, WA
Basin
Quality
NO."
ID
Basin
Wetland
Acres Rating*
Types
Sec Twn Rng
sss
333333333333
3333333333
3333333:
u
ii
it
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
=========
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
======
1
SwampCrk
1
0.3
2
1
2
26 4
2
SwampCrk
3
92
2
3
1
26 4
3
SwampCrk
4
6.2
2
1
1
26 4
4
SwampCrk
5
9.2
2
1
1
26 4
5
SwampCzk
10
2
2
2
26
26 5
6
SamamRvr
12
1.4
2
1
22
26 5
7
SamamRvr
14
1.8
2 .
2
15
26 5
8
SamamRvr
16
0.4
3
1
16
26 5
9
SamamRvr
20
12.5
2
2
11
26 4
10
SamamRvr
51
9.3
2
1
12
26 4
11
SamamRvr
52
2.3
2
1-
12
26 4
12
SamamRvr
99
0.9
3
1
28
16 5
13
NorthCrk
2
7.5
2
1
4
26 5
14
LIBearCk
1
3
2
1
3
26 5
15
LIBearCk
2
6
2
2
3
26 5
16
BgBearCk
2
0.9
2
2
1
26 *
17
BgBearCk
5
1.4
2
1
1
26 6
18
BgBearCk
3
2.5
2
1
12
26 6
19
BgBearCk
9
12.6
2
3
11
26 6
20
BgBearCk
33
1.5
2
1
24
26 5
21
BgBearCk
36
1
2
1
25
26 6
22
BgBearCk
41
0.3
2
11
25
26 6
23
BgBearCk
42
0.8
2
2
36
26 5
24:
BgBearCk
43
0.4
22
1
36
26 5
* Note: Quality eating is determined by King County Planning
Division. Definitions are as follows:
1 - Wetlands considered unique or outstanding
2 - Wetlands considered significant
3 - Wetlands considered of low concern
Letters a, b, or c after a number refer to reason for
unique classification-. See text for description of rating
system.
** Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
A-21
-------
NORTH SHORE Planning Area -
- King County, WA (Page 2)
Basin
Quality
No.
ID
Basin
Wetland
Acres
Rating
Types
Sec Tvn Rng
sas
SSS333S333S3
u
n
ii
u
ii
u
u
u
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
u
U
ii
ii
ii
u
u
ii
ii
ii
«
ii
ii
u
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
25
JuanitaC
1
1
2
2
18 26 5
26
JuanitaC
5
1
3
1
20 26 5
27
JuanitaC
S
29
2
2
29 26 5
28
JuanitaC
7
25.5
2
3
29 26 5
29
JuanitaC
10
2.8
2
1
16 26 5
30
ELkWashg
1
9.5
la
2
11 26 . 4
31
ELkWashg
2
15.5
2
2
24 26 4
32
ELkWashg
3
0.7
3
2
19 26 5
A-2 2
-------
NORTH SHORE Planning Area
Nbmbec
of Total
Sec Twn Rng Wetlands Acreage
1
26
6
2
2.3
1
26
4
3
107.4
2
26
4
1
0.3
3
26
5
1
6
3
26
5
1
3
4
26
5
1
7.5
11
26
4
22
11
26
6
1
12.6
12
26
4
12.1
12
26
6
1
2.5
15
26
5
1
1.8
16
26
5
3.2
18
26
5
1'
1
19
26
5
1
0.7
20
26
5
1
1
22
26
5
1
1.4
24
26
5
1
1.5
24
26
4
1
15.5
25
26
6
1.3
26-
26
5
1
2
28
16
5
1
0.9
29
26
5
2
54.5
36
26
5
2
1.2
A-23
-------
\n
%
NORTH i" = lo.ooo'
Figure a-s. Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Snoqualmie Planning Area
King County, Washington
-------
Figure a-6. Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Snoqualmie Planning Area
King County, Washington
NORTH 1" = io,ooo'
A-25
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA »2
SNOQUALMIE Planning Area King County, WA
Basin
Quality
No.**
ID
Basin
Wetland
Acres Rating*
Types
Sec Tvn Rng
ii
n
n
ii
n
n
u
ii
u
u
ii
u
ii
ii
u
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
SSSSSS3
ii
ii
ii
ii
U
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
u
U
ii
ii
it
ii
ii
U
ii
ii
n
sssss
S
1
PatrsnCk
21
23.1
2
1
9
24 7
2
Tuck Crk
7
1
3
2
14
26 6
3
Tuck Crk
8
2.8
2
2
14
26 6
4
CherryCr
1
16
2
2
4
26 7
5
CherryCr
2
7
2
2
3
26 7
6
CherryCr
3
3.4
2
2
5
26 7
7
CherryCr
4
83
2
2
7
26 7
8
CherryCr
10
4
2
3
17
26 7
9
CherryCr
11
8.6
2
1
20
26 7
10
CherryCr
13
10.3
1 c
3
14
26 7
11
CherryCr
14
1.1
2
2
14
26 7
12
CherryCr
15
12
2-
2
11
26 7
13
CherryCr
16
2.3
2
2
11
26 7
14
CherryCr
27
5.5
2
2
11
26 7
15
CherryCr
2
12.4
2
3
1
26 7
16
CherryCr
23
5.5
2
2
26 7
17
CherryCr
20
1.2
2
1
26 7
18
CherryCr
21
0.3
3
1
7
26 7
19
CherryCr
22
0.5
3
1
18
26 7
20
CherryCr
23
18.6
2
1
7
26 7
21
CherryCr
24
9.5
2
2
26 7
22
CherryCr
25
0.5
3
1
5
26 7
23
CherryCr
26
0.4
3
1
5
26 7
24
CherryCr
27
1.6
2
1
5
26 7
* Note: Quality rating is determined by King County Planning
Division. Definitions are as follows:
1 - Wetlands considered unique or outstanding
2 - Wetlands considered significant
3 - Wetlands considered of low concern
Letters a, b, or c after a number refer to reason for
unique classification. See text for description of rating
system.
** Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Pish and Wildlife
Service.
A-26
-------
SNOQUALMIE Planning Area King County, WA (Page 2)
Basin
Quality No.
10
Basin
Wetland
Acres Rating Types
Sec Twn Rng
3SSSS
SSSS3SS333S
33=3333=:
ii
ii
u
ii
u
ii
ii
u
II
13=3=333333333333333
33=33=3
5S2335S
25
cherrycr
28
60
2 1
3
26 7
V,
cherrycr
29
1.2
2 1
4
26 7
27
CherryCr
30
7.6
2 1
36
26 7
28
CherryCr
31
4.6
2 2
6
26 8
29
CherryCr
32
30
1 c 3
5
26 8
30
CherryCr
33
16.5
lb 3
6
26 8
31
CherryCr
34
14.7
2 2
1
26 7
32
AmesLake
3
2
2 1
8
25 7
33
AmesLake
53
14
2 1
6
25 7
34
AmesLake
57
7
1 b 4
7
25 7
35
AmesLake
58
16
2 1
7
25 7
36
AmesLake
59
2
2 1
7
25 7
37
HarrisCr
1
35
2 4
4
25 7
38
HarrisCr
2
36.7
2 1
3
25 7
39
HarrisCr
3
34
la 2
22
26 7
40
HarrisCr
4
8
2 1
21
26 7
41
HarrisCr
5
42
1 arc 3
22
26 7
42
HarrisCr
7
20
2 2
27
26 7
43
HarrisCr
8
6.2
2 1
27
26 7
44
HarrisCr
9
24
2 1
33
26 7
45
HarrisCr
10
105
la 2
35
26 7
46
HarrisCr
11
3.7
2 1
34
26 T
47
HarrisCr
12
3
2 3
23
26 7
48
HarrisCr
13
4
2 1
23
26 7
49
HarrisCr
14
18.5
la 2
26
26 7
50
HarrisCr
15
16.1
1 a 2
25
26 7
51
HarrisCr
16
20
1 abc 3
24
26 7
52
HarrisCr
17
5.6
la 1
4
25 7
53
HarrisCr
18
76
la 2
4
25 7
54
SnqulmiR
2
27.8
2 1
2
26 6
55
SnqulmiR
3
8.5
2 1
2
26 6
56
SnquimiR
4
25.7
2 1
2
26 6
57
SnqulmiR
5
1.5
2 1.
11
26 6
58
SnquimiR
6
15.9
2 2
13
26 6
59
SnqulmiR
8
6.9
la 1
23
26 6
60
SnqulmiR
9
1.4
2 1
24
26 6
61
SnqulmiR
10
3.2
2 1
19
26 7
62
SnqulmiR
11
1.2
2 1
19
26 7
63
SnqulmiR
12
3.5
2 1
23
26 6
64
SnqulmiR
13
2.6
2 2
23
26 6
65
SnqulmiR
14
3.2
2 2
24
26 6
66
SnqulmiR
15
12.5
2 2
24
26 6
67
SnqulmiR
16
15.8
2 1
24
26 6
68
SnqulmiR
17
11
1 a,b 1
25
26 6
A-2 7
-------
SNOQUALMIE Planning Area King County, WA (Page 3)
ID
Basin
Basin
Vetland
Quality
Acres Rating
No.
Types
Sec Tvn Rng
69
SnqulmiR
18
4.5
2
2
25
26 6
70
SnqulmiR
20
4.6
1 b
2
30
26 7
71
SnqulmiR
21
6.3
1 b
2
29
26 7
72
SnqulmiR
22
1.7
2
1
24
26 6
73
SnqulmiR
23
7.2
1 a
1
26
26 6
74
SnqulmiR
25
30.4
1 abc
3
35
26 6
75
SnqulmiR
26
1.7
1 a
2
35
26 6
76
SnqulmiR
27
7
1 b
2
36
26 6
77
SnqulmiR
28
8.5
2
2
36
26 6
78
SnqulmiR
29
1.8
2
1
36
26 6
79
SnqulmiR
30
13.2
2
1
36
26 6
80
SnquimiR
31
19
2
1
31
26 7
81
SnqulmiR
32
4.5
2
2
6
25 7
82
SnqulmiR
33
8
2
3
5
25 7
83
SnqulmiR
34
8
2
2
20
25 7
84
SnqulmiR
35
191
1 b
3
29
25 7
85
SnqulmiR
36
6
2
4
28
25 7
86
SnqulmiR
37
18
1 c
3
28
25 7
87
SnqulmiR
38
44
2
2
32
25 7
88
SnqulmiR
39
9
2-
2
32*
25 7
89
SnqulmiR
40
1.6
2
1
14
24 7
90
SnqulmiR
41
1
2
2
13
24 7
91
SnqulmiR
42
14.5
1 b,c
3
24
24 7
92
SnqulmiR
43
39
2
3
20
24 3
93
SnqulmiR
44
SO
2
2
29
24 8
95
SnqulmiR
46
12.1
1 b
2
32
24 8
96
SnqulmiR
47
7.4
2
1
21
24 8
97
SnqulmiR
48
92
1 d
1
15
24 8
98
SnqulmiR
49
14.7
2
1
34
24 8
99
SnqulmiR
50
4.8
1 d
3
7
25 7
100
SnqulmiR
51
113
1 a,c
4
10
25 7
101
SnqulmiR
52
51
1 a
2
9
25 7
102
SnqulmiR
53
55
2
2
33
25 7
103
SnqulmiR
54
2.7
1 a
2
33
25 7
104
SnqulmiR
55
17.2
2
1
33
25 7
105
SnqulmiR
56
90
2
4
4
24 7
106
SnqulmiR
57
18.9
1 abc
6
4
24 7
107
SnqulmiR
58
11.7
1 a
2
4
24 7
108
SnqulmiR
59
3.7
2
2
3
24 7
109
SnqulmiR
60
55
1 c
5
10
24 7
110
SnqulmiR
61
39.5
1 c
4
10
24 7
111
SnqulmiR
62
7.2
2
2
21
25 7
112
SnqulmiR
S3
17.2
2
2
21
25 7
113
SnqulmiR
64
8.3
2
2
27
25 7
A-2 8
-------
SNOQUALMIE Planning Area
King County, WA (Page 4)
Basin Quality No.
