Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272171(10) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX -3755 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124 2255 PLANNING DIVISION REPLY TO CITY OF IRENTON ATTENTION OF Regulatory Branch MAR 3 01992 APR 21992 RECEIVED Mary Lynne Myer City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 References: 91-4-00095,-96,-97,-98,-99, 91-4-00062, -00212, -00019 Glacier Park Company (95-99) Intrawest Corporation (62) Pace Corporation (212) Home Club Corporation (19) Dear Ms. Myer: This is in response to your letter, dated March 19, 1992, requesting that the Corps of Engineers consider issuance of separate Nationwide No. 26 Permits for the above referenced projects. All of these parcels are currently owned or optioned to sell by Glacier Park Company and are within the same geographical area in the city of Renton termed the 110rillia Industrial Park." Because of the proximity of these properties to one another, a decision concerning the applicability of Nationwide Permit 26 to the subject properties is very complex. Before a decision can be made, it is important for the Corps to obtain information about how the Glacier Park Company and the City of Renton viewed the subject area historically. How Nationwide Permit 26 applies to these applications is dependent on the concept of "single and complete project." Several major policy decisions have been made in the recent past based on information pertaining to a project's "single and complete" determination. The decision for the subject parcels must be consistent with Corps determinations on these past applications. Because of the complexities involved in the "single and complete" project decision, I am not in a position to guarantee that a decision will be made by early May. However, I do realize that this is the scheduled time for some of the referenced properties to be auctioned off by the Glacier Park Company, and I will do everything possible to expedite the decisionmaking process. -2- If you have any questions, please contact me at (206) 764-3690. Also, continue your coordination with me, Mr. Jack Gossett or Ms. Gail Terzi at (206) 764-3495. Sincerely, Thomas F. Mueller Chief, Regulatory Branch CITY OF RENTON 311 O S E- S ` kt--� �8©5g MEMORANDUM DATE: September 25, 1992 TO: Renton City Council via Mayor Earl Clymer FROM: Lynn Guttmann, P/B/PW Department Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Mary Lynne Myer, Principle Planner SUBJECT: Maplewood Wetland and Sensitive Areas WETLAND: Recently, two residents representing the Maplewood Forest and Wildlife Society brought to the City's attention the existence of a wetland roughly six acres in size and two associated streams, all of which appear to have been overlooked by the City's wetland inventory. On September 10, 1992, I met with Nicola Robinson at the site to verify this claim. At this site, I verified the presence of a wetland roughly 6 acres and the associated streams. The wetland is at the east end of a dirt road immediately north of the Maplewood subdivision. The wetland consists of an emergent wetland, scrub shrub, and forested wetland. Wetland plants present include cattails, sedges, skunk cabbage, willow, and alder, to name a few. A small man made detention pond also exists north of the same dirt road. The detention pond is associated with the lower reach of the stream near the Maple Valley highway. Because of its man made nature, this pond would not be classified as a wetland under the wetland ordinance (Ord. #4346, Sec. 4-32-3.C.) The approximate locations of these sensitive areas were mapped based on the site visit, topographic maps, and aerial photographs. All pertinent elements of the City's critical areas inventory have been updated to include the wetland and associated streams. The wetland will be numbered W-48. The associated streams will be numbered S-29. LAND USE DESIGNATION: Presently this area is designated Low Density Single Family in the Council's Preferred Land Use Alternative map. Underlying zoning could include G-1 (one dwelling unit per one acre) or RC, (one dwelling unit per 10 acres). The area-wide zoning process will address this area. Deadline for area-wide zoning requests is October 31, 1992. Requests may also be submitted during the neighborhood meetings to be held October 13, 20, 22, 27, 29, of 1992. The wetland, of course, will fall under the jurisdiction of the City's Wetland Ordinance (Ord. #4346) as well as the underlying zone. Transmitted with this memo are the following items: 1. A map showing the approximate location of the wetlands and streams based on the staff site visit, aerial photographs, and topographic maps (Exhibit A). 2. A letter from the Maplewood Forest and Wildlife Society to Mayor Clymer and City Council informing them of and describing sensitive areas adjacent to the Maplewood subdivision (Exhibit B). 3. A letter and Land Use map to Mary Lynne Myer from Steven Schwartz pointing out streams and a wetland behind his property that were not included in the wetland inventory (Exhibit Q. 4. A hand written letter to Nicola Robinson, of the Maplewood Forest and Wildlife Society, from Ted Mallory describing the wildlife habitat associated with the wetland and surrounding area (Exhibit D). 5. A letter to Mary Lynne Myer, Principle Planner, from Philip Schneider, a habitat biologist with the Department of Wildlife, describing the wetland, creeks and upland habitat (Exhibit E). 6. A petition in support of preserving the Maplewood forest (Exhibit F). If you have any questions, please call David Saxen in Long Range Planning, 277-2475. 1 H t�N W .I log is ` • ,, e ttr � ♦ yt ♦► r�d�1�'UV1'r ♦�+ t► t r A 1 � �1 x N r � 4 ♦� �� x it x M MI It �♦•r M i Mx W1'3 hollttil�4 3dvw Mall EXMBIT B MAPLEWOOD FOREST AND WILD-LIFE SOCIETY . Representatives : Steve Schwartz . Nicola Robinson . Attn : Mayor Clymer , City Council Members . We , the above mentioned Society , have some information we would like to bring to the attention of the City Council . The Infor- mation is in reference to the area of land , approximatly 45-50 acres to the north of the Maplewood Community off of the Maple- Valley Road , which extends t-o the top of the bluff . The city is planning to put .in a sewer line behind the houses on S . E . 