ID
Basin
Wetland
Acres Rating
Types
Sec Tvn Rng
assa
S8SSSSSS3SSS
ssssssssss
u
n
u
u
u
ii
u
U
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
u
u
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
n
If
II
II
II
II
II
114
SnqulmiR
65
9.6
2
3
5
25 7
115
SnqulmiR
66
5.7
2
2
32
26 7
116
SnqulmiR
67
28
2
2
5
25 7
117
SnqulmiR
71
24
1
c,d
6
12
24 7
118
Coal Crk
1
5.6
1
2
35
24 7
119
Coal Crk
2
6.5
2
1
30
24 8
120
Coal Crk
3
5.5
2
1
31
24 8
121
Coal Cxk
4
250
2
4
31
24 8
122
Coal Crk
6
90
2
2
32
24 8
123
Coal Crk
8
3.4
2
2
5
23 8
124
Coal Crk
9
4.8
2
1
31
24 8
125
Coal Crk
75
26.2
1
c
3
33
24 8
126
RagingRv
2
60
1
abd
3
27
24 7
127
RagingRv
3
4.6
1
d
2
34
24 7
128
RagingRv
5
53
1
b,c
4
34
24 7
129
RagingRv
7
2
2
1
4
23 7
130
RagingRv
8
18
2
2
2
23 7
131
RagingRv
9
4.7
1
a,b
3
7
23 8
132
RagingRv
10
7.3
2
2
24
23 7
133
RagingRv
11
21
2
2
2
23 7
134
RagingRv
12
4.1
1
b
2
16
23 7
135
RagingRv
1
35
2
2
34
24 8
136
NFSnqulm
2
5
1
b
2
32
24 9
137
NFSnqulm
3
7.5
2
1
36
24 8
138
NFSnqulm
4
57.3
1
d
2
20
24 9
139
NFSnqulm
5
2.3
1
d
3
21
24 9
140
NFSnqulm
6
4.3
2
2
21
24 9
141
NFSnqulm
7
225
1
a
1
9
24 9
142
NFSnqulm
8
42.3
2
1
22
24 9
143
NFSnqulm
9
19.8
2
1
22
24 9
144
NFSnqulm
10
36
2
1
22
24 9
145
NFSnqulm
11
7.5
2
1
31
24 9
146
NFSnqulm
2
3.8
2
2
22
25 9
147
Tolt Rvr
3
18.3
1
abc
5
27
25 7
148
Tolt Rvr
4
2.8
1
d
3
27
25 7
149
Tolt Rvr
5
42
1
a
2
22
25 7
150
Tolt Rvr
6
104
1
abed
8
36
26 7
151
Tolt Rvr
1
18
2
2
28
25 7
152
GiffinCk
2
4.1
1
d
2
27
25 7
153
GiffinCk
1
24.2
2
1
15
24 8
154
TokulCrk
2
1.3
2
2
18
24 8
155
TokulCrk
1
23
1
d
3
22
24 8
156
Tate Crk
2
¦ 21
1
d
2
15
24 8
157
Tate Crk
3
11
2
2
23
24 8
A-29
-------
SNOQUALMIE Planning Area King County, WA (Page 5)
Basin Quality No.
10
Basin
Vetland
Acres Sating
Types
Sec Tvn Rng
SS8S
158
Tate Crk
4
85
1 d
3
14
24 8
159
Tate Crk
5
25
1 c,d
5
13
24 8
160
Tate Crk
6
6.2
2
1
23
24 8
161
Tate Crk
1
45.5
2
1
5
23 8
162
SFSnqulm
3
6
2
23
23 8
163
SFSnqulm
4
16.8
2
2
23
23 8
164
SFSnqulm
5
6.3
2
3
22
23 8
165
SFSnqulm
6
19.6
2
1
25
23 9
166
SFSnqulm
7
5.4
2
1
27
23 8
167
SFSnqulm
1
41
2
2
3
23 8
168
MFSnqulm
2
5.2
2
3
11
23 8
A-30
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 2
SNOQUALMIE Planning Area King County, WA
Number of Total
Section Township Range Wetlands Acreage
23
21
8
1 6.2
6
25
7
1 14
4
23
7
1 2
16
23
7
1 4.1
2
23
7
2 39
24
23
7
1 7.3
27
23
8
1 5.4
5
23
8
2 48.9
11
23
8
1 5.2
7
23
8
1 4.7
23
23
8
1 22.8
3
23
8
1 41
22
23
8
1 6.3
25
23
9
1 19.6
9
24
7
1 248.1
35
24
7
1 5.6
34
24
7
1 4.6
3
24
7
1 3\ 7
14
24
7
1 1.6
12
24
7
1 24
24
24
7
1 14.5
4
24
7
3 120.6
13
24
7
1 1
10
24
7
2 94.5
27
24
7
1 60
15
24
a
3 137.2
30
24-
8
1 6.5
31
24
8
3 260.3
21
24
8
1 7.4
29
24
8
1 60
33
24
8
1 26.2
20
24
3
1 39
36
24
8
1 7.5
14
24
8
1 85
13
24
8
1 25
34
24
8
2 49 .7
22
24
8
1 23
18
24
8
1 1.8
A- 31
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT -- WA 2
SNOQUALMIE Planning Area King County, WA (Page 2)
Number of Total
Section Township Range Wetlands Acreage
23
24
a
1 11
32
24
8
2 102.1
31
24
9
1 7.5
20
24
9
1 57.8
32
24
9
1 5
21
24
9
2 6.6
22
24
9
3 98.1
8
25
7
1 2
32
25
7
2 53
21
25
7
1 24.4
4
25
7
1 116.6
6
25
7
4 18.5
22
25
7
4 45.8
3
25
7
1 36.7
27
25
7
1 33.5
10
25
7
4 113
28
25
7
1 42
33
25
7
3 74.9
29
25
7
3 191
9
25
7
1 51
7
25
7
1 29.8
20
25
7
4 3
5
25
1 45.6
13
26
5
1 15.9
14
26
6
3 3.8
35
26
6
2 32.1
2
26
6
3 62
25
26
6
2 15.5
11
26
6
1 21.3
23
26
6
3 13
24
26
6
4 34 .6
26
26
6
1 7.2
36
26
6
3 30.5
14
26
7
2 11.4
4
26
7
2 17.2
7
26
7
4 103.1
A-3 2
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT ~ WA 2
SNOQUALMIE Planning Area King County/ WA (Page 3)
Number of Total
Section Township Range Vetlands Acreage
ssss
ii
ii
ii
u
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
i
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
27
26 7 3
32.4
17
26 7 1
4
29
26 7 1
6.3
19
26 7 2
4.4
30
26 7 1
4.6
21
26 7 1
8
31
26 7 1
19
5
26 7 4
15
32
26 7 1
5.7
23
26 7 2
7
24
26 7 1
20
33
26 7 1
24
34
26 7 1
3.7
20
26 7 1
8. S
3
26 7 1
67
36
26 7 2
111.6
35
26 7 1
105
18
26 7 1
0.5
25
26 7 1
16.1
22
26 7 2
76
1
26 7 3
32.6
5
26 8 1
30
6
26 8 2
21.1
3
23 7 1
53
26
26 7 1
3.6
11
26 7 2
14.3
A-3 3
-------
Figure a-7. Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Soos Creek, King County, Washington
NORTH 1" = 12,143*
A-34
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA %2
SOOS CREEK Planning Azea King County, WA
Basin Quality No.**
ID
Basin
Wetland
Acres Rating* Types
Sec Twn Rng
3S3S
33aSS888SS3
3338S3S3333
8833333
33333333383333333333
u
u
u
ii
u
333
1
LwrCdrRv
2
37
27
23 5
2
LwrCdrRv
3
2
2 2
22
23 5
3
LwrCdrRv
6
14
la 2
30
23 6
4
LwrCdrRv
14
43
1 c,d 2
30
23 6
5
LwrCdrRv
15
17
1 d 3
25
23 5
6
LwrCdrRv
16
14
Id 4
25
23 5
7
LwrCdrRv
17
1.6
2 1
28
23 5
8
LwrCdrRv
20
3
2 1
28
23 5
9
LwrCdrRv
22
12
1 d 3
34
23 5
10
LwrCdrRv
23
7.8
1 d 4
34
23 5
11
LwrCdrRv
25
5
1 d 2
35
23 5
12
LwrCdrRv
28
83
1 a,d 5
31
23 6
13
LwrCdrRv
38
0.9
3 1
34
23 5
14
LwrCdrRv
40
6.5
2 2
6
22 6
15
LwrCdrRv
41
0.4
2 2
7
23 81
16
LwrCdrRv
63
0.7
3 1
35
23 5
17
BlackRvr
6
62.6
1 c 3
5
22 5
18
BlackRvr
8
8.5
2 3
29
22 5
19
BlackRvr
10
9
2 3
29
22 5
20
LwrGrnRv
20
0.3
3 1
32
22 5
21
LwrGrnRv
21
0.5
3 1
32
22 5
22
LwrGrnRv
24
39
4
21 5
23
LwrGrnRv
26
6.5
2 2
9
21 5
24
LwrGrnRv
29
3.4
2 2
30
22 5
* Note: Quality rating is determined by King County Planning
Division. Definitions are as follows:
1 - Wetlands considered unique or outstanding
2 - Wetlands considered significant
3 - Wetlands considered of low concern
Letters a, b, or c after a number refer to reason for
unique classification. See text for description of rating
system.
** Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
A-3 5
-------
SOOS CREEK Planning Area King County, VA (Page 2)
ID
Basin
Basin
Vetland
Acres
Quality
Rating
No.
Types
Sec
Twn
Rng
25
Soos
Crk
1
7.1
2
1
29
23
5
26
Soos
Crk
2
134
1 c
5
33
23
5
27
Soos
Crk
4
4
2
1
4
22
5
28
Soos
Crk
5
3
2
2
34
23
5
29
Soos
Crk
6
0.6
3
1
4
22
5
30
Soos
Crk
7
0.4
2
1
4
22
5
31
Soos
Crk
8
3.4
2
2
4
22
5
32
Soos
Crk
9
82
2
3
3
22
5
P
u
Soos
Crk
12
1.4
2
1
10
22
5
sees m
i§
M
2
2
10
22
5
35
soos czk
16
150
2
2
10
22
5
36
Soos
Crk
17
12
2
2
8
22
5
37
Soos
Crk
20
32
2
3
16
22
5
38
Soos
Crk
23
0.5
3
1
14
22
5
39
Soos
Crk
24
1
3
1
14
22
5
40
Soos
Crk
25
1
3
1
15
22
5'
41
Soos
Crk
26
3
2
2
15
22
5
42
Soos
Crk
27
9
2
1
14
22
5
43
Soos
Crk
28
6
2
2
14
22
5
44
Soos
Crk
29
2
2
1
23
22
5
45
Soos
Crk
30
18-5
2
3
15
22
5
46
Soos
crk
33
16
1 c
21
22
5
47
Soos
Crk
36
1
3
1
14
22
5
48
Soos
Crk
37
1
3
1
23
22
5
49
Soos
Crk.
38
0.5
3
1
23
22
5
50
Soos
Crk
39
1
3
1
23
22
5
51
Soos
Crk
44
1.7
2
1
21
22
5
52
Soos
Crk
45
130
2
1
27
22
5
53
Soos
Crk
48
3.9
2
1
26
22
5
54
Soos
Crk
49
5.1
2
2
27
22
5
55
Soos
Crk
50
32
1 c
3
28
22
5
56
Soos
Crk
51
0.7
3
1
29
22
5
57
Soos
Crk
52
4.8
2
2
33
22
5
58
Soos
Crk
53
6.3
2
2
34
22
5
59
Soos
Crk
54
1.8
2
1
33
22
5
60
Soos
Crk
55
0.3
3
1
3
21
5
61
Soos
Crk
56
2.5
2
1
3
21
5
62
Soos
Crk
58
0.3
3
1
2
21
5
63
Soos
Crk
61
1
2
13
22
5
64
Soos
Crk
62
19
2
1
13
22
5
65
Soos
Crk
67
19.5
2
2
1
21
5
66
Soos
Crk
75
2.1
2
2
9
22
5
67
Soos
Crk
76
1.7
2
1
4.
22
5
68
Soos
Crk
77
11.4
2
2
35
22
5
A-3 6
-------
SOOS CREEK Planning Area King County, VA (Page 3)
Basin Quality No.
10
Basin
Wetland
Acres Rating
Types
Sec Twn Rng
S23
ISSS33S3SSSSS
ii
ii
u
u
u
ii
ii
u
ii
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
333335:
u
ii
u
ii
ii
u
ii
u
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
69
Soos Czk
80
22
2
13
22 5
70
Soos Crk
81
7
2
2
12
22 5
71
Soos Crk
84
6.7
3
3
34
22 5
72
CvngtnCr
17
1.4
2
1
12
21 5
73
CvngtnCr
19
26
2
1
18
21 6
74
CvngtnCr
20
17.6
1
b 3
18
21 6
75
JenknsCr
26
0.3
2
3
36
22 5
76
JenknsCr
63
7.5
2
2
18
22 6
77
JenknsCi
64
0.5
3
1
18
22 6
78
JenknsCr
65
1.5
2
1
18
22 6
79
JenknsCr
66
83
1
d 4
7
22 6
80
MdlGrnRv
8
0.6
3
1
23
21 5
81
MdlGrnRv
9
0.7
3
1
23
21 5
82
MdlGrnRv
14
48.5
2
1
24
21 5
83
MdlGrnRv
16
4.1
2
2
13
21 5
84
MdlGrnRv
59
18.5
2
1
14
21 5
85
MdlGrnRv
60
21
1
bed 5
23
21 5
86
MdlGrnRv
82
12
2
1
24
21 5
87
MdlGrnRv
83
5
2
2
24
21 5
A-37
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT VA 2
SOOS CREEK Planning Area King County, WA
Section Township Range
SS333S855SS3SS3SS5S3SSS
1
21
2
21
3
21
3
22
4
22
4
21
5
22
8
22
9
22
9
21
10
22
12
22
12
21
13
22
13
21
14
22
14
21
15
22
16
22
21
22
22
23
23
22
23
21
24
21
25
23
26
22
27
22
27
23
28
22
28
23
29
22
29
23
30
22
32
22-
33
22
33
23
34
23
34
22
35
22
35
23
36
22
6
22
7
22
18
22
18
21
30
23
31
23
7
23
Number of
Total
Vetlands
Acreage
ss:
:S33333333:
«¦
ii
ii
ii
u
II
II
II
5
1
19.5
5
1
0.3
5
2
2.8
5
1
82
5
2
10.1
5
1
39
5
1
62.6
5
1
12
5
1
2.1
5
1
6.5
5
3
151.9
5
1
7
5
1
1.4
5
2
42
5
1
4.1
5
5
17.5
5
1
18.5
5
3
189
5
32
5
2
17.7
5
1
2
5
4
4.5
5
3
22.3
5
3
65.5
5
2
31
5
1
3.9
5
2
135.1
5
1
37
5
1
32
5
2
4.6
5
3
18.2
5
1
7.1
5
1
3.4
5
2
0.8
5
2
6.6.