5th St . There is a stream that borders this row of houses all the way down to.. a collection pond . This stream was once a tributary which fed the Cedar River before the Maple Valley Road was constructed . This water is a 'PERENNIAL STREAM, ' as it does not dry up when there is no rain . We had been led to believe the City had the intention of filling in this stream , but I have since been informed by Mike Benoit that the city plans to maintain it in its present state . The sewer department is currently making application to SEPA for an environmantal study to be done on this project . To remove this stream would have an impact on the wild- life of this area , and we wanted to inform the city council- of the project going at the present time in order to safe-guard this -area . (* Please see ADDENDUM°)}for additional information about the stream . ) Please see attached photographs of the stream, its point of origin and itsflow parallel to and bordering the houses on S . E . 5th St . The second area of concern to us in relation to this tract of yet- undeveloped land is an area at its easterly end , which is a 'WET LAND . ' It is our understanding that this wet land remains unmapped at the present time . We are unable to gain the permission of the owners to do this and would like to request the city council debate this issue and hopefully request such a survey . It seems that if the wet lands ar-e at least l acre or greater there are federal reg- ulations which would be applicable . There are other regulations which would apply to an area smaller than an acre . There are ' Cat tails ' in one area of the wet lands and streams currently flowing over the surface of the ground in other areas . We have enclosed photographs for your study , and also an arial photograph taken in 1964 .on which you can clearly see the marsh and wet lands . Also to an experienced and trained eye can identify the stream we mentioned above . ( Please see ADDENDUM b . ) We are concerned that the debate involving the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is going on , without the council being fully informed by the various departments of the ecologically sensitive nature of this particular area . We wouldlike to make known again our wish that this area be prote- cted permanantly from any development , other than as park-land and/ or walking trails . It seems that with the use of certain engineering marvels a devel- oper , could , if he so wished , overcome the natural elements and develope this area up to and potentially beyond the current limit- ations of the present zoning . I. :am- afraid to try and visualize how much concrete and ..resculp.ting this would require , ending in total destruction of .any features resembling a ' green belt : ' This is the worst case scenario , but I feel we have to consider this as money is a powerful tool . The Maple Valley is a gateway to the city . and what a marvelous entry to our city it would be to pass through forests and a green belt , and what a statement it would make to generations to come , about what we valued and held sacred . In previous communications to the City Council we have expressed concern regarding the proposed zoning forthe forests bordering the Cedar. .River - into °= '=Low -density 'si-ngle family . ' This area is also bordering the Maple Valley Road ,, and ,.has . its impact as a gateway to the city .' Also this river forest is ecologically sensitive , and a unique part of our city . We would like to restate our wish that this area be permanently protected from any development , except as trails for walking and/or forest land . We thank the Mayor and council mambers for thier consideration of the above m4.ntioned issues in what must be a very , very busy time for all of you . Sincerely . t Steve Schwartz . Nicola Robinson . Representatives : MAPLEWOOD FOREST AND WILDLIFE SOCIETY . t1 The following enclosed documents for the attention of : Mayor Earl Clymer and City Council Members . From : Maplewood forest and wild-life society . Documents . 1 ) Airial view maps taken both in 1964 and 1990. Those taken in 1990 are done so from a higher elevation , and therefore con- tain less detail . 2) Ahand written letter from a wild-life expert , referred to us by the Audubon Society . His letter gives detailed information about the land north of us , including comments about the wet- lands . His address : 7524 S . 135th St , Seattle , Wa 98178 . He is Mr Ted Mallory . 3) Some photographs , of poor quality , but one is able to see the Cat Tails in the background . Many blackberry bushes stood bet- me and a really good picture . Also some of the perennial stream. are enclosed , not all of the photographs came out . 4) A second , a4P&QQa=e-w petition , re-stating our wish that the City Council and Mayor keep the green belt area to the north of the Maplewood community , and to the south bordering the Cedar River �� free of any development , except as park lands and walking trails . l � a) ADDENDUM: We have some concerns rega-rd-ing the of the application to SEPA for the layingossible wording line , and associated work on the stream . °f a sewer 'It seems , according to Phil Snyder of the Dept Life , ( contactable b of Wild- _ terms ue can very much influence the cdecisionsSSEEA1 makes - Fors example , if the perennial stream is referredto as a ditch sto water drainage channel , (non of which have an thin or storm with contributing to an ecosystem) the y l tO do have to go through review. Project will not people in the department involved inithidswprojeith ctlono one has referred to .the stream as such , this troubles usgreatly . We would like to ask the City . whatever steps. it is able to in its busy Council to take sure this naturally occuring waterin y schedule to make classified . 'The city may :have redirectedrsomeeam ls..not - wrongly stream ; ' and kept it clear of debris , this doesPa tslof he ieve change the fact this stream was created by nature . We would like to request the Mayor and City Council refer this matter to the Head of Lynn Guttman . the` Department of Public Works b) ADDENDUM I recieved a call `from Mary Lynn Myer who has to meet with us with the intention of surve inset up a time lands . We appreciate her time and interest as sheehis y wet- busy. person . She has kindly referred me to the Parks Dept , and Sam Chastain to discuss the areas from thier point of view. ~----� EXMBIT C ` pLANQiNGDiViGNM CITY 0FRENToj'.'