5
1
134
5
4
23.7
5
3
24.4
5
1
11.4
5
2
5.7
5
1
0.3
6
1
6.5
6
1
83
6
9.5
6
43.6
6
2
57
6
1
33
81
0.4
A-3 8
-------
KITSAP COUNTY,
o Silver dale
-------
KITSAP COUNTY
PLANNING AREA WASHINGTON
40
Number of
Wetlands 30
DIVERSITY
(within each
wet land)*
~ 4 or more
Hi 3 Types
I 2 Types
I 1 Type
* Diversity is
based on U.S.
Fish and Wildlife
Service wetland
c lass if icat ion
system.
S ilverda le
Figure A-8.
-------
WETLAND THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 12
KITSAP COUNTY Planning Area WA
USGS
Quad
No.
10
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types*
Sec Tvn Rng
3S3S3S
¦a
u
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
SSS3383S3SSSS3S3SS
=====
ssss
====
1
Poulsbo
1
2 1
16
26
IE
2
Poulsbo
2
9 1
21
26
IE
3
Poulsbo
3
2 1
20
26
IE
4
Poulsbo
4
1 1
27
26
IE
5
Poulsbo
5
4 1
27
26-
IE
6
Poulsbo
6
8 1
26
26
IE
7
Poulsbo
7
2 1
26
26
IE
8
Poulsbo
8
4 1
26
26
IE
9
Poulsbo
9
3 2
35
26
IE
10
Poulsbo
10
8 2
35
26
IE
11
Poulsbo
11
2 1
34
26
IE
12
Poulsbo
12
2 1
33
26
IE
13
Poulsbo
13
2 1
33
26
IE
14
Poulsbo
14
4 1
33
26
IE
15
Poulsbo
15
1 1
3
25
IE.
16
Poulsbo
16
2 1
4
25
IE
17
Poulsbo
17
2 1
3
25
IE
18
Poulsbo
18
2 1
4
25
IE
19
Poulsbo
19
1 1
4
25
IE
20
Poulsbo
20
3 2
3
25
IE
21
Poulsbo
21
40 2
3
25
IE
22
Poulsbo
22
56 4
11
25
IE
23
Poulsbo
23
8 1
11
25
IE
24
Poulsbo
24
3 1
11
25
IE
25
Poulsbo
25
4 1
10
25
IE
26
Poulsbo
26
15 1
10
25
IE
27
Poulsbo
27
4 2
9
25
IE
28
Poulsbo
28
48 2
9
25
IE:
29
Poulsbo
29
S 1
9
25
IE
30
Poulsbo
30
3 1
17
25
IE
31
Poulsbo
31
35 2
18
25
IE
32
Poulsbo
32
2 1
17
25
IE
33
Poulsbo
33
3 1
17
25
IE
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
A-41
-------
KITSAP COUNTY Planning Area VA (Page 2)
USGS
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
Vetland
Acres
Types Sec Tvn Rng
sssss
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
3333S33S3SS:
n
II
II
II
II
U
II
II
i
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
u
34
Poulsbo
34
5
1 13
25 IE
35
Poulsbo
35
8
1 22
25 IE
36
Poulsbo
36
6
5 22
25 IE
37
Poulsbo
37
10
2 21
25 IE
38
Poulsbo
38
3
2 16
25 IE
39
Poulsbo
39
1
1 19
25 IE
40
Poulsbo
40
30
4 25
25 IV
41
Poulsbo
41
8
1 25
25 IV
42
Poulsbo
42
31
4 26
25 IE
43
Poulsbo
43
5
1 26
25 IE
44
BrmrtonV
1
97
5 36
25 IV
45
BrmrtonV
2
10
2 36
25 IV
46
BrmrtonV
3
8
2 36
25 IV
47
BrmrtonV
4
2
1 31
25 IE
48
BrmrtonV
5
5
1 31
25- IE
49
BrmrtonV
6
7
1 31
25 IE
50
BrmrtonV
7'
3
1 31
25- IE
51
BrmrtonV
8
4
1 6
24 IE
52
BrmrtonV
9
10
1 5
24 IE
53
BrmrtonV
10
12
1 5
24 IE
54
BrmrtonV
11
3
1 4
24 IE
55
BrmrtonV
12
1
1 4
24 IE
56
BrmrtonV
13
2
1 5
24 IE
57
BrmrtonV
14
6
2 5
24 IE
58
BrmrtonV
15
3
1 5
24 IE
59
BrmrtonV
16
6
2 18
24 IE
60
BrmrtonV
17
1
1 18
24 IE
61
BrmrtonV
18
2
1 18
24 IE
62
BrmrtonV
19
1
1 18
24 IE
63
BrmrtonV
20
2
1 18
24 IE
64
BrmrtonV
21
6
2 13
24 IV
65
BrmrtonV
22
21
3 24
24 IV
66
BrmrtonV
23
45
2 20
24 IE
67
BrmrtonV
24
1
1 24.
24 IV
A-4 2
-------
E
$2
a
AUamvPt
n
Wide
' #
NORTH
Figure a-9. Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Silverdale Area
Kitsap County, Washington
1" = 10,000'
A-4 3
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 2
SILVERDALE Planning Area Kitsap County, WA
Number of Total
Section Township Range Wetlands Acreage
338338SS3SS
u
u
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
33S8S3S3SS3333
3
25
IE
4 46
4
25
IE
3 5
9
25
IE
3 62
10
25
IE
2 19
11
25
IE
3 67
13
25
IE
1 5
16
26
IE
1 2
17
25
IE
3 8
18
25
IE
1 35
20
26
IE
1 2
21
26
IE
1 9
22
25
IE
2 3
26
26
IE
3 14
27
26
IE
2 5
33
26
l'E
3 8
34
26
IE
1 2
35
26
IE
2 11
21
25
IE
1 10
16
25
IE
1 3
19
25
IE
1 1
25
25
1W
2 38
26
25
1W
1 31
26
25
IE
1 5
36
25
IE
3 115
31
25
IE
4 17
6
24
IE
1 4
4
24
IE
2 4
5
24
IE
5 33
18
24
IE
5 12
13
24
1W
1 6
24
24
1W
2 22
20
24
IE
1 45
A-4 4
-------
PIERCE COUNTY
o FAZ- 400
o PAZ 500
O FAZ 800
0 FAZ 2220
o FAZ 2920
-------
PIERCE COUNTY PLANNING AREAS -- WASHINGTON
N
u
m
h
e
r
o
f
W
e
t
1
a
ii
d
s
DIUERSITY
(within each
wet land)*
3 Types
2 Types
1 Type
* Diversity is
based on U.S.
Fish and Wildlife
Service wetland
classif ication
system.
400
500
800
2220
2920
FAZ Planning Areas
Figure A-10.
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT VA #2
PLANNING AREA FAZ 400 Pierce County
USGS
Quad
NO.
ID
33333
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types*
Sec
1
Spanaway
1
350 1
20
2
Spanaway
2
12.5 1
35
3
Spanaway
3
6 1
3
4
Fredrksn
1
22 1
25
5.
Fredrksn
2
7 2
1
6
Fredrksn
3
20 1
1
7
Fredrksn
4
12 1
.1
8
Fredrksn
5
3 1
3333
3333333333
ii
u
it
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
u
u
ii
u
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
II
II
U
II
u
u
ii
ii
ii
* Number of types refers to the diversity of vetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
A-4 6
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT VA *2
PLANNING AREA FAZ 500 Pierce County
USGS QUad
No.
ID Quad Wetland
Acres
Types*
Sec
33S33333333333333SS3 333S3
:33333333
========
¦333333
1 Puyallup 1
12
2
14
2 Fredrksn 1
30
1
29
3 Fredrksn 2
4
2
29
4 Fredrksn 3
3.5
1
23
5 Fredrksn 4
45
3
35
6 Fredrksn 5
60
2
4
Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
A-4 7
-------
r
»uosta
Figurea-ix Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Pierce County
Bonnie Lake (FAZ 800)
NORTH r = 3,500'
A-4 3
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 12
PLANNING AREA PAZ 800 Pierce County
USGS
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres
Types* Sec
3S3SS3SS383SSS3
3333333333
3333333:
3333333333333333
1
Sumner
1.
9
1 12
2
Sumner
2
13
1 12
3
Sumner
3
9
1 12
4
Sumner
4
4
1 17
5
Sumner
5
5
1 17
6
Sumner
6
19
1 20
7
Sumner
7
1
1 20
8
Sumner
8
10
2 29
9
Sumner
9
26
2 28
10
Sumner
10
3
1 6
11
Sumner
11
5
1 5
12
Sumner
12
7
1 5
13
Sumner
13
55
3 9
14
Sumner
14
1
1 33
15
Sumner
15
15
1 28-
16
Sumner
16
3
2 34
17
Sumner
17
6
1 4
18
Sumner
18
1
1 3
19
Sumner
19
4
1 3
20
Sumner
20
3
1 3
21
Sumner
21
7
1 35
22
Sumner
22
14
2 35
23
Buckley
1
16
2 24
24
Buckley
2
6
1 24
25
Buckley
3
10
1
sss
S3S333S3SSSS
33333=3333
3333333
It
4 Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
A-4 9
-------
KSh-ni
A/tdarwn
Point
JUaabtuli'?^
r?
Magnolia
Beach
Heights
ti 5a
"
' Roaciitfla
Pt Daico puV
TahIaqi^ ~ NqM Point
G'gUarbovf
il ! ! ¦ V\i "
Island
Cults
island
vigifca'. % . Point
' " Qafianem
Ruston
. h«W
HiU
Point
Evans
FigureA-12. Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Pierce County
Gig Harbor (FAZ 2220)
NORTH 1" = a.500'
A-50
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA #2
PLANNING AREA FAZ 2220 -- Pierce County, VA
USGS
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types*
Sec Tvn Rng
3SSS
ESS S3333SS S3
u
u
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
333333333333333
ii
u
u
u
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
1
Foxlslnd
1
4.5
2 2IN IE
2
Foxlslnd
2
3
3 21N IE
3
Foxlslnd
3
3
3 2 IN IE
4
Foxlslnd
4
4
3 21N IE
5
GigHarbr
6
5.5
30 22N 2E
6
GigHarbr
8
4
29 22N 2E
7
GigHarbr
9
1.5
28 22N 2E
8
GigHarbr
10
11
33 22N 2E
9
GigHarbr
11
4
33 22N 2E
10
GigHarbr
12
2
32 22N 2E
11
GigHarbr
13
2.5
5 21N 2E
12
GigHarbr
14
7
1 2IN IE
13
GigHarbr
15
9
1 21N IE
14
Olalla
16
15
21 22N 2E
15
Olalla
17
3
19 22N 2E
16
Olalla
18
4.5
18 22N 2E
17
Olalla
19
0.8
18 22N 2E
18
Olalla
20
58
16 22N 2E
19
Olalla
21
1.5
20 22N 2E
20
Olalla
22
4
13 22N 2E
21
Burley
22
1.5
13 22N 2E
22
Burley
23
1
13 22N 2E
23
Burley
24
1
13 22N IE
24
Burley
25
1.8
13 22N IE
25
Burley
26
1.5
13 22N IE
26
Burley
27
1
13 22N IE
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish
Wildlife Service.
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT VA 2
PAZ Planning Area 2220 Pierce County, WA
Number of Total
Section Township Range Wetlands Acreage
SSSS33SS
3SSSS
u
u
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
u
u
ii
ii
u
u
u
ii
u
II
u
u
II
II
u
II
u
II
II
2
21
IE
1 7
1
21
2E
1 2.5
2
21
IE
1 4.5
3
21
IE
2 6
5
22
2E
1 2
13
22
IE
4 5.3
13
22
2E
4 3
16
22
2E
1 1.8
18
22
2E
2 7.5
19
22
2E
1 15
20
22
2E
1 58
21
21
IE
1 9
28
22
2E
1 4
29
22
2E
1 5.5
30
21
IE
1 4
32
22
2E
1 4
33
22
2E
2 11.5
A-5 2
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA #2
PLANNING AREA FAZ 2920 Pierce County, VA
USGS
Quad
NO.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types*
Sec
u
ii
u
ii
ii
3S333333333
u
ii
u
u
II
II
II
II
II
333333333333333333
3333
1
Fredrksn
1
1 1
13
2
FcedrJcsn
2
5 2
13
3
Fredrksn
3
30 1
17
4
Fredrksn
4
5 2
20
5
Fredrksn
5
2.5 1
28
6
Fredrksn
6
2 1
28
7
Fredrksn
7
18 1
23
9
Fredrksn
8
4.5 2
23
9
Fredrksn
9
3 2
23
10
Fredrksn
10
3 2
23
11
Fredrksn
11
30 2
35
12
Fredrksn
12
2
35
13
Orting
1
5 1
13
14
Orting
2
1.5 *1
24
15
Orting
3
2 1
24
16
Orting
4
0.8 1
24
17
Orting-
5
0.3 1
30
1-8
Orting
6
1 1
25
19
Orting
7
25 1
2
33SS3
It
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
333333333
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
A-53
-------
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
o Census Tract 418.02
o Census Tract 420
o Census Tract 519.03
o Census Tract 519.04
o Census Tract 525
o Census Tract 527
o Census Tract 528.01
-------
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING AREAS
WASHINGTON
N
li
fit
h
e
r
o
f
U
e
t
1
a
VI
a
s
25 t
20
15
10
5
1-
418.02 420 519.03 519.04 525 527 528.01
DIUERSITY
(within each
wet land)*
~ 4 or more
HI 3 Types
H 2 Types
1 Type
* Diversity is
based on U.S.