! ]U( ~"� 5th S�_ _ RENTON WASH �8,)�3 200 Ml| | , . ' (206) 271 -7021 RENTON� NASH' 98055 �E : CUMPREHENSl VF P\ AN DEAR MRS, MYER, T NCERU Cl [7 �FNS / HAl RESIDE IN MAyi � WOOO' 1 WANT TO POINT OUT A MISTAKE lN YOUH ENVlHONMENTAL IMPArl STA1EMENT . F lFVS[ OF A( ]' THE BOOK Ai*NOW! FnG00 iPAl TH"E I A |1A�LE WOOD 0REEK YHAT }S ABOVE [HE MAPLE WOOD GO|'P COARSE. HOWEVER IT FAILS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF THE STREAMS, CREEK, AND HOLDING POND, ABOVE MY PROPERTY THAT EXTENDS TO FAR WEST END OF 5th. ST. . THIS AREA IS AT THIS TIME ON THE MCMANN ESTATE AND IS LOCATED ON AREA MAP to. THIS WHOLE AREA SHOULD BE DESIGNATED AS WETLANDS' AS WHEN IT THE 1AATEP DbESN' T DRAIN WELL AT ALL AND RUNS DOWN THE HILLS TILL IT REACHES THIS CREEK. l AM CURRENTLY WAITING FOR A GEOLOGICAL COMPOSITION REPORT' PLEASE MAKE THE NECCESSARY INVESTIGATION SO THAT CORRECTIONS ARE MADE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ADVISED. RESPECTFULiY STEVEN M. SCHWARTI - ' - - COMMITTED COMMUNITY T� SAVE THE MAPLE WOOD FOREST AND WILDLIFE ` ' . ` ' ' AREA • 1 .� 1. ��//�.1�'�%� ��. ��R'Ytb/a�_...�7\y�� Eli • j f l.• I I i4�/r � tST94.cT Ln" JI — M IX U 4� - �f lG��r1V DUSTKjA L. I ii pay �"t, t t t t /� C.C. = Convenience Cor.mercial OFFICE a �' - ��RL"SiGENTIA Ll "�'y rj// i ii(I�• i�`' - - OT I /y 1 ry I �tltttttlttttt � � � __ - `` •y LOW IXNSiT{ SIN6u FAMILY C 1 0 650 1300 iiT �+-t i ',�� ± I ! , I,OW ►r %? �/y , .��� ,\�,J 1:7800 PLANNING COMMISSION 4 U—h 1902 PAP - --- . _.----- -- - — -- ` �f,� � .1 n,�ro►�G(m��rc,�r"S Dec CQ I r EXHIBIT D iS /vlr - - 7�L ,: . t - 71 - --� �/r__ •' .��%-dam" G ZZI j.. ------•---r�?`---�`G'r_..._1. �_ - .. � %` �_�. _ -- Z� -- _ - '';, f y ._------------ _�' yl•'f � z /_�---- nz Az - 77' r��-�Z,� - r -- -------..__ - i Al X-11 ��Z, 14 - - - / ems .__ .: � -- - - - ---- - f �1/ Z�---45; s Z-2 _...._ � -,/ill -- ------------ --------- .. -- i i l t i : EXHIBIT E $TAT/• c CURT SMITCH v Director �1 IBP9`o STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE 16018 Mill Creek Blvd.. Mill Creek. WA 98012 Tel. (206) 775-1311 111JG n1V1 ON September 8, 1992 Mary Lynn Myer Principle Planner 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 RE: WETLAND AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARIES TO THE CEDAR RIVER IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE 3400 BLOCK OF SOUTHEAST FIFTH STREET Dear Ms. Myer: Some of the residents of the Maplewood area requested me to field review and confirm the presence of a wetland and streams at the above location. On August 27, we walked the area and I found a diverse wetland consisting of an emergent wetland, scrub shrub, and forested wetland. The total area is approximately six acres. In addition I found two streams which I assume are perennial streams, because despite our dry summer both streams were flowing. One stream feeds the wetland and the other has been channelized along the edge of the wetland and then is piped to the Cedar River. The streams would be r classified as a Type 4 stream under the Department of Natural Resources water typing system. A T-4 stream would be over two feet wide, could be perennial or intermittent and contributes to water quality to its receiving waters. The streams and wetland should be mapped, and included in the critical area designation, and afforded appropriate protection if projects are proposed in this area. We are pleased that you have recognized this wooded slope area as critical habitat. These large blocks of open space are valuable habitat for wildlife, especially important in an area that is urbanizing. - With the addition of wetlands, the Cedar River and its tributaries increase the diversity of the landscape thereby providing excellent habitat for wildlife. Any zoning or other land use decisions in these areas should take this into account, and have the least dense zoning possible. The impacts of developing these steep areas from tree removal, road building, erosion, fragmentation of habitat are very difficult to mitigate. Development in these critical areas will have adverse impacts to our fish and wildlife resources. Mary Lynn Myer September 8, 1992 Page 2 If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (206) 775- 1311 . As I discussed with you during our phone conversation, I hope to be more available to provide more input with habitat issues and reviewing SEPA. Sincerely, Philip Schneider. Habitat Biologist PS:ks CC: Nicola Robinson Steven Schwartz EXHIBIT F SAVE Th E MAPLE WOOD FOREST THE FOREST NORTH OF MAPLE VALLEY HYWAY AND S.E.5th. ST. 19 ENDANGERED BY THE CITY OF RENTONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS LAND IS DESIGNATED AS BEING ZONED LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THI3 MEANS THAT THIS FOREST 'KOULD TURN INTO ONE HOME PER ACRE UP TO ONE HOME PER 10 .�CRFS. MOST OF RENTONS FOREST ARE GONE AND THEIR INHABITANTS EITHER MOVED TO ANOTHER AREA OR FELL VICTIM TO LAND DEVELOPERS. ALLOT OF WILD LIFE MOVEM INTO THE MAPLE WOOD FOREST AND DO NOT HAVE ANY PLACE TO GO. THIS FOREST AREA HAS THE VEGITATATION TO 9UB9TAIN THE WILD LIFE FOR MANY FEARS. ANIMA13 DO DEPEND ON THIS VEGETATION FOR THEIR FOOD SUPPLY. TO REMOYE THE FOOD CHAIN THAT THESE ANIMALS HAVE LIVED FOR THP.OUGH OUT THE MANY YEARS AND TO DEVELQP THE LANDS IN WHICH THEY ARE NATIVE TO WOU-M CAUSE THESE ANIMALS TO PERISH. THIS ]-'ND, ALSO SHOUIL BE DECL:RED WET LANDS AS IT RETAINS A 'WATER SUPPLY YEAP, ROUND THAT ANIMALS DO DEPENT) ON, THIS PETITION 19 ASY.ING YOU THE VOTER, WHAT 19 IMPORTANT TO YOU, A FOREST THAT HAS THE VEGETATION AND WATER SUTPPLi TO SUPPORT THE ► AN 17 VARIETIES OF "-ILDL.IF'E SPECIES 'WHICH INHABIT IT. OR +POULD YOU RATHER SEE 11 DEVELDPED 1�71 0 HOUgING L-TN79 FOR EC01,10 C AND IM A VOTEP. AND WANT TO SAVE THE MAPLEWOOD FOP.E9T FP,OM AI`IY DEVEI.OP�4EN'P . NAME ADDRESS CIPCLE R�s�dence ' L KING OR FcENTON p 2. ZL O RENTON ?4Sy_�55 Av---s�'---._.---- -•--..... k::ING OR REN1"ON 5. __-' _ -r �........_.-._.__. .._ _c. _. _... - ' T ..._.._.... .. .