Fish and Wildlife
Service wetland
class if ication
system.
Census Tragts
Figure A-13.
-------
FigureA-14. Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Paine Fieid (Census Tracts 418.02
and 420) Snohomish County, Washington
NORTH 1" = 8,500'
A-5 5
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT VA 12
CENSUS TRACT 418.02 Snohomish County, VA
USGS Quad Mo.
ID Quad Wetland Acres Types* Sec
33333S33SaS3S3S33S3S333SaS3SS335S33SS33SSS3SSSS3S
Everett (None)
1 Mukilteo 1 25 2 35
2 EdmondsE 2 2 1 34
3333333333333333333333333333333333333S33333333333
* Number o£ types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
A-56
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 12
CENSUS TRACT 420 Snohomish County, WA
USGS Quad No.
ID Quad Wetland Acres Types* Sec
3Sa333SS33S333SS33Sa3SSSS3S333a3383S3SaSSSaS33SS3S3'
MuJcilteo (None)
1 SdnondsE 38 1 34
Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
A-5 7
-------
FigureA-15. Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - North Creek (Census Tracts
519.03 and 519.04) Snohomish County, Washington
NORTH 1" 3 3,500'
A-5 8
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA #2
PLANNING AREA 519.03 Snohomish County
USGS Quad No.
ID Quad Wetland Acres Types Sec Twn Rng
33333333SS333S3333S33333SS3333S33SS33333333333333SS3S3S5
1 EdmondsE (None)
2 Bothe11 (None)
A-5 9
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 12
CENSUS TRACT 519.04 Snohomish County
USGS Quad No.
ID Quad Wetland Acres Types* Sec
S338SS3aSSSS8SSSSSS3S3SaSSSa833aS3SSS3S8S8388S333SS
1 Bothell 3 1 1 29
2 Bothell 4 1 1 27
3 Bothell 1 1 1 20
4 Mukilteo 12 3 1 35
5 Mukilteo 45 1 4 36
6 Mukilteo 120 4 4 25
7 Mukilteo 3 2 2 31
Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
A-60
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT VA #2
CENSUS TRACT 525 Snohomish County, VA
ID
USGS
Quad
Quad
Wetland
No.
Acres Types*
asssaasssssssssassasssssssssssassssssassa:
1 Everett
Snohomsh 1 4
Snohomsh 2 3
Snohomsh 3 2
Snohomsh 4 3
Snohomsh 5 4
Sec
25
25
36
6
12
333338388383833333333333333333383333383333333333333
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Pish and
Wildlife Service.
A-61
-------
WETLAND THREAT ASSESSMENT WA >2
CENSUS TRACT 527 Snohomish County, VA
USGS
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types*
Sec Tvn Rng
S8S
3532323333=3
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
H
ii
ii
ii
u
u
u
u
u
u
ii
u
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
u
1
Arlngtntf
0
(None)
2
ArlngtnE
1
2 1
25 3IN 5E
3
ArlngtnE
2
3.5 1
30 3IN 6E
4
ArlngtnE
3
16 1
36 3IN 5E
5
ArlngtnE
4
2.5 1
31 3IN 6E
6
ArlngtnE
5
4.5 1
31 3IN 6E
7
LkStevns
1
7 1
36 30N 5E
8
LkStevns
2
1 1
2 30N 5E
9
LkStevns
3
1 1
2 30N 5E
10
LkStevns
4
14 2
11 3 ON 5E
11
LkStevns
5
9 2
11 30N 5E
12
LkStevns
S
2 1
12 30N 5E
13
LkStevns
7
2 1
12 30N 5E
14
LkStevns
8
2.5 1
12 3ON 6E
15
LkStevns
9
2 1
12 30N 53
16
LkStevns
10
7 2
13 3 ON 5E
17
LkStevns
11
4 1
13 30N 5E
18
LkStevns
12
S 1
23 3ON 5E
19
LkStevns
13
323 4
25 30N 5E
20
LkStevns
14
1 1
29 30N 5E
21
LkStevns
15
2 1
29 30N 5E
22
LkStevns
16
1 1
1 29N 5E
23
LkStevns
17
2 1
1 29N 5E
24
LkStevns
18
2.5 1
11 29N 5E
25
MarysvlW
1
4 1
23 30N 5E
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
A-6 2
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 2
CENSUS TRACT 527 Snohomish County, VA
Number of Total
Section Township Range Wetlands Acreage
1
29N
ssssss
5E
2
n
ii
ii
ii
n
ii
u
CJ ||
2
30N
5E
2
2
11
29N
5E
. 1
2.5
11
3 ON
5E
2
13
12
30N
5E
2
4
12
30N
6E
2
4.5
13
30N
5E
2
13
23
3 ON
5E
2
10
25
30N
5E
1
323
25
3 IN
5E
1
2
29
30N
5E
2
3
30
3 IN
6E
1
3.5
31
3 IN
6E
2
7
36
3 ON
5E
1
7
36
3 IN
5E
1
16
A-63
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA #2
CENSUS TRACT 528.01 Snohomish County, VA
USGS Quad No.
ID Quad Wetland Acres Types* Sec
33333333333333333333333333333333333333338333333333
1 AxlngtnV (None)
2 MarysvlW 1 1.5 19
33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
A-64
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
APPENDIX B
OREGON WETLAND RESOURCE DATA BASE
- Wetland Resource Summary
- Wetland Diversity by Planning Area
- Wetland Data Sheets
- Maps and Matrix Showing Numbers and
Acreage of Wetlands by Section
-------
OREGON
-------
OREGON
0 Beaverton
0 Eugene
0 Gresham
a Hillsboro
0 Portland
a Multnomah County
a Washington County
0 The Dalles
0 Warrenton
-------
OREGON PLANNING AREAS
120
100
to
I
Number of
Wet lands
DIUERSITV
(within each
Met land)*
~ 4
or more
ill 3 Types
2 Types
1 Type
* Diversity is
based on U.S.
Fish and Wildlife
Service wetland
classif icat ion
system.
Beav Eug
rton ene
Gres Hi IsPortMltnMash The TrutWsco
ham boro landCnty Cnty Da Is da le Cnty
Figure B-l.
-------
i
MUUWmHk
§
lira
andm
art Farm
Airport
Bantfthg
Figure b-2 . Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Beaverton, Oregon
4t
NORTH 1" = 3,500'
B-2
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA j»2
BEAV5RT0N Planning Area OR
USGS
Quad
No.
10
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types*
Sec Tvn Rng
II
II
II
II
u
ii
3333339333
333333333
3333333333333333333
3333333333333
lis
Linnton
54
3 1
1 1
116
Linnton
55
4 1
1 1
124
Beavertn
1
74 4
1 1
131
Beavertn
8
26 3
20 1 1
132
Beavertn
9
5 2
29 1 1
133
Beavertn
10
4 1
28 1 1
134
Beavertn
11
1 1
28 1 1
135
Beavertn
12
3 2
22 1 1
136
Beavertn
13
6 2
22 1 1
137
Beavertn
14
2 1
22 1 1
138
Beavertn
15
21 2
22 1 1
139
Beavertn
16
3 1
23 1 1
140
Beavertn
17
4 1
23 1 1
141
Beavertn
18
3 1
23 1 1
145
Beavertn
22
13
27 1 1
146
Beavertn
23
3 1
27'1 1
147
Beavertn
24
12 1
28 1 1
148
Beavertn
25
8 1
27 1 1
149
Beavertn
26
3 1
27 1 1
150
Beavertn
27
2 1
27 1 1
158
Beavertn
35
17 1
29 1 1
159
Beavertn
36
11 1
33 1 1
number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA #2
BEAVERTON Planning Area OR
USGS
Quad
Number of
Total
Quad
Sec Tvn Rng
ID
Wetlands
Acreage
3S333S3SSS
ii
u
u
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
u
u
ii
ii
u
i>
ii
ii
u
u
ii
ii
ii
ai
1333333333
533333333
Beavertn
1 1
5
1
74
Beaveztn
22 1 1
11
2
11
Beaveztn
23 1 1
14
5
36
Beavertn
27 1 1
15
2
4
Beavertn
29 1 1
16
3
35
Beavertn
29 1 1
21
2
28
Beavertn
28 1 1
22
3
23
Beavertn
27 1 1
23
2
15
Linnton
1 1
53
2
7
-------
Figure b-3 . Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Eugene, Oregon
NORTH 1" = 3,500-
B-5
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA #2
EUGENE Planning Area OR
USGS
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
tfetland
Acres
Types* Sec Tvn Rng
ssssassssssssss
3333333333
S3SS3333
3SS3SS53333S3S3SSSS5S33
1
BugeneEs
1
29
2
EugeneEs
2
18
3
EugeneEs
3
8
1 17 4
4
EugeneEs
4
9
1 17 4
5
EugeneEs
5
16
2 17 3
6
BugeneEs
6
5
2 17 3
7
EugeneEs
7
70
2 17 4
8
EugeneEs
8
20
2 17 4
9
EugeneEs
9
30
2 17 4
10
EugeneEs
10
18
2 17 4
11
EugeneEs
11
18
1 17 4
12
BugeneEs
12
3
1 17 4
13
EugeneEs
13
4
14
BugeneEs
14
1 17 4
15
EugeneEs
15
13
16
Eugenetfs
1
3
1 15 17 4
i?
Eugenetfs
2
3
1' 16 17 4
18
Eugenetfs
3
18
1 16 17 4
19
Eugenetfs
4
4
1 16- 17 4
20
Eugenetfs
5
1 16 17 4
21
Eugenetfs
6
13
1 17 17 4
22
Eugenetfs
7
12
1 15 17 4
23
Eugenetfs
a
3
1 15 17 4
24
Eugenetfs
9
7
2 15 17 4
25
Eugenetfs
10
2
1 22 17 4
26
Eugenetfs
11
12
1 21 17 4
27
Eugenetfs
12
4
1 28 17 4
28
Eugenetfs
13
10
1 28 17 4
29
Eugenetfs
14
35
2 28 17 4
30
Eugenetfs
15
7
1 27 17 4
31
Eugenetfs
16
50
3 33 17 4
32
Eugenetfs
17
2
1 28 17 4
33
Eugenetfs
18
2
1 28 17 4
34
Eugenetfs
19
2
1 28 17 4
35
Eugenetfs
20
7
1 17 4
36
Eugenetfs
21
1
1 17 4
37
Eugenetfs
22
74
5 17 4
38
Eugenetfs
23
10
1 17 4
39
Eugenetfs
24
25
1 17 4
40
Eugenetfs
25
3
1 17 4
41
Eugenetfs
26
4
1 17 4
42
Eugenetfs
27
10
2 17 4
*
Number of types refers
to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Pish and
Wildlife Service.
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 12
EUGENE Planning Azea OR
USGS Quad Number of Total
Quad Sec Tvn Rng ID Wetlands Acreage
3S3SSSS33SSSS3SSS323S3S3SSSSSS3333S3SS333S3S3333
EugeneEs 17 3 17 2 21
EugeneEs 17 4 18 3 35
EugeneEs 17 4 19 2 100
EugeneEs 17 4 20 1 20
EugeneEs 17 4 21 1 18
EugeneEs 17 4 28 1 3
EugeneEs 17 4 29 1 13
EugeneEs 17 4 30 1 29
EugeneEs 17 4 33 2 9
EugeneEs 13 3 41 1 13
EugeneWs 16 17 4 10 '1 3
EugeneWs 15 17 4 11 2 6
EugeneWs 15 17 4 14 2 13
EugeneWs 16 17 4 15 3 20
Eugen'effs 17 17 4 16 1 13
EugeneWs 21 17 4 22 1 12
Eugeneffs 22 17 4 23 1 2
EugeneWs 17 4 25 5 43
EugeneWs 17 4 26 4 85
EugeneWs 33 17 4 27 7 118
-------
WETLAND THREAT ASSESSMENT WA #2
GRESHAM Planning Area OR
USGS
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types*
Sec Tvn Rng
u
ii
ii
ii
u
n
sssssssssa
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
u
u
S333S3333333333S3S3
3SS333SSSS3S
1
Damascus
1
2 1
1 3
2
Damascus
2
26 1
1 3
3
Damascus
3
5 1
1 3
4
Damascus
4
5 1
1 3
5
Damascus
5
4 1
1 3
6
Damascus
6
2 1
1 3
7
Damascus
7
8 1
1 3
119
Camas
9
3 1
1 3
120
Camas
10
55 1
1 3
121
Camas
11
143 5
1 3
122
Camas
12
10 1
1 3
125
Camas
15
30 2
1 3
157
Camas
47
30 1
1 3
158
Camas
48
2 1
1 3
159
Camas
49
2 1
160
Camas
50
9 1
1 3
161
Camas
51
3 1
162
Camas
52
3 1
163
Camas
53
2 1
164
Camas
54
1 1
165
Camas
55
4 1
5 1 3
166
Camas
56
5 1
5 1 3
167
Camas
57
2 1
5 1 3
168
Camas
58
36 4
1 3
169
Camas
59
15 2
1 3
170
Camas
60
4' 1
1 3
171
Camas
61
3 1
1 3
172
Camas
62
5 2
1 3
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
-------
WETLAND THREAT ASSESSMENT WA »2
GRESHAM Planning Area OR
USGS Quad Number of Total
Quad Sec Tvn Rng ID Wetlands Acreage
Camas 1 3 28 2 65
Camas 1 3 29 1 3
Camas 13 33 1 143
Camas 1 3 34 1 30
Camas 1 3 39 1 15
Camas 1 3 40 3 43
Camas 5 1 3 44 2 6
Camas 1 3 47 1 30
Camas 1 3 48 1 2
Camas 49 1 2
Camas 1 3 50 1 9
Camas 52 4 9
Camas 5 13 53 2 10
Damascus 13. 2 1 8
Damascus' 1 3 3 2 28
Damascus 13 4 3 14
Damascus 13 5 1 2
B-9
-------
Figure b-4. Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Hiilsboro, Oregon
NORTH 1" = 3,500-
B-10
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT VA >2
HILLSBORO Planning Area OR
Quad
Number of
Total
Basin
Tvn Rng
ID
Wetlands
Acreage
Hillsbco
1 2
31
3
50
Hillsbro
1 2
34
1
7
Hillsbco
1 2
39
2
61
Hillsbro
1 2
43
1
22
Hillsbro
1 2
44
1
8
Hillsbro
1 2
45
1
16
Hillsbro
1 2
50
1
50
Hillsbro
1 2
52
4
129
Hillsbro
1 2
54
1
13
Scholls
1 2
4
2
3
Scholls
1 2
6
1
7
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 12
HILLS80R0 Planning Area OS
USG3 Quad Mo.
ID Quad Wetland Acres Types* Sec Tvn Rng
3S33SSS88SS8SS3S883S8S3888388aS835388833S3S8aS3Sa938SSSS
1
Scholls
1
7 1
1 2
2
Scholls
2
2 1
1 2
3
Scholls
3
6 2
1 2
34
Hillsbro
34
7 1
1 2
41
Hlllsbro
41
35 4
1 2
45
Hillsbro
45
9 1
1 2
46
Hillsbro
46
52 1
1 2
47
Hillsbro
47
16 1
1 2
48
Hillsbro
48
74 3
1 2
49
Hillsbro
49
11 1
1 2
50
Hillsbro
50
12 2
1 2
51
Hillsbro
51
19 2
1 2
53
Hillsbro
53
8 1
1 2-
54
Hillsbro
54
13 1
1 2
57
Hillsbro
57
22 2
1 2"
59
Hillsbro
59
22 2
1 2
60
Hillsbro
60
8 2
1 2
61
Hillsbro
51
20 2
1 2
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
B-12
-------
WETLAND THREAT ASSESSMENT VA #2
PORTLAND Planning Area OR
USGS Quad No.
ID Quad Wetland Acres Types* Sec Twn Rng
Sa3338S8S333S333S3S3SSS3SS3SSSS838S3SSSS83S333838333SSSS
1
Damascus
1
3
1
1 2
2
Sauvie I
2
17
2 26
2 1
3
Sauvie I
3
120
2 26
2 1
4
Sauvie I
4
5
1 26
2 1
5
Sauvie I
5
30
3 26
2 1
6
Vancouvr
1
19
3 30
2 1
7
Vancouvr
2
35
1 30
2 1
8
Vancouvr
3
5
1 30
2 1
17
Linnton
1
5
2 26
2 1
18
Linnton
2
8*
1 26
2 1
19
Linnton
3
8
1 26
2 1
20
Linnton
4
2.5
1 26
2 1
21
Linnton
5
16
1 26
2 1
22
Linnton
6
22
2 26
2 1
23
Linnton
7
20
1 25
2 1
24
Linnton
3
17
2 25
2 1
25
Linnton
9
70
5 25
2 1
26
Linnton
10
5
1 25
2 1
27
Portland
1
1354
6 31
1 1
28
Portland
2
36
1 31
1 1
29
Portland
3
6
1 31
1 1
30
Portland
4
10
1
1 1
31
Portland
5
6
1
1 1
32
Portland
6
6
1
1 1
33
Portland
7
8
1
1 1
34
Portland
8
30
1
1 1
35
Portland
9
19
1
1 1
36
Portland
10
2
1
1. 1
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
B-13
-------
PORTLAND Planning Area OR (Page 2)
USGS
Quad
ID
Quad
Wetland
3SSS
8S3SSSSSSSSS
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
u
ii
37
Portland
11
38
Portland
12
39
Portland
13
40
Portland
14
41
Portland
15
42
Portland
16
43
Portland
17
44
Portland
18
45
Portland
19
46
Portland
20
54
Portland
28
55
Portland
29
56
Portland
30
57
Portland
31
58
Portland
32
59
Portland
33
60
Portland
34
61
Portland
35
62
Portland
36
63
Portland
37
64
Portland
38
65
Portland
39
66
Portland
40
67
Mt.Tabor
1
68
Mt.Tabor
2
69
Mt.Tabor
3
70
Mt.Tabor
4
71
Mt.Tabor
5
72
Mt.Tabor
6
73
Mt.Tabor
7
74
Mt.Tabor
8-
75
Mt.Tabor
9
76-
Mt.Tabor
10
77
Mt.Tabor
11
78
Mt.Tabor
12
78
Linnton
17
79
Mt.Tabor
13
30
Mt.Tabor
14
No.
Acres Types Sec Twn
3
1
5
1
10
1
30
2
55
1
15
1
16
1
8
1
20
1
8
1
5
1 34
6
1 11
1
1 11
2
1 11
3
1
2
1
6
1
5
1
47
3
6
1
90
2
1
4
1
4
1
6
2
10
2
2
1
2
1
13
1
4
5
1
4
1
2
1
3
10
1
5
1
4
1
1
1
A-1 4.
-------
PORTLAND Planning Area OR (Page 3)
(JSGS
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types*
Sec Tvn Sng
3SS3S
ii
ii
u
u
ii
u
ii
u
II
II
II
SSS3S3SSSSS
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
n
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
¦i
t*
u
u
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
u
II
II
II
II
II
84
Mt.Tabor
18
5 1
1 2
35
Mt.Tabor
19
45 3
1 2
86
Mt.Tabor
20
7 1
1 2
87
Mt.Tabor
21
3 1
1 2
88
Mt.Tabor
22
8 2
1 2
89
Llnnton
28
5 1
13 1 1
89
Mt.Tabor
23
3 1
1 2
90
Mt.Tabor
24
3 1
1 2
90
Linnton
29
9 1
13 1 1
91
Mt.Tabor
25
13 2
1 2
92
Mt.Tabor
26
2 1
1 2
93
Mt.Tabor
27
3 1
1 2
94
Mt.Tabor
28
8 1
1 2
95
Mt.Tabor
29
12 1
1 2
96
Mt.Tabor
30
6 1
1 2
97
Mt.Tabor
31
5 1
98
Mt.Tabor
32
3 1
1 2
110
Mt.Tabor
44
6 1
1 2
112
Camas
2
51 3
1 3
113
Camas
3
4 1
1 3
114
Camas
4
3 1
1 3
115
Camas
5
15 1
1 3
116
Camas
6
25 1
1 3
117
Camas
7
65 3
1 3
118
Camas
8
8 1
1 3
B-15
-------
WETLAND THREAT ASSESSMENT WA12
PORTLAND Planning Area OR
US GS
Quad Number of
Total
Quad
Sec Tvn Rng
ID Wetlands
Acreage
Camas
1 3
29 2
59
Camas
1 3
30 4
47
Camas
1 3
31 1
65
Damascus
1 2
6 1
3
Linnton
26 2 1
1 7
152.5
Linnton
26 2 1
2 3
21
Linnton
2 1
3 1
NA
Linnton
1 1
14 1
5
Linnton
13 1 1
24 2
14
Mt.Tabor
1 2
18 1
4
Mt.Tabor
1 2
19 2
16
Ht.Tabor
1 2
20 5
31
Mt.Tabor
1 2
21 8
31.
Mt.Tabor
1 2
22 2
10
Mt.Tabor
1 2
23 1
8
Mt.Tabor
1 2
25 1
5
Mt.Tabor
26 6
34-
Mt.Tabor
1 2
27 4.
64
Mt.Tabor
1 2
28 1
5
Mt.Tabor
1 2
29 1
2
Mt.Tabor
1 2
39 1
6
Portland
31 1 1
6 1
1354
Portland
31 1 1
7 3
52
Portland
1 1
8 4
50
Portland
1 1
9 9
108
Portland
1 1
10 3
66
Portland
1 1
13 4
58
Portland
11 1 1
14 2
3
Portland
1 1
16' 2
28
Portland
1 1
19 1
6
Portland
1 1
21 1
90
Portland
1 1
24 1
5
Portland
1 1
28 1
4
Portland
30 1
2
Sauvie I
26 2 1
47 2
137
Sauvie I
26 2 1
48 2
35
Vancouvr
30 2 1
53 1
5
Vancouvr
30 2 1
54 2
54
B-16
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT ~ WA $2
MULTNOMAH COUNTY Planning Area OR
USGS
Quad
NO.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types*
Sec Tvn Rng
=33:
1333333333333'
u
II
u
u
U
II
II
II
II
II
II
33333333333333333
333333333333
1
Sauvie I
1
80 5
26 2 1
2
Damascus
1
9 3
1 3
3
Damascus
2
4 1
1 3
10
Vancouvr
5
4 1
30 2 1
11
Vancouvr
6
2.5 1
30 2 1
12
Vancouvr
7
23 1
30 2 1
13
Vancouvr
8
8 1
30 2 1
14
Vancouvr
9
10 1
30 2 1
15
Vancouvr
10
3 1
30 2 1
16
Vancouvr
11
1 1
30 2 1
47
Portland
21
3 1
29 1 1
48
Portland
22
1 1
29 1 1
49
Portland
23
3 1
29 1 1
50-
Portland
24
2 1
29 1 1
51
Portland
25
3 1
29 1 1
52
Portland
26
6 1
29 1 1
53
Portland
27
80 4
35 1 1
62
Linnton
1
6 2
7 12
63
Linnton
2
1 1
36 2 2
64
Linnton
3
15 1
65
Linnton
4
6 2
68
Linnton
7
11 1
6 1 1
73
Linnton
12
9 1
8 1 1
74
Linnton
13
15 2
8 11
76
Linnton
15
9 1
9 1 1
77
Linnton
16
30 1
9 11
78
Linnton
17
3 1
85
Linnton
24;
29 1
16 1 1
86
Linnton
25
1 1
16 1 1
87
Linnton
26
2 1
16 1 1
88
Linnton
27
1 1
16 1 1
91
Linnton
30
8 1
16 1 1
92
Linnton
31
17 1
22 1 1
93
Linnton
46
10 4
26 1 1
94
Linnton
59
1 1
30 1 1
99
Mt.Tabor
33
3 1
100
Mt.Tabor
34
20 2
1 2
101
Mt.Tabor
35
14 1
1 2
102
Mt.Tabor
36
40 2
1 2
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
B-17
-------
MULTNOMAH COUNTY Planninq Area OR (Page 2)
USGS
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres
Types Sec Tvn Rng
ssssss
3333333333
3S3SS333S33
3333333
3333333333333333333333
103
Mt.Tabor
37
45
1 1 2
104
Mt.Tabor
38
10
1 1 2
105
Mt.Tabor
39
35
4 1 2
106
Mt.Tabor
40
40
2 12
107
Mt.Tabor
41
6
1 1 2
108
Mt.Tabor
42
36
2 12
109
Mt.Tabor
43
355
6 1 2
111
Camas
1
20
1 1 3
123
Camas
13
9
1 1 3
124
Camas
14
13
2 1 3
126
Camas
16
3
1 1 3
127
Camas
17
33
1 1 3
128
Camas
13
5
1 13
129
Camas
19
6
1 1 3
130
Camas
20
7
1 13
131
Camas
21
9
1 1 3
132
Camas
22
2
1 1 3
133
Camas
23
5
1 13
134
Camas
24
48
3 13
135
Camas
25
3
1 13
141
Camas
31
5
1 1 3
142
Camas
32
3
1 1 3
143
Camas
33
6
1 1 3
144
Camas
34
12
145
Camas
35
7
146
Camas
36
25
147
Camas
37
40
B-ia
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 12
MULTNOMAH COUNTY Planning Area OR
USGS
Quad
Number of
Total
Quad
Sec Tvn Rng
ID
Wetlands
Acreage
3S3SS833S5S
S33S33SS3S833SSaS
u
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
Camas
1 3
20
1
20
Camas
25
7
61
Camas
1 3
26
3
62
Camas
1 3
27
7
75
Camas
1 3
34
1
3
Camas
36
2
65-
Damascus
1 3
17
1
4
Damascus
1 3
18
1
9
Linnton
3
2
21
Linnton
7 1 2
7
2
7
Linnton
6 11
8
1
11
Linnton
14
1
3
Linnton
8 11
20
2
24
Linnton
9 11
21
4
69
Linnton
16 1 1
22
1
2
Linnton
22 1 1
27
3
26-
Linnton
26 1 1
38
1
10
Mt.Tabor
1 2
14
4
109
Mt.Tabor
1 2
15
1
20-
Mt.Tabor
16
1
3
Mt.Tabor
1 2
23
1
40
Mt.Tabor
1 2
24
4
432
Portland
29 1 1
4
5
15
Portland
29 1 1
5
1
3
Portland
35 1 1
11
1
80
Sauvie I
26 2 1
47
1
80
Vancouvr
30 2 1
52
1
23
Vancouvr
30 2 1
53
5
12.5
Vancouvr
30 2 1
54
2
18
B-19
-------
Figure b-s. Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Washington County, Oregon
NORTH 1" = 12,143'
B-20
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT ~ 9A #2
WASHINGTON COUNTY Planning Area OR
USGS
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types*
Sec Tvn Rng
333333
33333333333
333333333
3333333333333333
u
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
II
1
Hillsbro
1
8 1
2 2
2
Hillsbro
2
2 1
2 2
3
Hillsbro
3
7 1
2 2
4
Hillsbro
4
6 1
2 2
5
Hlllsbro
5
100 1
2 2
6
Hillsbro
6
5 1
2 2
7
Hillsbro
7
4 1
2 2
8
Hillsbro
8
5 1
2 2
9
Hillsbro
9
4 1
2 2
10
Hillsbro
10
52 2
2 1 2
11
Hillsbro
11
4 1
1 2
12
Hillsbro
12
63 4
1 2
13
Hillsbro
13
6 1
1 2
14
Hillsbro
14
3 1
1 2
15
Hillsbro
15
5 1
1- 2
16
Hillsbro
16
2 1
1 2
17
Hillsbro
17
2 1
1 2
18
Hillsbro
18
2 1
1 2
19
Hillsbro
19
3 1
1 2
20
Hillsbro
20
4 1
1 2
21
Hillsbro
21
105 3
1 2
22
Hillsbro
22
3 1
1 2
23
Hillsbro
23
7 1
1 2
24
Hillsbro
24
94 2
1 2
25
Hillsbro
25
50 3
1 2
26
Hillsbro
26
2 1
1 2
27
Hillsbro
27
5 1
1 2
28
Hillsbro
28
10 1
1 2
29
Hillsbro
29
3 1
1 2
30
Hillsbro
30
3 1
1 2
31
Hillsbro
31
6 1
1 2
32
Hillsbro
32
6 1
1 2
33
Hillsbro
33
2 1
1 2
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
B-21
-------
WASHINGTON COUNTY Planning Area -- OR (Page 2)
USGS
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres
Types Sec Tvn Rng
333S8S.