__. f;L NU OR b ._...... I`:I N v U<:EZF ........._.......... �l( S C. �p�� v� 7 . � ��`-�' i �rc:�_._.f�Y�_SL .... F:.].NC; OF; .iNrC)h k.::I NG CJR N LT !G'<7 � -��;�� -t .S / h::INv' OR RENTON '. KING OR EtEh1TON FATE THE MAPLE WOOD FOREST THE FOREST NORTH OF MAPLE VALLEY HYWAY AND S.E.5th: 9T. I5 ENDANGERED BY THE CITY OF RENTONS COMPREHENSIYE PLAN._ THIS LAND 19 DESIGNATED AS BENG ZONED LOW DEN9ITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS MEANS THAT THIS FOPIM 'WOULD TUF.N INTO ONE HOME PER ACRE UP TO OPNE HOME PER 10 ACRES- MOST OF RENTONS FONT ARE GONE_AND THEIR INHABITAI _,EITHER MOVED TO AW) irf ,AREA OR TU VWVM TO Ihl L.OPE�9. AL, '1~ WELD LIFELIFE MOVED 'wobD FOREST AND DLL`�'T..HAVE ANY P[W&,TO* GO.' THIS FOREST AREA HAS THE VEGITATA` 16N TO SUHSTAIN THE WILD LIFE FOR MANY YEARS- ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON THIS VEGETATION FOR THEIR_FOOD SUPPLY_ a TO REKOVE THE FOOD .CHAIN THAT TIME AN-DUL9 HAYE 11 ,F%M THROUGH, OUT T" � tX YEARS AND ;TO.D IN WHICH T. , an" TO WOUI �'CAU3E THESE .&BLi 3 To Prmt 't'RTS L'tND ALSO SHOULD BE DECLARED WET LANDS AS IT RETAINS A WATER SUPPLY YEAR ROUND THAT ANIMALS DO DEPEriT) ON. THIS PETITION IS ASFJNG YOU THE VOTER, WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU, A FOREST THAT HAS THE VEGETATION AND WATER. SUPPLY TO SUPPORT THE MAi,TY VARIETIEE OF WILDLIFE SPECIES WHICH INHABIT IT. OR Y OULD YOU RATHER SEE IT DEVELOPED INFO HOiISNG 1UNTT9 FOR ECQTgr W- m— AND GRO_aTH FU PO-gFq- IM A VOTER AND WANT TO SAYE THE MAPLEROOD F`GRE3T FROM Al TY DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS :'IP.n.I_E Res;Bence RENTON 2, F;I NG RENTON �. Z J1 _� _. 0 RENTON I NG 0R ENTON c• -- yam --- -. _ _, __ ..... F:ING OR REN rON K:IN UR RENTON • �.. - o � G_.._5-.�.'_� ' S. t':].N�JR F:EN f'011 OR RENTON ` �Ji� /J :I NG OR RENTON --KING OR RENTON SAVE ThE MAPLE WOOD FO.REST THE FOP.EST NORTH OF MAPLE VALLEY HYWAY AND S.E.5th. 5T. is ENDANGERED BY THE CITY OF RENTONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS LAND IS DESIGNATED A3 BEING ZONED LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS MEANS THAT THIS FOREST XOULD TURN INTO ONE HOME PER ACRE UP TO ONE HDb{E PER 10 ACRES. MOST OF RENTONS FOREST ARE GONE AND THEIR INHABITANTS EITHER MOVED TO ANOTHER AREA OR FELL VICTIM TO LAND DEVELOPERS. ALLOT OF WILD LIFE MO'\'M INTO THE MAPLE 'WODD FOREST AND DO NOT HAVE ANY PLACE TO GO. THIS FOREST AREA HAS THE VEGITATATION TO 9UBSTAIN THE WILD LIFE FOR MAN `_'EARS. ANI9413 DO DEPEND ON THIS VEGETATION FOR THEIR FOOD SUPPLY. TO REMOYE THE FOOD CHAIN THAT THESE ANIMALS HAVE LIVED FOR THROUGH OUT THE MANY YEARS AND TO DEVELOP THE LANDS IN WHICH THEY ARE NATIVE TO WOULD CAUSE THESE ANIMALS TO PERISH. THIS LAND ALSO SHOULD BE DECLARED WET LANDS A3 IT RETAINS A WATER SUPPLY YEAP. ROUND THAT ANIMALS DO DEPEI�"T) ON. THIS PETITION iB ASKING YOU THE VOTER, WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU, A FOREST THAT HAS THE VEGETATION AND WATER SUPPLY TO SUPPORT THE M.AP•IY VARIETIES OF "-TLDLIFE SPECIES WHICH INHABIT IT. OR v►OULD YOU R:iTHER 3F-E If DEVELDPED Ir• 0 ?H01rgI'aG tt?�ITg FOR ECONOMIC' A�tr± ^pr�sTF� pt_RpC�g1 3. IM A VOTER AND WANT TO SAYE THE MAPLEWOOD FOP.EST PT ( Atjy OEVFLI.OPD4Er"r NAMEDDpESg :IP.CI_E Res Bence. KING OR REN-I- j 2. ���Jlk'1.G!�'/K�b4.-.._.aa( _ - -- ...._.. KING O F{ENTON . Wk F�::ING REN1 ON �3• --- --- --- ---------- ---- ------ - -._.__...._ •-• KING U RENTCJN 5. 2_5 _._.7L5- _.SC: p .._. . F:ING 0R R E N T 0 N 6• .2 UR RENTON 7. CL((bc).-- 50 ORFtENT ON 9. KING OR CENTON KING OR ON - 7E ThE MAPLE -WOOD FOREST THE F'OP.EST NORTH OF MAPLE VALLEY HYWAY AND S-E.5th. -9T. IS ENDANGERED BY THE CITY OF RENTONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS LAND IS DESIGNATED AS BEING ZONED LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS MEANS THA`r THIS FOREST WOULD TURN INTO ONE HOME PE'R ACP.E UP TO ONE HOME PER 10 ACPF. MOST OF RENTONS FOREST ARE GONE AND THEIR INHABI.TA.NTS EITHER MOVED TO ANOTHER AREA OR FELL VICTIM TO LAND DEVELOPERS. ALLOT OF WILD LIFE M0�-'hM INTO THE MAPLE WOOD FOREST AND DO NOT HAVE ANY PLACE TO GO. THIS FOREST AREA HAS THE VEGITATATION TO SUBSTAIN THE WILD LIFE FOR MAN YEARS. ANIRALS DO DEPEND ON THIS VEGETATION FOR THEIR FOOD SUPPL`r. TO REMOYE THE FOOD CHAIN THAT THESE AND&AZ 9 HAVE LIVED FOR THROUGH OUT THE MANY YEARS AND TO DEVELOP THE LANDS IN WHICH THEY ARE NATIVE TO WOULD CAUSE THESE ANIMALS TO PERISH. THIS I-' Nr, ALSO SHOUIL BE DECLARFD WET LANDS AS IT RETAINS -A WATER SUPPLY YEAR ROUND THAT AN'IMAL.S DO FJFPE"'T) ON. THIS PETITION IS ASKING YOU THE VOTER, 'WHAT 1S IMPORTANT TO YOU, A FOREST THAT HAS THE YEGETATION AND WATER SLrPPLi TO SUPPORT THE UANY VARIETIES OF rfILDL.IFE SPECIES nHICH INHABIT IT. OR WOULD YOU PUT ER SEE IT DEVELDPED INTO HOUSING UN79 FOR ECnNn?�r SN[! 'wT'FT PURR[;�F � IM A VOTER AND WANT TO SAVE THE h(APLE'ilOOD F )REST FROM AN LEVEI.OPDIEY`f' NAME .0DRE99 I.E Res denc� L KfNG OR REN ON 2. - le _t K' I NG O R NTON S._._�..-.'� .�..._ 1;::I NG OR, �R�_N TD �:■ � -_ �ti< %C........,__ �� _.5 ._. �_���_ ' - k;I NG OR(-�NTC:I 39 5. 4 L7� k:: I. N b C1 F( R E N r CIn1 7 .L��v �o � �'� �lC. �(4 '� 5 7P - KING oK F E::N r,c)N ` I NG 0R REN0N 0 ....... O RE9 NC7 O NI RE N A U -.. .... . j �� K: TO SAVE Trip MAPLE WOOD FOREST THE FOREST NORTH OF MAPLE VALLEY HYF+AY AND 9•E.5th. ST. 19 ENDANGERED BY THE CITY OF RENTONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS LAND IS DESIGNATED AS BEING ZONED LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS MEANS THAT THIS FOREST WOULD TUP.N INTO ONE HOME PER ACRE UP TO ONE HOME PER 10 :CRC MOST OF RENTON3 FOREST ARE GONE AND THEIR INHABITANTS EITHER MOVED TO ANOTHER AREA OR FELL VICTIM TO LAND DEVELOPERS, ALLOT OF WILD LIFE MOVED INTO THE MAPLE WOOD FOREST AND DO NOT HAVE ANY PLACE TO GD. THI9 FOREST AREA HAS THE VEGITATATION TO 9UBSTAIN THE WILD LIFE FOR M,'uw YEARS. ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON THIS VEGETATION FOR THEIR FOOD SUPPLY. TD REllOYE THE FOOD CHAIN THAT THESE ANIMALS HAVE LIVED FOR THROUGH OUT THE mAl~Y YEARS AND TO DEVELOP THE LANDS IN 'WHICH THEY ARE NATIVE TO WOULD CAUSE THESE ANIMALS TO PERISH. THIS 1-�NL; ALSO SHDUIS; BE DECLARED WET LANDS A5 IT RETAINS A WATER SUPPLY YEAR, FOUND THAT ANTIMAL5 DO UFPENT) ON. THIS PETITION 19 A9YJNG YOU THE VOTER, WHAT 19 IMPORTANT TO YOU, A FOREST THAT HAS THE VEGETATION AND 'WATER SUPPLY TO 9UPPORT THE 3U?`1�'. VARIETIES OF WILDLIFE SPECIES WHICH INHABIT IT. OR WOULD SOU RaTHER 3ZE 11 DE"TELDPED IrUM -NL ' =:pC,':�'ru IM A VOTER AND WANT TO SAYE THE MAPLEWOOD FOREST PTOM ANr, DE�`EI.OPUFF"r' NAME iT.�DRESS ':'IRcLE R�s�dence KING _.._.._.. 0 RENTON r � , �-� `_ ___._ ___ _,----•_-•� � O�: KING =RENTON 2. ._/L� _'S� ��16��•--- _ (5=�(/• ' �L N GC��RENTON c kPilA n},I N G U R E N T(-_1 N 1 _ f _..- - - -• .1�--. - ..... �1_� .. c. . . F:lN(a OR ENTC:)N y f*:1NG R FtENTON ��p 0 ` /j' F':].N larF� E:1`J.I.C.►1\ I N G ClR R E N TO N y Q R ENTON �, �'3'1�.. .... '�-•'�/✓' - _ �G �� - ' �.LL1�_ I ORRENTON ,-AATE T.HE MAPLE WOOD FOREST THE FOREST NORTH OF MAPLE VALI.E`i' HYWAY AND S.E.5th. ST. IS ENDANGERED BY THE CITY OF RENTONS COMPREHENSIYE PLAN. THIS LAM IS DESIGNATED AS BEING ZONED LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL'. THIS MEANS THAT THIS F'OREBT WOULD TURN INTO ONE HOME PER. ACRE UP TO ONE HOME PER 10 ACRES. MUST OF RENTONS FOREST ARE GONE AWTHEIR INHAHITANTS,,EITHER MOVED TO ANOTI ;.ARXA Oft Ia'>?1 L VIC" TOLAI►� ,pE`Yffi.Of'F.R3.. A�.I:�D_�fi.�#�IQ',WILD LIFE MOVED TT!M' Tom'MAPLE WORD FOREST AND Df�Y�fa HAVE ANY PI. .z'�'0 GO THIS FOMT AREA HAS THE VEGITATATION TO SUBSTAIN'THE WILD LIFE FOR MAN'i YEARS ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON THIS.VEGETATION FOR THIIR FOOD SUPPLY. TO REPAOTE THE FOOD :CHAIN THAT IHM .ANWALS HAVE 11.YF.I) fM THROUGH OUT THE Y• YIARS AND 10 DEYFS.OF ' ;IN WHICH 'I` " �,4 'NA4'IYE TO 'W0t1L9-CAUSE THESE ANBLU2 TO Pf6tt H. THIS LAND ALSO S d[IID HE DECLARED WET LANDS AS IT RETAINS A WATER SUPPLY YEAR ROUND THAT ANIMALS DO DEPEN%> ON. THIS PETITION IS ASKING YOU THE VOTER, WHAT 19 IMPORTANT TO YOU, A FOREST THAT HAS THE VEGETATION AND WATER SUPPLY TO SUPPOP.T THE MANY VARIETIES OF WILDL.IF'E SPECIES WHICH INHABIT IT. OR riOULD YOU RATHER SEE IT DEVELOPED INTO HOUSING UN-79 FOR ECONOMIC AND GPO-47N PTrPPfr-c-z- IM A VOTER AND WANT TO SAVE THE MAPLE-ROOD FOP.EST FROM Arh' DEVELOPMENT NAME ADORERS C:MCLE 9251dencQ. KING OF' RENTON 2• -- _ - ��.L_ �e f+�'-��_--_-_. I NG OR RENTON eeA ���EN1O3 N; OR 4. KING O RENTON 5. I NV OFt F-:EN-rON SE -f RENTON L b i G �..._._ _._.._ 1 N� kEN roN 7 . .._ 1F:.l: N(: OF: Y..Y/I�JSj�+ 1�1 1 1 ` 8 _ _._._..... `..-..-!.-'.._.- � - _1 - Ci r::I N G GI F; R E N T O N 9. -� _�- ---�-- - --� I .__� .�. U_T k::I NG OR RENTn,� S KING O RENTO�� i y SAVE T HE MAPLE A OOD FOREST THE FDRE9T NORTH OF MAPLE VALLEY HYWAY AND S-E-5th. 9T. IS ENDANGERED BY THE CITY OF RENTONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. -THIS LAND IS DESIGNATED AS BEING ZONED LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.. THIS MEANS THAT THIS FOR�qT WOULD TURN INTO ONE HOME PER ACP.E UP TO ONE,HOME PER 10 ACRES. MOST OF RENTONS FOREST ARE GDNk%AND.THEIR INHABIT1r�I't'S, EITHER MOVED TO '�}i+' WILD AL LIFE MOVED OT' R l ,,AREA GR FELL. VICTIM TO LAN DEVILOP - - f�tg0'-TgZ MAPLE WOOD F'OHE3T AN I1�' T` HAVE ANY PL1L'1�i Gb_; THIS FORT AREA HAS THE VEGITAT.ATION TO SUBSTAIN THE WILD LIFE FOR MAN'i YEAR& ANIMAL,9 DO DEPEND ON THIS.-VEGETATION FOR THEIR FOOD SUPPLY. TO REMOVE THE FOOD CHAIN '� DL HAVE LIM FOR THROUGH OUT 4 :' Y:.YF..ARs Am yo.D '� WHICH T E'rdATIVE TO WOt_Hj CAUSE T ME ANNALS TO PItYSH. TMS LAND AI_90 SHOULD HE DECLARED WET LANDS AS IT RETAINS A WATER SUPPLY YFY RRT IS IMPORTANT RTANT ANIMALSUND THAT DO DEPEND ON. THIS PETITION IS ASKING YOU THE VOTER, FOREST THAT HAS THE VEGETATION AND WATEP. SUPPLY TO SUPPORT THE MANY VARIETIES OF —4 LDL.IFE SPECIES WHICH INHABIT IT, OR V?DULD YOU RATHER SEE IT DEVELOPED INTO HOiTRING iT 'g Ff�_R_ F(/]NOMIf` �i'�1? ^.R )-W7IH PURPOSES. IM A VOTER AND WANT TO SAVE THE MAPLEWOOD FOREST FROM ANY DEVELOPMENT NAME 0DPES9 i:IPCLE Res;dence, i/'cam K T NG OR RENTON z/,K I NG OR( R' ENT } �✓� G K.I N G O R E N OI�1 KING OR(REN N :-1NG R RENT ON r' - =� ._.. _ - --- - - - /.6. /J �� 7 f' �. NG U EN R TON f::].NG OFKF KING OR RENT ON i / S KING NG O RENTON 9. .���Il�/✓ - 5 R S_ oe ���(J/ L _7`, K I NG OR" RENTTON 1� �E TKO MAPLE -WOOD FOREST THE FOREST NORTH OF MAPLE VALLEY BYWAY AND S.E.5th. ST. IS ENDANGERED BY THE CITY OF RENT DNS COMP RE HENSIYE P LAN_ THIS LAND IS DESIGNATED AS BEING ZONED LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS MEANS THAT THIS FOREST WOULD TURN INTO ONE HOME PER ACRE UP TO DMHOME PER 10 ACPF9. MOST OF RENTONS FOPICST ARE GONZ AND.THEIR INHABITANTS EITHER MOVED TO ANQTMR ARM OR FALL VICTIM TO L&W09ffiAPER3. ALWSZ-6 WILD LIFE MOVED '� INTO''P� MAPLE WOOD FtUUIST AND Tlfil 'P. HAVE. ANY PLI '0 GO. T11I9 FOREST AREA HAS THE VEGITATATION TO SUBSTAIN THE WILD LIFE FOR MANY YEARS ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON THO.VEGETATION FOR THEIR FOOD SUPPLY- TO REMOVE THE FOOD {MAIN THAT ,TgpU,,ANDULS HAVE IiIVED.,:FpR THROUGH OUT "M - NY YEARS AND ,TO DE.'YI P � .tN WHICH T ir1 E NATIVE TO 0�7i 1 'CAi19E THESE ANTMAI TO PttLBT'I TMS LAND ALSO =ULD HE DECLARED WET LANDS AS IT RETAINS A WATER SUPPLY YEAP. ROUND THAT ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON, THIS PETITION IS ASKING YOU THE VOTER, WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU, A FOREST THAT HAS THE VEGETATION AND WATEP SUPPLY TO SUPPORT THE MANY VARIETIES OF WILDLIFE SPECIES rWOCH INHABIT IT, OR iFOUL.D YOU P.ATHER SEE IT DEVELOPED II-TO HOU91ING UNjTS FOR ECONOMIC PT�RFOSFE. IM A VOTER AND WANT TO SAVE THE MAPLEWOOD F'OP_EST FROM ANY DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS CIFCLE Res;de.nce 1 . _ �� _ _�___— ----_✓ —�: fO�'G�G�y= r/ _� _fc/�.K I N G O R �—jO ST 0.0 K I NG OR RENTON 74 SZ` h::ING_'OR RENTON �,� ������ J.,�� rya y • - ) _._ _� I N G OR RENTON -' r- ------- _.._. K'I NIA O RENTONIA- 6. J _`� •�:� _'= �.0-�_y f �J-J-� S J�7� �-1�. �!;y_.�)_ { k•.I Nv, UR RENTON 7 , L-;, �� �f �-- �' �_-' -i ', w i ii--, � �,%;` ,'�• l` f::] N(:� UF�: \F.E::N (U►1i ING OR KN-roJ K I N G O R CEN T O� US/ 117i .IU. NG 0FC CRENT�DN R�7R THEMAPLE WOOD FOREST THE FOREST NORTH OF MAPLE VALLEY HYWAY AND 9.E.5th. 3'T. I9 ENDANGERED BY THE CITY OF RENTONS COMPREHENSIVE P LAN. THIS LAND IS DESIGNATED AS BEING ZONED LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS MEANS THAT THIS FOREST WOULD TURN INTO ONE HOME PER. ACRE UP TO 0*NE HOME PER 10 ACRES. GONE-OFF MTONS FOREST ARE GO AND THEIR INHAHITJl M,EITHER` MOVED TO ,Zg0THZ SEA OR FELL VIC4IM TO I AD ! UNMOPERB. ALT i +'.WILD LIFE MOYIsD 'Tilk•MAPLE WOOD FOREST ANI3 Da, 'W HAVE ANY PUdk, 'TU GO.- THIS FCS'PMT AREA HAS THE VEGITATATION TO SUBSTAIN THE WILD LIFE FOR MAN'Y YEARS_ ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON TMS VEGETATION FOR THEIR FOOD SUPPLY. TG RMOVE THE FOOD CHAIN THAT TFX5Z ANIMALS HAVE LF)ED FOR THROUGH.OUT 'tom. y YEARS AND ,TO D .. t3 ..II►1 WHICH T k'° !E NATIVE TO TtdC7I GIiUSE THESE ANIMALS ''O P I9Fi ` F119 LAND A130 SHOULD HE DECLARED WET LANDS-A3 IT RETAINS A WATER SUPPLY YEAR ROUND THAT ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON, THIS PETITION IS ASYJNG YOU THE VOTER, WHAT Is IMPORTANT TO YOU, A FOREST THAT HAS THE VEGETATION AND WATEL? SIJPPLY TO SUPPORT THE 2iANY VARIETIES OF WILDLIFE SPECIES WHICH INHABIT IT. OR "'OULD YOU RATHER SEE IT DEVELOPED lNTO HOUSING tTNITS F`0-P FCONC-N-1-C eNr± ^F�±�ru Pi PPO!