H
U
II
U
II
II
II
II
II
H
ii
u
u
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
u
u
ii
ii
ii
u
u
11
II
u
333333S333333SS33S3333
35
Hillsbro
35
39
2 1 2
36
Hillsbro
36
4
1 12
37
Hillsbro
37
11
2 1 2
38
Hillsbro
38
49
3 12
39
Hillsbro
39
30
2 1 2
40
Hillsbro
40
2
1 12
41
Hillsbro
52
2
1 1 2
42
Hillsbro
42
147
2 1 2
43
Hillsbro
43
27
2 12
44
Hillsbro
44
3
1 12
55
Hillsbro
55
38
3 1 2
56
Hillsbro
56
11
2 1 2
58
Hillsbro
58
10
2 12
69
Linnton
8
12
1 6 12
70
Linnton
9
25
2 7 11
71
Linnton
10
.5
1 7 11
72
Linnton
11
2
1 7 11
75
Linnton
14
3
1 7 11
79
Linnton
18
102
3 18 1 1
30
Linnton
19
2
1 18 1 1
81
Linnton
20
2
1 17 1 1
82
Linnton
21
2
1 17 1 1
83
Linnton
22
3
1 17 1 1
84
Linnton
23
10
1 17 1 1
93
Linnton
32
1
1 21 1 1
94
Linnton
33
3
1 21 1 1
95
Linnton
34
3
1 21 1 1
96
Linnton
35
3
1 21 1 1
97
Linnton
36
4
1 19 1 1
98
Linnton
37
25
1 11
99
Linnton
38
5
1 1 2
100
Linnton
39
2
1 1 1
101
Linnton
40
36
4 11
102
Linnton
41
8
1 11
103
Linnton
42
7
1 11
104
Linnton
43
6
1 1 1
105
Linnton
44
4
1 28 1 1
106-
Linnton
45
1
1 27 1 1
108
Linnton
47
23
1 34 1 1
109
Linnton
48
7
1 34 1 1
110
Linnton
49
4
1 1 1
111
Linnton
50
16
1 1 1
T3_ -) ->
-------
WASHINGTON COUNTY Planning Area OR (Page 3)
USGS
Quad
10
Quad
Vetland
3SS8
asssssssasss
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
112
Linnton
51
113
Linnton
52
114
Linnton
53
117
Linnton
56
118
Linnton
57
119
Linnton
58
121
Linnton
60
122
Linnton
61
123
Linnton
62
125
Beavertn
2
126
Beavertn
3
127
Beavertn
4
123
Beavertn
5
129
Beavertn
6
130
Beavertn
7
142
Beavertn
19
143
Beavertn
20
144
Beavertn
21
153
Beavertn
30
154
Beavertn
31
157
Beavertn
34
160
Beavertn
37
161
Beavertn
38
162
Beavertn
39
163
Beavertn
40
164
Beavertn
41
165
Beavertn
42
166
Beavertn
43
167
Beavertn
44
168
Beavertn
45
169
Beavertn
46
170
Beavertn
47
171
Beavertn
48
172
Beavertn
49
173
Beavertn
50
174
Beavertn
51
175
Beavertn
52
176
Beavertn
53
177
Beavertn
54
No.
Acres Types*
Sec Tvn
2
1
12
1
1
1
1
B-23
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA »2
WASHINGTON COUNTY Planning Area OR
USGS
Quad
Sec Tvn Rng
Quad Number of
10 Wetlands
Total
Acreage
3aSSa83SS35S3SSSSSSSSSS8338SS3S33S33S8S33SS8S3333SS8
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Beavertn
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro-
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
Hillsbro
19
33
5
15
16
12
18
15
16
20
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
7
12
13
24
25
28
30
39
40
42
44
45
46
53
2
4
5
5
7
3
13
18
19
21
22
24
25
27
29
30
35
36
37
42
47
48
B-24
-------
WASHINGTON COUNTY Planning Area -- OR (Page 2)
USGS
Quad
Number of
Total
Quad
Sec Tvn Sng
10
Wetlands
Acreage
35SSSSSSSS
S3SS::33SSS333S
33333333333333333!
ii
u
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
u
Hillsbro
1 2
53
2
13
Hillsbro
1 2
54
1
38
Linnton
6 1 2
18
2
37
Linnton
7 11
19
3
109
Linnton
7 11
20
5
Linnton
17 1 1
21
1
2
Linnton
21 1 1
28
22
Linnton
19 1 1
29
1
4
Linnton
1 2
30
2
30
Linnton
1 1
32
2
38
Linnton
28 1 1
33
2
7
Linnton
27 1 1
34
1
1
Linnton
34 1 1
39
1
23
Linnton
1 1
41
2
22
Linnton
1 1
42
3
22
Linnton
1 1
44
2
6
Linnton
1 1
45
7
Linnton
1 1
46
59
Linnton
1 1
48
1
2
Linnton
1 2
54
1
94
B-25
-------
WETLAND THREAT ASSESSMENT VA 12
THE DALLES Planning Area OR
USGS
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types*
Sec Twn Rng
33S38S3SSS3SSSSSSSSSSSSSS
ii
u
u
ii
ii
U
ii
u
ii
ii
u
ii
u
ii
u
a
u
ii
u
U
ii
ii
u
ii
M
ii
ii
aasss
19
DallsNth
19
12 2
2
12
20
DallsNth
20
3 2
2
12
21
OallsNth
21
5 1
2
12
22
DallsNth
22
10 1
2
12
25
DallsNth
25
2
12
26
DallsNth
26
2
12
28
DallsSth
1
1 1
2
13
29
DallsSth
2
5 1
2
13
30
DallsSth
3
1 1
2
13
31
DallsSth
4
4 1
2
13
32
DallsSth
5
3 1
2
13
33
DallsSth
6
2 1
2
13
34
DallsSth
7
3 1
2
13
35
DallsSth
8
12 2
2
13
36
DallsSth
9'
2
13
37
DallsSth
10
10 1
2
13
38
DallsSth
11
3 1
2
13
41
DallsSth
14
2
13
42
DallsSth
15
2
13
43
DallsSth
16
3 1
2
13
44
DallsSth
17
4 1
2
13
45
DallsSth-
18
1 1
2
13
46
DallsSth
19
1 1
2
13
47
DallsSth
20
1 1
2
13
48
DallsSth
21
1 1
2
13
49
DallsSth
22
1 1
2
13
50
DallsSth
23
2 1
2
13
51
DallsSth
24
1 1
2
13
52
DallsSth
25
1 1
2
13
53
DallsSth
26
2 1
2
13
54
DallsSth
27
1 1
2
13
55.
DallsSth
28
1 1
4 1
13
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Pish and
Wildlife Service.
B-26
-------
THE DALLES Planning Area OR (Page 2)
USGS
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types* Sec Tvn Rng
sss
ssaassssssssa
u
u
u
n
u
II
II
11
ISSSSS33SSSSS3SSS8SSSSSSS
ii
u
ii
u
u
u
u
II
56
DallsSth
29
3 1 4
1 13
56
DallsSth
31
6 13
1 13
59
DallsSth
32
1 1 3
1 13
60
DallsSth
33
4 1 3
1 13
61
DallsSth
34
4 2 3
1 13
62
DallsSth
35
7 2 3
1 13
63
DallsSth
36
2 2 3
1 13
64
DallsSth
37
5 2 2
1 13
65
DallsSth
38
2 12
1 13
66
DallsSth
39
2 12
1 13
67
DallsSth
40
3 1 2
1 13
68
DallsSth
41
4 1 2
1 13
69
DallsSth
42
5 2 2
1 13
70
DallsSth
43
12 2 2
1 13
71
DallsSth
44
2 1 1
1 13
72
DallsSth
45
2 1 2
1 13
73
DallsSth
46
5 2. 2
1 13
B-27
-------
^Soi . >-
Knappton
Grays o .
Point
Chinoo
Scarboro -
f*Ot'nfL
Sand Island
Chinook
Point
cGowan
Point
E/lice
2877 V14
Adams
Lighthouse
Tongue Neck
Astoria
Smith Point
3
101^
1-Coxoortjb'Hil
«(
Da
Point I ;
Clatsop
County Airport
1st And
Haven :
Island i
Glenwood
Carnahan
Figure B-e. Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Warrenton, Oregon
NORTH 1" = 8,500-
B-28
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA #2
WARRENTON --OR
Quad No.
ID
¦ Quad
Wet land
Acres
Types*
Sec.
Twn.
Rng.
1
Warr.
1
3
1
6
8N
10W
2
Warr .
2
146
7
7
8N
10W
3
Warr.
3
507
6
18
8N
10W
4
Warr .
4
287
3
17
8N
10W
5
Warr .
5
14
3
16
8N
10W
6
Warr .
6
282
4
19
8N
10W
7
Warr .
7
336
6
20
8N
10W
8
Warr .
8
217
3
21
8N
10W
9
Warr.
9
8
2
22
8N
low
10
Warr .
10
58
3
30
8N
10W
11
Warr .
11
272
4
29
8N
low
12
Warr .
12
631
4
28
8N
10W
13
Warr .
13
428
5
27
8N
low
14
Warr .
14
158
5
26
8N
low
15
Warr .
15
175
3
32
8N
low
16
Warr .
16
458
5
33
8N
low
17
Warr.
17
333
4
34
8N
low
18
Warr .
18
301
6
35
8N
10W
19
Warr.
19
205
4
36
8N
low
20
Warr .
20
127
2
41
8N
low
21
Warr .
21
264
4
40
8N
low
22
Warr .
22
256
5
39
8N
low
23
Warr .
23
311
4
38
8N
low
24
Warr .
24
268
3
37
8N
low
25
Warr.
25
208
3
45
8N
10W
26
Warr .
26
328
4
46
8N
10W
27
Warr .
27
110
3
47
8N
low
28
Warr .
28
38
3
48
8N
low
29
Warr.
29
30
2
52
8N
10W
30
Warr .
30
219
3
51
8N
low
31
Warr .
31
47
3
50
8N
low
32
Warr .