�E�.. IM A VOTER AND WANT TO SAVE THE MAPLEWOOD FOP.EST FROM AN':- DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDPEgS r:IP.nl_E R�s;denc2 i � K i N OR RENTON v2 � K I NG R RENTON 3• - - 5----�- -Ile "ye_C.1s 1�' '��'�_---- -- -- -- -- -- r::z OR RENTON 4� _ _-_��Jn �._ c2i_1��. 7_..._?1_�__-..___..__....__ ItiING OR RENTON L7��� OR RENTON 5. - d .. 6. c- - _/Y.� � �f`.1 N DR REN TON I . � � I N G �1F: F;:E.I d l 0i�! f3. '_�� - , (DR RENTON 1 - -- ---- _�......._.__ 6ING \ L J y 9. k::I NG OR RENTON lG. : KING OR RENTON J � 4.� f 4. .7fI�" J�d f�.•c-. f f •y J 1 !an.S 24 J'. - _ i ii ? - I I 1^y,,,.a 4 j 4��1•.,1ti ''},f { , J 1 .laC. n- ` -.L 1 IV A-1 <.:--•'/'�\ .•' sue+.=.. ';{ti _ �;.j=�:. ' -;_" 4 -1 -s. s.'f,.�ty' ,..ix c r=-'✓:.�.2 .r��:."• //�).,\. -�,Yx'i`�E'�.J'-v S 't,L']• --�� �sf+��. '�+'yy ���.aC�t}'; !-5. .3-t -1'1 a �•�o".T~'y'(' `1-- -'�:C.�.cam" -'` . \` J� �`�.,,tl�-.a,.. �. wYk %1-? .i...e -•��!• rt� (,L� .J. G ��a.��F;_�-.�1 F:r_`� L fi�.r�. � .�L i j=,y C :. -%•k=<• _ -_fi� : ., vv_ -��'4%:'_'-'.;�,'-•�' --=n'»•.. - 'y-1-'i��:crn.Tr,�� ;.;3n -, THE FDREgT NOR-TFI OR' MAPLE3YALLEY;HYWAY AND '9 E Sth 9'T I3==ENE" GEP,ED s Ys HY THE C2'I'Y OFRENTON9'COMF'REHEI�ISIYE'�PLAN;,THIS;LAND I8 '_DIGI�IIiTED` �, F A9 HffIlQtI"ZDNED LDR?UEI�I9ITY 9I GLE'FAMiLY RESIDENTIAL`~ THI3�MEhNs THAT`= THL3 ; >~ F`t3RE3TOUI.D ,TCTRN INTOONE:O�EI'ERAfrRE UP <TOOi T9HDMEaPER 10 r{ CRF ` f`ORZ9Tt:ARExGDNE ANU�;;THEIFt INHAHI.Tti �EITHER' MOYED TO ,h66§t-b RWTON9 . pEi{s:_Ai3;b,' QF:WII3)t LIFE MDYED `� I3t '_�_ 'OR t _ YAPIR aROM FORE t. ANb'Dg DT I3dYE AI+iY PL I TO;GDad .9T`AREA HAS_aTHE YEGITATATION•:TD•48UH8TAIN -THE=WILD;LI-FL:FOR -:MANTc yEApg A�]IMAL9:DD?DEPEND ON THIS .VEGETATION FOP THEIR-FUOD­9UPPLY� x Tp,., I}YE 4'HE'F'OOD_ CHAIN.:THAT THE9E ANIMAL4 HAYE I:I1YE0. THROU[flH OUT YF.AR$ Ab 1I3' `0 •IN.WHICH:.TYARS NATIYE:TO _ WOULD CAL1t3E .THESE"ANIh�. i8 .�I'D PERI3A. 'I'AI9 LAND AMD`:SIi0t7i0HE_DEC'LARED WET IANDS`AS IT:RETAINS:_A WATER .SUPPLYiYFAR ROUND. THAT s`<2aIMAL3 DO DEPENT� ON THIS:PETITIDN I9:ASKIN� YOt1 'PHE t�OTER, WHAT'IS IMPORTANT TQ_- D[1, - FY]RE:?'T.;THAT II18_?HEYEGEYA'PION ArtD=:WA'PEF. 3l7PPLY TD48CIPPOPT THE ';hf�1rI YARIby"I'IE� DF WTIDLiFE 3PECIEs_�HICH INHABIT IT, �{�U OR n�ULD ` RATHER Sri IT DEYELDPED tt?Tfl NET L G LjNiTB k'f)R. ErnNOMtlr AND IM A VOTER AND WANT TD SAYE.THE-MAPLEWDOD FJRE3T 'PPOM ANY DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDP.E38 CIRCLE RCS;d ence 1 - � ___ L���1Z ��1.�%_��_:��_112k.-lr,;rKINGj .OR...- REN 1 ON .:I:NG OR RENTON cGQ/(` k::I NG R RENTON _K I NG OR PENTON CA 5. "ING OR RENTON SO�_. _f_l T{ _F�V_G _.(=;.-_...._ kJ�[_`Tl� .�... I N -• OR RENTON �i - �Ot::]:NG OR REN f�11�1 7 . a._ Cc- ..... '...._.._._ �._._.__.....__.._..._J........ ........._..... . f3.: ._.__. "'..t:ING (=)R RENTON Z 9. ,� t=`1 NG OR RENTON �`ti i"'�-�-1---• - •-- --�.�-��_�.1� �.1 .- �`?'.�''�--- - -• KING R RENTON i y��TF TGIF1�,IAPLEWOOD FO,REST THE FOREST NORTH OF MAPLE VALLEY HYWAY AND S.E.5th. ST. 19 ENDANGEPXD BY THE CITY OF RENT ONS COMPREHENSIVE P LAN. THIS LAND IS D ES I GNAT ED AS HANG ZONED LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS MEANS THAT THIS FOREST 1 OT= TURN INTO ONE HOME PER. ACRE UP TO QI XOME PER 10 ACRES. MOST OF RENTONS F°OFMRT ARE GOIg{AND.THEIR INHAHI.Tl T8'EITHER MOVED TO -'ANOTHM11 A OR FUL VIC' M TO I.�;� P . .A�.t `r i+'-GILD •: LIFE MOVED 'tTTO"�_-uAPLE 1R0�?D F`ORBs' AI�ID I T. HAVE ANY F ► ' b.GO THI8 F6mw AREA HAS THE VEGITATAii6 TO SUBSTAIN THE *ILD LIFE FOR MANY YEARS ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON THM,VEGETA`tION FOR THEIR FOOD SUPPLY. -0 REhgoYfE�TTHEEpF'0�{�3�+/U,AMID. '1'KAT� 9E: AkL9 H(A��Yt�S7 I/{�Y�`I:1 F�y��, NATIVE OUT - ,, iL.ARS f6L�_ID.iil�f�!.Fi 4� :5N6 W11i[�S]-- 1'..; .{-a_^,r.`_ tliii 1 i G 1 0 WOt3Ij5"CAi.ISE THESE ANIMALS to PIftfsk. T�3I9 LAND ALSO�FOUm HE DECLARED WET LANDS AE IT RETAINS A WATER SUPPLY YEAR ROUND THAT ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON. THIS PETITION 19 ASIUNG YOU THE VOTER, WHAT 18 IMPORTANT TO YOU, A FOREST THAT HAS THE VEGETATION AND WATER SUPPLY TO SUPPORT THE MANY, VARIETIES OF WILDLIFE SPECIES WHICH INHABIT IT, OR FOULD YOU RATHER SEE IT DEVELOPED INTO HOirgING TTNIT4 FOR ECONOMIC AND GROFTH PURPOSE_ SE_ IM A VOTEP. AND WANT TO RAVE THE MAPLE'O?DOD FOREST FROM ANY DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS CIPCLE Residence ' -- KING =REN-r(-JN 2. �.---� -- ✓ � `-�� - KING R N N . r 1 --- ��k RENTON 5 S/ KING OR RENTQN >... - , h:I N 3 OR�F�N 14,1 c _.._�----L: ._ ._ ... ..--- ...._............ r i-I- Jr ING O F�ENrON 6. .. OF�, RE:N ('[ v 7,� l u/�� y�d�......_. ....k;I NG OR69 ENTO 7 / 9. _ L j''__T___ .- .. _.�J�. __ --= --' � *`� - OR RENTON ' 10. a, _ K� `IN(�,� OR RENTON 1 SAVE THE MAPLE WOOD FOREST THE F0RE9T NORTH OF MAPLE VAi 1FY' HYWAY AND S.E.5th: ST. I9 ENDANGERED BY THE CITY OF RENT ONS COMPREHENSIVE P LAN. TH0 LAND IS DESI GNAT ED AS aMa ZONED LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS MEANS THAT THIS FOREST WOULD TURN INTO ONE HOME PER ACRE UP TO ONEliONE PER 10 ACRES. MUST -0F. RENTONS FOREST ARE GONE'AM,THEIR INHAaTANIS, FITTER MOVED TO A OR F'M VIC'�TM To ���gERS•.A�'iw WILD LIFE MOYID APIK 1�0{3D.FOREST AND ile�i4 I ANY PL °f0 GO. THIS F61MBT AREA HAS THE VEGITATATit?'N TO`9UBSTAIN THE WLLID LIFE FOR MANY YEARS_ ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON THIS VEGETATION FOR THEIR FOOD SUPPLY_ TO REMOVE THE FOOD_-CHAIN THAT � A�,I9 HAVE Ii�Y�II FQR TI3ROtIGFi. Di7T I N:WHICH 't' �' , YEARS 'TO D QP ,; v NA 'IYE TO fiOUII) 'CATJ9E THESE ,kNBL -9 TO LAND ALSO SMM BE DECLARED WET LANDS A9 IT RETAINS A WATER SUPPLY YEAR ROUND THAT ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON. THIS PETITION 19 ASKING YOU THE VOTER, WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU, A FOR.M1 THAT HAS THE VEGETATION AND WATER SUPPLY TO SUPPORT THE MANY. VARIETIES OF WILDLIFE SPECIES WHICH INHABIT IT, OR riOULD YOU RATHER SEE IT DEVELOPED iNT-0 HOUSING ! TITS FOR ECONOMIC AND C.RQ�TN PURP04F9. IM A VOTED. AND WANT TO SAVE THE MAPLEWOOD FOREST FPOM AI,� DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRESS I:_IPCLE Residence KING 0g:RENT c � k:I NG O 2. � - --_ -. k:.ING OR -tENTON) cloc);6 UJ)l " KING OR RENTON 4. 3 .7 ., -r- KING 0 R 'F E i{- ,,�4 f I':TNv UR REN-TON Q. J _. -._.__--......_-_.._...._..._.-..._....._ .. .-.._.-._.._... Ty 4 E':7 NG vF; RE f0N r �N )R RF_NTON 9. P1� -`�- - 55...- - - -. __ J 4J !�U � -...__k:1.NG OR REN TON _K:ING OR RENTON x/U/>oz 60 SAVE THE MAPLE WOOD FOREST THE FOREST NORTH OF MAPLE VALLEY HYWAY AND S.E.Sth. SP. IS ENDANGERED BY-THE CTI'Y OF RENTONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS LAND IS DESIGNATED AS BI3NG ZONED LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS MEANS THAT TIUS FORE34' WOULD TURN INTO ONE HOME PLR ACRE UP TO ONE,HOME PER 10 ACRES. M€ RT OF RENTONS FOREST ARE GONE'-AND,.THEIR INHA31TA13MEITHER MOVED TO ,�Qt # }4REA DR I?' U VICTtV 'TO �0.t,0��ERS. ALLQ....�fl�'.WILD LIFE MOVED `' "MAPLE 'WOOD FOREST AND; T. HAVE ANY PL _='i'Q.GO_' THIS FC pEST AREA HAS THE YEGITATATION TO SUBSTAIN THE WILD LIFE FOR MAN�' YEARS ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON THIS.-VEGETATION FOR THEIR_FOOD SUPPLY. TO REMO E THE FOUC�MAIN THAT T� :ALS HAVE Lt1 D� F`DR THROUGH OUT D . ';'I _YEARS Ai A T I} R ,y ::IN WHICH 'i` �,al k�E NATIVE TO WOCTI `yCALISE THME ANIMALS tb PERISH: THIS LAND ALSO SHOtaD BE DECLARED WET LANDS AS IT RETAINS A WATER SUPPLY YEAR ROUND THAT ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON. THIS PETITION IS ASKING YOU THE VOTTA WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU, A FOREST THAT HAS THE VEGETATION AND WATER SUPPLE TO SUPPORT THE MANY VARIETIES OF WILDLIFE SPECIES WHICH INHABIT IT. OR nOUL.D YOU RATHER SEE IT DEVELDPED INTO HOLING Trr S FOI? EC_.ONOMIC_. AND GRUW7H PT_T Prog_FP_, IM .A VOTER AND WANT TO SAVE THE MAPLEWOOD F'OP.Ec'T I•"?OM ANTY DEVELOPMENT NEE jDpEgg CIPCI_E Res i d en c2 S/72"' --KING O :::,:�RENTON NG O RENTON lJ - ---------- -- -- _. --- ----- --- k:'IN OR RENTON 3. 4 z 5Z -3 2 5E ....._ )R RENTON !7`1NR RENTON 6. ___ �TON 7 . y$'t _ X t _ .. F Nh F F:E:hJT'C1N f:ING RF_NTON LNG �NT I' T :..,:1U. � • _. _ l/�,. lid _� � lJ _ -)KING ORS NTO } � , PLE WOOD FORESTSAV F T 1-�F �1� THE FOREST NORTH OF MAPLE VALLEY HYWAY AND S.E.5th. SP. I9 ENDANGERED BY THE CITY OF RENTONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN_ .THIS LAND IS DESIGNATED AS BEING ZONED LOW DENSITY SINGLF: FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS MEANS THAT THIS FORT WOULD TURN INTO ONE HOME .pn ACRE UP TO OM HONE PER 10 ACRES. MOST OF RENTONS FOREST ARE GONE-ANDABEIR INHABITTAV'I8_ EITMM MOVED TO hNOTHOWAREA OR FELL YICTIm TO3 ;,, P .L • J� F WILD LIFE MOt�ED APtE Wc= raRtStT AN xAvr� ANY pL t qo GO g FORE ST AREA HAS THE VEGITATAT,ION TO'SUBSTAIN THE WILD LIFE FOR MANY THIYEARS_ ANIMALS DO DEPEND ON THIS ,VEGETATION FOR THEIR FOOD SUPPLY. TO RF.'sE€€3YE THE FOOD CHAIN THAT m` AI.S HAYS I! .* II FOR THROUGH DUT -YEARS AND TO DEVRLDP : =. N,NCH T .ARC i 1�TIYE TO WOUTb-CAUSE TfHESE !NBU S 'td P 3 3 LAND AI3O 3HOLTID BE DECLARID DEFEND WET LANDS AS IT RETAINS A WATER SUPPLY YEAR ROUND THAT ANIMALS DO ON. THIS PETITION 19 ASKING YOU THE TOTER, WHAT 19 IMPORTANT TO YOU, A FOREST THAT HAS THE VEGETATION AND WATER SUPPLY TD SUPPORT THE MANY. VARIETIES OF WILDLIFE SPECIES WHICH INHABIT IT, OR r+OULD YOU RATHER SEE IT DE'VELDPED INTO HOr19ING U`NTT9 FOR ECONOM-T-C ANr± ,^RC�+UTH Pcmpn E9• IM A VOTER AND WANT TO SATE THE MAPLEWOOD FOREST FROM ANrY DEVELOPMENT NAME ADDRE99 CIRCLE fees j d en ce � � KING OR' RENT-ON , OR RENTON 3 j - , _ � -- =_ ►is G OR REN1 ON / S KING OR RENTON IF NtD OR RENTON J. � .__...�`� __ion=---•--`-�-------�'`'-._/�-- �.... .. � .... 1 R�EE F' 0 F1 F,E N F'Cl I\J 7 . , F3. _��---. �.C�.�'f1�-N�------`�•-°2---�---� �-,_-___I��s-''!�.L•--.....__._ ._-..__.__ . ^k-I NU .-]F< RENTON 774, 4':I NG OR RENTON J ^(� _-' i-%i^�'� I NG OR RENTON 1 V« -------- -------- 1'i Jr�,�% '1 �r:r►�;'J,��I��'�r�l ,'� ' _ � �`�J> > �!y•1,..`,�� �� �f'!�I , 1 fi ITY F REN N W TLAN .. .­ S T DY . �a RECONNAISSANCE WETLANDSOF SELECTED CITY OF RENTON-_ 1 . ; BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH , MAYOR I PLANNING DEPARTMENT Participating Staff 1; " David R. Clemens, Acting Director, I , Ed HaY duk H&CD , Coordinator Gene Williams, Assistant Planner . Susan Hudson, Administrative Support Randy Berg, Intern Yvonne Brown, Administrative Support r CITY OF RENTON WETLANDS STUDY,, a A Reconnaissance study of Selected Wetlands in the City of Renton prepared by: The City of Renton Planning Department & Northwest Environmental Consultants, Inc. authors: Gene N. Williams, City of Renton Douglas J. Canning , N. E. C. Financed Through a 1978 Housing and Community Development Block Grant FEBRUARY 19131 .. 1 TABLE OF COMIUC 'S I PAGE I Introduction , 1 Wetlands Within the Study Area 1 Figure 1 - Location Map Vegetational Succession 2 Hydrology 3 I Figure 2 - Surface Water Hydrology„ � I Identification and Classification Of Wetlands 5 Table 1 - Key to Wetland Types Figure 3 - Black River Riparian Forest Figure 4 - East Valley and Renton Wetlands Figure 5 - Panther Creek Wetland Figure 6 - Springbrook, orillia, and Cedar River Wetlands I Comparative Evaluation of Wetland Habitats 8 Table 2 - Evaluation Matrix ' Current Policies and Plans Related to Wetlands 14 .Potential Mechanisms for Long-Term Wetland Preservation 16 General Recommendations , 18 I Management Guidelines 23 I APPENDIX I Field Notes (not printed) APPENDIX II Evaluation Sheets i I I I q - v •�T BACKGROUND, STUDY FINOINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS r 1 i • I INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a reconnaissance study of the existing wetlands within the City of Renton. The wetlands study Identifies and maps existing wetlands, evaluates the public resource and natural habitat value of individual wetlands, and recommends City action to protect or preserve certain wetlands. The purpose of this study Is to provide an up-to-date wildlife, vegetation and hydrologic assessment of the remaining wetlands to aid public decision-making. In addition, the purpose of this study Is to provide the Renton City Council, `and Planning Commisslon with policy direction regarding the future role of wetlands within the City. Wetlands are defined in this study as lands where the soil Is at least periodically saturated with or covered with water. Another characteristic of wetlands Is that they normally support hydrophytes --: plants that grow in water or saturated soil. Wetlands are environmentally sensitive areas