32
101
4
49
8N
10W
Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish arid
Wildlife Service.
B-29
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
APPENDIX C
IDAHO WETLAND RESOURCE DATA BASE
- Wetland Resource Summary
- Wetland Diversity by Planning Area
- Wetland Data Sheets
- Maps and Matix Showing Numbers and
Acreage of Wetlands by Section
-------
IDAHO
-------
IDAHO
o Boise
o Kootenai County
o Teton Valley
-------
IDAHO PLANNING AREAS
140
0
1
Number of
Wet lands
"i I : ' i
Bo i se
Kootena i
County
Teton
Ua1 ley
DIUERSITY
(within each
wet land )*
~ 4 or More
ill 3 Types
m 2 Types
1 Type
* Divers ity is
based on U.S.
F ish and Wildlife
Service wetland
c lass if ication
system
Figure C-l.
-------
wtrse
E*2|Ui3
Usdck1~-
Curle*
' ~! th'Usnnn
4-rfi
\ V~ -1-
-«^o^lXSH2' I '*
Towers
UNtOfy
Figure c-2. Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Boise Idaho
NORTH 1" = 3,500'
C-2
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT VA 12
BOISE Planning Azea 10
USGS
Quad
No.
10
Quad
Vetland
Acres
Types Sec Tvn Rng
33S
SSS3SSSSSSSS
u
u
ii
u
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
u
ssassssss
:SS3SSSSSSS33853SSS3
33SS
1
Clvrdale
1
l
1 2 3
1
2
Boise
So
1
17
1 4 3
2
3
Boise
So
2
13
1 9 3
2
4
Boise
So
3
1
1 9 3
2
5
Boise
So
4
2
1 9 3
2
6
Boise
So
5
2
1 9 3
2
7
Boise
So
6
6
1 9 3
2
8
Boise
So
7
4
1 14 3
2
9
Boise
So
8
1 14 3
2
10
Boise
So
9
1
1 14 3
2
11
Boise
So
10
10
1 14 3
2
12
Boise
So
11
5
1 13 3
2
13
Boise
So
12
2
1 13 3
2
14
Boise
So
13
2
1 24 3
2
15
Boise
So
14
3
1 ,24 3
2
16
Boise
So
15
2
1 25 3
2
17
Boise
So
-16
6
1 23 3
2
18
Boise
So
17
4
1 23 3
2
19
Boise
So
18
1
1 23 3
2
20
Boise
So
19
1
1 26 3
2
21
Boise
So
20
3
1 20 3
2
22
Boise
So
21
3
1 20 3
2
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
C-3
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 2
BOISE Planning Acea ~ ID
Number of Total
Section Township Range Wetlands Acreage
3S8S3338SSSS3S3833S3S33S83SS3S33S333SS33S33S:
2 3 111-
4 3 2 1 17
9 3 2 5 24
13 3 2 2 7
14 3 2 4 23
20 3 2 2 6
23 3 2 3 11
24 3 2 2 5
25 3 2 1 2
26 3 2 1 1
C-4
-------
3
£L
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA »2
KOOTENAI COUNTY Planning Area ID
USGS
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types*
Sec Tvn Rng
3333
333333333333
3333333333
33333333333333333
333333
u
u
u
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
u
ii
ii
1
HaydenLJc
1
8
52 3
2
HaydenLJc
2
1 1
8
52 3
3
HaydenLJc
3
2 1
3
52 3
4
HaydenLk
4
5 1
8
52 3
5
HaydenLk
5
8 2
8
52 3
6
HaydenLk
6
5 2
17
52 3
7
HaydenLk
7
3 1
17
52 3
8
HaydenLk
8
10 2
17
52 3
9
HaydenLk
9
3 1
17
52 3
10
HaydenLk
10
7 1
17
52 3
11
HaydenLk
11
L0 1
8
52 3
12
HaydenLk
12
2 1
8
52 3
13
HaydenLk
13
3 i
17
52 3
14
HaydenLk
14
2 1
7
52 .3
15
HaydenLk
15
10 2
7
52 3
16
HaydenLk
16
52 2
20
52 3
17
HaydenLk
17
2 1
19
52 3
18
HaydenLk
18
19
52 3
19
HaydenLk
19.
1 1
20
52 3
20
HaydenLk
20
1 1
20
52 3
21
HaydenLk
21
1 1
20
52 3
22
HaydenLk
22
1 1
30
52 3
23.
HaydenLk
23
1 1
29
52 3
24
HaydenLk
24
22 3
29
52 3
25
HaydenLk
25
2 1
30
52 3
26
HaydenLk
26
1 1
30
52 3
27
HaydenLk
27
1 1
30
52 3
28
HaydenLk
28
5 1
29
52 3
29
HaydenLk
29
1 1
29:
52. 3
30
HaydenLk
30
4 2
29
52 3
31
HaydenLk
31
3 1
30
52 3
32
HaydenLk
32
37 1
32
52 3
33
HaydenLk
33
3 1
32
52 3
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
-------
KOOTENAI COUNTY Planning Area ~ ID (Page 2)
(JSGS
Quad
No.
D
Quad
Wetland
Acres
Types Sec Tvn
33:
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
¦I
1333333333
u
II
II
u
II
II
II
II
II
u
u
ii
ii
ii
u
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
===
34
HaydenLk
34
1
1 32
52
35
HaydenLk
35
66
3 32
52
36
HaydenLJc
36
2
1 32
52
37
HaydenLJc
37
3
1 6
51
38
HaydenLk
38
2
1 6
51
39
HaydenLk
39
1
1 5
51
40
HaydenLk
40
7
1 5
51
41
HaydenLk
41
1 5
51
42
HaydenLk
42
1
1 32
52
43
HaydenLk
43
1
1 32
52
44
HaydenLk
44
1
1 8
51
45
HaydenLk
45
3
1 7
51
46
HaydenLk
46
1
1 8
51
47
HaydenLk
47
1
1 8
51
48
Hayden
1
2
1 19
52
49
Hayden
2
1 19'
52
50
Hayden
3
12
5 25
52
51
Hayden
4
3
1 30
52
52
Hayden
5
135
5 30
52
53
Hayden
6
44
4 31
52
54
Hayden
7
1
1 36
52
55
Hayden
3
3 36
52
56
Hayden
9
3
2 6
51
57
Hayden
10
1
1 6
51
58
Hayden
11
11
3 1
51
59
Hayden
12
3
1 1
51
60
Hayden
13
4
1 1
51
61
Hayden
14
3
1 6
51
62
Hayden
15
29-
1 6
51
63
Hayden
16
2
1 6
51
64
Hayden
17
1
1 6
51
65
Hayden
18
2
1 7
51
66
Hayden
19
13
2 12
51
67
Hayden
20
1 19
51
68
CoeurOln
1
20
4 30
51
69
CoeucOln
2
27
1 7
50
70
CoeuzOln
3
3
1 8
50
71
CoeurOln
4
12
3 9
50
72
CoeurOln
5
3
2 9
50
73
CoeurOln
6
23
2 8
50
74
CoeurOln
7
2
1 8
50
75
CoeurOln
8
3
1 9
50
76
CoeurDln
9
1
1 9
50
77
CoeurOln
10
2
1 9
50
78
CoeurDln
11
3
1 9
50
C-7
-------
KOOTENAI COUNTY Planning Area ID (Page 3)
USGS
Quad
Ho.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres Types*
Sec Tvn Rng
=====
===========
u
u
u
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
ii
u
11
II
5355333
ii
ii
ii
ii
n
ii
n
79
CoeurDln
12
3 1
9
50 4
80
CoeurOln
13
2 1
9
50 4
81
CoeurDln
14
4 2
10
50 4
32
CoeurDln
15
4 2
10
50 4
83
CoeurDln
16
4 3
10
50 4
84
CoeurDln
17
10
50 4
85
CoeurDln
18
56 5
15
50 4
86
CoeurDln
19
11 2
16
50 4
87
CoeurDln
20
2 1
16
50 4
88
CoeurDln
21
1 1
15
50 4
89
CoeurDln
22
1 1
17
50 4
90
CoeurDln
23
1 1
20
50 4
91
CoeurDln
24
1 1
20
50 4
92
CoeurDln
25
1 1
20
50 4
93
CoeurDln
26
10 2
21
50 4
94
CoeurDln
27
6 1
22
50 4
95.
CoeurDln
28
3 1
15
50 4
96
CoeurDln
29'
167 3
21
50 4
97
CoeurDln
30
52 1
28
50 4
98
CoeurDln
31
42 2
29
50 4
99
CoeurDln
32
7 2
5
49 4
100
CoeurDln
33
16 1
32
50 4
101
CoeurDln
34
1 1
33
50 4
102
CoeurDln
35
1 1
33
50 4
103
CoeurDln
36
1 1
33
50 4
104
CoeurDln
37
1 1
34
49 4
105
CoeurDln
38
2 1
34
49 4
106
CoeurDln
39
1 1
34
49 4
107
CoeurDln
40
3 1
34
49 4
108
CoeurDln
41
1 1
34
49 4
109
CoeurDln
42
1 1
34
50 4
110
CoeurDln
43
13 1
34
50 4
111
CoeurDln
44
1 1
27
50 4
112
CoeurDln
45
1 1
34
50 4
C-8
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 2
KOOTENAI COUNTY Planning Area ~ ID
Number of Total
Section Township Range Wetlands Acreage
1 51 4 3 18
5 50 4 1 7
5 51 3 3 14
6 51 3 8 44
7 50 3 1 27
7 51 3 2 5
7 52 3 2 12
3 50 4 3 29
8 51 3 3 3
8 52 3 7 29
9 50 4 8 29
10 50 4- 4 15
12 51 4 1 13
15 50 4 3 60
IS 50 4 2 13
17 50 4 1 1
17 52 3 6 33
19 51 3' 2 26
19 52 3 4 9
20 50 4 3 3
20 52 3 4 55
21 50 4 2 177
22 50 4 1 6
25 52 4 1 12
27 50 4 1 1
28 50 4 1 52
29 50 4 1 42
29 52 3 5 33
30 52 3 7 146
31 52 3 1 44
32 49 4 1 16
32 52 3 7 111
33 49 4 8 11
34 50 4 3 15
36 52 4 2 9
C-9
-------
sf
C'««*
«
T LH
m
TTTT
Figure c-4 . Number and Acreage of Wetlands
by Section - Teton Valley, Idaho
NORTH 1" = 12,143
C-10
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA It
TETON VALLEY , ID
Quad No. *
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres
Types Sec
Twn
Rng
1
Tetonia
1
4
2 1
6N
44E
2
Tetonia
2
28
3 1
6N
44E
3
Tetonia
3
8
1 1
6N
44E
4
Tetonia
4
1
1 1
6N
44E
5
Tetonia
5
4
1 7
6N
45E
S
Tetonia
6
2
1 9
6N
45E
7
Tetonia
7
6
1 10
6N
45E
3
Tetonia
8
10
4 9
6N
45E
9
Tetonia
9
27
1 14
6N
44E
10
Tetonia
10
1
1 17
6N
45E
11
Tetonia
11
20
1 15
6N
45E
12
Tetonia
12
330
2 23
6N
44E
13
Tetonia
13
1
1 23
6N
44E
14
Tetonia
1-4
55
2 24
6N
44E
15
Tetonia
15
109
1 19
6N
45E
IS
Tetonia
16
65
2 22
6N
45E
17
Tetonia
17
356
5 26
6N
44E
18
Tetonia
18
2
1 26.
6N
44E
i9
Tetonia
19
279
3 25
6N
44E
20
Tetonia
20
4
1 30
6N
45E
21
Tetonia
21
27
1 30
6N
45E
22
Tetonia
22
273
4 30
SN
45E
23
Tetonia
23
160
4 27
SN
45E
24
Tetonia
24
313
3 35
6N
44E
25
Tetonia
25
570
2 36
6N
44E
25
Tetonia
26
361
3 31
SN
45E
27
Tetonia
27
205
3 32
SN
45E
23
Tetonia
28
11
1 32
SN
45E
29
Tetonia
29
22
1 33
6N
45E
30
Tetonia
30
3
1 33
SN
45E
31
Tetonia
31
8
1 33
6N
45E
32
Tetonia
32
28
2 33
SN
45E
33
Tetonia
33
33
1 33
SN
45E
SSS5
!S33S5SS333SS
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
33333333
II
II
II
II
II
U
II
II
II
II
II
u
II
II
II
= 333
-J52
* Number of types refers to the diversity of wetland
characteristics, as classified by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
C-ll
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT VA 12 (Page 2)
TETON VALLEY , ID
Quad
ID
Quad
Vetland
34
Tetonia
34
35
Tetonia
35
36
Tetonia
36
37
Tetonia
37
38
Tetonia
38
39
Tetonia
39
40
Tetonia
40
41
Tetonia
41
42
Tetonia
42
43
Tetonia
43
45
Tetonia
45
46
Tetonia
46
47
Tetonia
47
48
Tetonia
48
49
Tetonia
49
50
Tetonia
50
51
Tetonia
51
52
Tetonia
52
53
Tetonia
53
54
Tetonia
54
55
Tetonia
55
56
Tetonia
56
57
Tetonia
57
58
Tetonia
58
59
. Tetonia
59
50
Tetonia'
60
51
Tetonia
61
62
Tetonia
62
63
Tetonia
63
64
Tetonia
64
55
Tetonia
65
56
Tetonia
66
57
Bates
1
68
Sates
2
59
Bates
3
70
Bates
4
71
Bates
5
72
Bates
6
73
Bates
7
74-
Bates
8
75
Bates
9
76
Bates
10
77
Bates
11
No.
Types Sec Twn Rng
34 6N 45E
34 6N 45E
2 5N 44E
1 5N 44E
6 5N 45E
4 5N 45E
4 5N 45E
4 5N 4SE
4 5N 45E
4 5N 45E
7 5N 45E
8 5N 45E
8 5N 45E
8 5N 45E
9 5N 45E
9 5N 45E
9 5N 45E
9 5N 45E
10 5N 45E
13 5N 44E
18 5N 45E
17 5N 45E
17 5N 45E
16 5N 45E
15 5N 45E
24 5N 44E
19 5N 45E
19 5N 45E
19 5N 45E
20 5N 45E
21 5N 45E
22 5N 45E
24 5N 44E
24 5N 44E
24 5N 44E
19 5N 45E
20 5N 45E
21 5N 45E
22 5N 45E
25 5N 44E
30 5N 45E
29 5N 45E
28 5N 45E
Acres
11
120
9
555
38
21
15
12
6
24
267
7
30
237
12
84
46
26
177
218
286
62
51
433
400
10
20
18
6
73
46
73
30
5
3
335
260
307
323
9
488
555
622
C-12
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT ~ WA U (Page 3)
TETON VALLEY , ID
Quad No.
ID
Quad
Vetland
Acres Types
Sec
Tvn
Rng
u
ii
u
u
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
=========
:883S3S3333SaSS33SS5
ssss:
:= ===
== ===
78
Bates
12
519 2
27
5N
45E
79
Bates
13
161 5
31
5N
45E
80
Bates
14
10 1
31
5N
45E
81
Bates
15
5 1
31
5N
45E
82
Bates
16
530 3
' 32
5N
45E
83
Bates
17
624 4
33
5N
45E
84
Bates
18
485 4
34
5N
45E
85
Bates
19
312 3
5
5N
45E
86
Bates
20
615 3
4
5N
45E
87
Bates
21
486 3
3
5N
45E
88
Bates
22
6 1
8
5N
45E
89
Bates
23
3 1
8
5N
45S
90
Bates
24
145 3
8
5N
45E
91
Bates
25
630 6
9
5N
45E
92
Bates
26"
482 3
10
5N
45E
93
Bates
27
9 1
14
-5N
44E
94
Bates
28'
6 1
14
5N
4 4E
95
Bates
29
15 1
13
5N
44E
96
Bates
30
11 1
17
5N
45E
97
Bates
31
267 3
17
5N
45E
98
Bates
32
640 3
16
5N
45E
99
Bates
33
108 4
15
5N
45E
100
Bates
34
493 4
20
5N
45E
101
Bates
35
6 2
20
5N
45E
102
Bates
36
640 4
21
5N
45E
103
Bates
37
433 4
22
5N
45E
104
Bates
38
32 3
30
5N
45E
105
Bates
39
592 4
29
5N
45E
106
Bates
40
637 4
28
5N
45E
107
Bates
41
324 3
27
5N
45E
108
Bates
42
23 2
35
5N
44E
109'
Bates
43
1 1
31
5N
45E
110
Bates
44
405 4
32
5N
45E
111
Bates
45
462 5
33
5N
45E
112
Bates
46
298 3
34
5N
45E
11-3
Driggs
1
83 1
22
5N
45E
114
Driggs
2
119 1
23
5N
45E
115
Driggs
3
151 1
27
5N
45E
116
Driggs
4
161 1
26
5N
45E
117
Driggs
5
19 1
30
5N
45E
118
Driggs
6
145 3
34
5N
45E
119
Driggs
7
206 2
35
5N
45E
120
Driggs
8
6 1
35
5N
45E
C-13
-------
WETLANDS THREAT ASSESSMENT WA 12 (Page 4)
TETON VALLEY , ID
Quad
No.
ID
Quad
Wetland
Acres
Types
Sec
Twn
Rng
======
u
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
ii
u
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
ii
ii
M
U
II
II
U
II
ii
H
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
sssss
SSSSS
121
Driggs
9
10
2
36
5N
45E
122
Driggs
10
120
4
3
4N
45E
123
Driggs
11
222
3
2
4N
45E
124
Driggs
12
179
4
10
4N
45E
125
Driggs
13
5
3
17
4N
45E
126
Driggs
14
4Q
2
22
4N
45E
127
Driggs
15
9
2
27
4N
45E
C-14
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF WETLAND RESOURCES
IN 31 SUBAREAS
-------
Table 0-1. Summary of Wetland Resources in 31 Subareas.
Number of Total Average >= <= Average
Planning Area Wetlands teisass SlZfi 1Q Afi. 1 AC. Diversity*
WASHINGTON
King County
Bear Creek
83
1/055
12.7
32
14
1.83
East Sawwwn'i fih
86
1,325
15.4
22
7
1.91
Federal Way
83
1/432
17.3
22
3
1.89
Green River
1
6
6.0
0
0
1.00
City of Sent
7
127
18.1
4
1
1.14
Newcastle
19
373
19.6
9
3
1.95
North Shore
32
262
8.2
6
11
1.53
Sncqualmie
167
3,553
21.2
81
6
2.02
Soos Creek
87
1,563
18.0
29
23
1.85
Pierce County
EAZ 400
8
433
54.1
5
0
1.10
FAZ 500
8
155
25.8
4
0
1.83
EAZ 800
25
252
10.0
9
3
1.28
FAZ 2220
25
152*
6.1
3
4
1.28
EAZ 2920
19
142
7.5
4
4
1.36
¦mhranish CountV
418.02
2
27
13*5
1
1
1.50
420
1
38
38.0
1
0
NA
519.04:
7
13
1.9
0
4
2.00
525
5
16
3.2
0
0
1.20
527
24
422
17.6
3
4
1.25
528.01
1
2
2.0
0
0
1.00
Kitsao County
Silverdale
66
650
9.9
14
3
1.51
CRBGON
Beaverton
22
233
10.6
7
1
1.43
The Dalles
49
174-
3.6
5
14
1.2
Eugene
42
597
14.2
20
1
1.41
Gresham
23
408
17.7
8
0
1.44
Hillsboro
20
492
24.6
12
0
1.65
Multnomah County
58
1,125-
21.6
22
5
1.45
Portland
104
2,687
26.9
34
3
1.34
Washington County
114
1,422
13.1
31
7
1.34
IDAHO
Boise
22
97
4.4
3
5
1.00
Kootenai County
112
1,117
10.1
25
36
1.43
Teton Valley
126
21,893
174.0
98
1
2.19
~Average diversity of wetlands is the average number of Fish and Wildlife
Services wetland classifications per site.
D-l
-------
APPENDIX E
-------
APPENDIX E
CONTACT LIST
-------
Contact List
Priority Wetlands Threat Analysis
1. Washington (Area Code 206)
a. Interagency Committee for Outdoor
Recreation - Lorinda Anderson 753-7140
b. State Department of Community Planning
Greg Dorn - Technical Assistance Group 586-1238
c. OFM - Theresa Lowe, State Demographer 586-2804
d. PSWQA - Naki Stevens 464-7320
e. Department of Ecology
Bill Alkire 459-6794
Sue Mauerman - Manager of
"Adequacy of Local Regulations" Study 459-6790
Jamie Hartley - Manager of
"Preservation/Acquisition" study 459-6766
f. King County
Dyanne Sheldon - Wetland Specialist 344-5286
Bill Echol - Basin Planning Prog. Mgr. 344-2544
Eric Stockdale - Basin Planning. Prog. Mgr. 344-2544
Rich Horner - UW Resource Planning, Puget
Sound Wetlands Research Project Director
(Stormwater focus)
g. Snohomish County
Tom Murdock - Wetland Program Coordinator,
Pubic Works 259-0670
h. Pierce County Planning.
Doc Hanson, Director 591-3661
Mike Cooley, Senior Planner 591-7233
E-l
-------
Kitsap County
Commissioners: Ray Aardal, Chairman
B ill Mahan
John Horsely
876-7146
(Meeting day, Monday)
614 Division Street
Port Orchard
1'
k.
1.
m.
Planning Department: Ron Perkerewicz,
Planning Director
City of Auburn - Gregg Pewins
City of Redmond - Judd Black
City of Marysville - John Garden,
City Administrator
876-7181
931-3090
882-6426
659-8477
n,
o.
City of Kent
Mary Duty - Planner 85 9-3390
Lynn Ball - SEPA Coordinator 859-3390
City of Tukwila - Rick Beller, Planning Dir. 433-1845
City of Gig Harbor - Pete Friedman 861-8136
2. Oregon (Area Code 503)
a. Division of Lands - Ken Bierly 378-3805
b. State Parks - A1 Cook (SCORP) 378-6305
c. Department of Land Conservation and Development
Jim Hinman, Urban. Planning Analyst
Patty Snow - works with Jim 3.
Jim Sitzman - Portland Metro
Bob Rindy - Mid-Willamette (Eugene)
Glen Hale, So. Coast
Mel Lucas, So. Central (inc. Medford)
Brent Lake - Central and Eastern
373-0088
229-6068
337-0067
265-8869
776-6084
388-6424
E-2
-------
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
1.
j.
k.
1.
m.
n.
o.
Gail McEwan - North Coast
Bob Cartwright - Coastal Policy Analyst
Tillamook County - Vic Affolter - Director
of Community Development
37 8-2332
373-0084
Multnomah County
Washington County
Ron Schaadt - Planning
Mark Brown - Planning
Sunset Corridor Association
Bettery Atterberry, Exec. Director
842-3408
248-3511
640-3519 or 640-2342
690-3519 or 645-4489
224-4100
(2nd priority) 1-5 Corridor Association
Mark Bennett
(2nd priority) Tualatin Valley EDO
Paul Phillips 626-405.0
Lane County COG - Steve Gordon 687-4283
Portland Metro 221-16 46
Don Oswalt - working with Portland on
their wetlands
Dick Bollen
Portland - Duncan Brown 796-77 00
City of Warrenton 861-2233
Nels Linderholm - City Engineer & Planner
Gresham 669-2428
Multnomah County 248-3511
Hillsboro 681-6153
Beaverton 526-2415
Eugene 687-5481
E-3
-------
3. Idaho (Area Code 208)
a. State Department of Commerce
Richard Twight 344-2470
b. Department of Parks and Recreation
John Baines - SCORP 753-7140
c. Department of Fish and Game
Tracy Trent, Bureau of Program Coord. 334-3180
Gary Will - Mgr. Gamebirds & Waterfowl 334-3180
d. Ada County 345-5274
e. Kootenai County - Sandy Cobb, Land Planner 769-4400
f. Teton County - Wayne Schiess, County Clerk 354-2905
g. Boise - Sheldon Gerber, City Planner 384-4366
h. Coeur d'Alene - Dave Yadon, Planning Dir. 667-9533
E-4
-------
APPENDIX F
-------
APPENDIX F
THREAT ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
THREAT SUMMARY SHEETS
-------
Wetlands Vulnerability/Threat Assessment
Checklist
1. Inventory of Potentially Applicable Local Programs
A. Do zoning regulations address wetlands?
1. Wetland zoning?
2. Floodplain zoning?
3. Other (open space or conservation zoning)?
B. Are- there special wetland ordinances?
C. Do subdivision regulations address wetlands?
D. Are wetlands addressed in comprenensive land use plans
(or subarea plans)?
E. Do grading regulations address wetlands?
F-l
-------
Existing Programs
2. Description of Existing Programs
A. Program name
B. Statutory authority (cite code or ordinance)
C. Administering agency
D. Types of activities regulated
E. Types of activities and applicants exempted
F. Types of wetlands regulated (e.g., coastal, inland,
floodplain)
1. Statutory definition of wetland regulated
2. Wetland mapping and boundary determination
procedures
3. Types of wetlands exempted (e.g., small acreages)
G. Program administration
1. Contents of permit applications
2. Standards for granting/denying permits
3. Conditioning of permits
4. Variance procedures
H. Monitoring provisions
I. Enforcement provisions
1. Penalties and injunctions
2. Correction of violations
F-2
-------
Existing Programs
Evaluation of Existing Programs
A. Name of Program
B. Comprehensive of regulation
1. Types of wetlands not regulated
2. Types of activities or applicants not regulated
C. Adequacy of penalties
1. Are sanctions sufficiently severe?
2. Can agency correct violations and charge owner?
D. Frequency of agency approval of wetlands development
(i.e., frequency of permit approvals or variances)
E. Adequacy of wetlan.ds mapping for regulatory purposes
(e.g.,- features, scale, and accuracy)
F. Adequacy of staffing and funding
1. For program administration (e.g., mapping, permit
process)
2. For monitoring and enforcement (identify annual
number of enforcement proceedings, if possible)
G. Staff expertise
Proposed Programs
Description and Evaluation of Proposed Programs
A. Describe proposed programs (Use same general format as
for Existing Programs)
B. Apply evaluation criteria to proposed programs
(comprehensiveness of program and adequacy of penalties
only)
C. Describe probability and timing of implementation
------- |