and are critical to the maintenance of wildlife and fish resources. Wetlands serve as Important feeding, hiding and breeding sites for wildlife. The contact between land and water contains many niches that support numerous and diverse types of plant and animal life. Wetlands serve other functions as well that enhance their public resource value. They preserve water quality by helping maintain low stream temperatures and by filtering stormwater I pollutants. Wetlands also store heavy runoff In winter to control flooding and release water during the dry season to help maintain essential low flows. The wetlands of Renton are, therefore, an Important public resource. I The study area Included the Green River Valley portion of Renton and one wetland along the Cedar River. The Green River Valley is a rapidly developing commercial/Industrial area. Until ten years ago, much of the valley was covered with permanent wetlands and seasonally flooded farm lands. Urban development has resulted in the filling of most of the wetlands in Renton. This study focussed on twelve remaining wetland units that were considered important natural resources. Many smaller wetland areas and some seasonally flooded grasslands were not Included In the study. The wetlands study was conducted by the City of Renton Planning Department with the assistance of Northwest Environmental Consultants. Funding was provided through 1978 Housing and Community Development Block Grant Funds. The study Involved extensive fieldwork observing wildlife, vegetation, and hydrologic conditions. The level of detail, however, was limited b6cause of time and funding constraints. Fieldwork was conducted during November and December 1980 which was not the most ideal period for observing vegetation and wildlife. Results of the fieldwork and of a search of pertinent background material were evaluated In order to rank the wetlands according to natural habitat value. Based on this ranking and on knowledge of feasible protective measures, recommendations for City action were made. WETLANDS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA The twelve wetlands addressed In this study are listed below and Identified In the accompanying location map (Figure 1). A brief synoptic description of each wetland, as well as the location, current zoning, ownership and size of each unit, may be found In the evaluation sheets in Appendix 11. -1- 'emu - i —1 •• �_ _ _ •�. ,..:: :;,���� C ;" - ,�� � 1(• F31tSok Rlver� �I \ i `� ,. �; 't `R(parian Faroe, A >r y Ceder Flive t , liS 'e :re. /) i 7 1. \ ,y �`t;•. M";i{. 'v 0,r` `.`\ `y�''Mash• ce... iy•\ 7 Rga • .' FARllt�.07ptV'•OC 1, Y T.__+ 1-•.1: i \\ �% :.F 'i ANo'.�,,, ', INSET MAP,' • it/l'+Y' �,:,,'. �.,.•-_ CLVP ( .._. �;�_ \I '• .,�.G�/,��yr'....�,:',ice;.;•. r � .v ;:... q �1•t\�!•'�� .\ ....�' I - =�!''^..i�_`>'7 S ; .r.:a.�..u+" 1.9'f' I 'ry•,�t i`' •.'lv. e si' - '::11 7 .l r17���8o%ta'•'•-� Eaetl Valley �' ..�. ftYN,�•'Wetlnnds •,1 Io.+oAues If <1•. I Unit' A• II t t..ti •1 t �; I. ° -- !�• ! - l � �. ,,�•. 'Act", �t�l:�� ;\ R��:._:-l•r..-ten __ .. �S ',ti':e11� i�� rk Uni y Unit C i I entph ,; Unit ncl j ` ( .,. / .�a: I. � fll.,� `• ' _ j _,. `i � W Cr:4. � �(�\` r , 1. - 1; Ir I ! • '(\. , , •11 � Vie r. . ', u.,.� �' ,i' I ( :I, y% '{t. Orillie .. ........, _.....: L t ( D Pond d 1 LOCATION MAP �•. r..._ ,.. \NETLANOS STUDYAREA A Figure r � 1 \ •n• I r f. � � 'I� :•r• �. �Pringbroo -• i, 7' ' •i ncnlo. 111-1000! is ` ,. :• WetlAnd•., I �,• ' .......... .... .. I 1 '►n .i - Cedar River Marsh and Riparian Grove - Black River Riparian Forest - East Valley Wetlands Units A through F - Renton Wetland ' 1 - Panther Creek Wetland - Orlllla Pond - Springbrook Wetland VEGETATIONAL SUCCESSION u The present vegetational characteristics of the wetlands within the City of Renton are in many locations clearly a response to past cultural activities, such as farming, grazing, drainage, or filling. Certain areas, such as the cattail marshes, appear to be undergoing a fairly dynamic rate of successional change. The best clues to the future vegetational characteristics of the City's wetlands would be the aboriginal conditions prior to extensive modifications by man. A fairly accurate depiction of the historic conditions in the valley floor can be obtained by analyzing the field notes of the U.S. Government Land Office surveyors who subdivided the :s area Into townships and sections during the period 1862 through 1867. Based on narrative descriptions of "timber" and "undergrowth," as well as statistical analysis of the diameter and species of witness trees to the section corner, quarter corner, and meander corner monuments, It is possible to approximately reconstruct, descriptively, the aboriginal forest. ". For the most part, the valley floor was a mixed deciduous forest, much of It "liable to .,:Inundation" at depths estimated by the surveyor to range up to 72 Inches. The most frequently noted timber trees were Oregon Ash and Black Cottonwood, with Red Alder and 131gleaf Maple— noted half as often. Willows were apparently not regarded as timber trees, never appearing In the narration descriptions. Willows, however, were frequently called out as witness trees to monuments. The undergrowth was dominated by Vine Maple, various willows, and Oregon Crabapple. The swamps are poorly described, but appear to have been primarily willow thickets. One extensive "cranberry bog" of approximately 300 acres was noted, and also a "hardhack swamp" (Douglas spiraea). Trees were apparently scattered throughout the swamps. The survey field notes contain scant Information about the density of timber trees, although there are notations of "little timber", "but little timber," and "no timber, under growth willow" for certain areas. The witness trees provide some Indication, however. Over half the witness trees were trees less than six Inches diameter or brush forms, with Vine Maple and willows being very common. There Is no mention of extensive marshes of cattails or reed canary grass In the 1860's period, although these habitat types are fairly common wetlands in the valley at present. Many of these present cattail and reed canary grass wetlands have scattered brushy plants, such as Douglas spiraea, willows, and red-osier dogwood. 1 � -2- It appears, then, that when agriculatural and grazing practices were abandoned in the lands now Identified as wetlands, the principal pioneer species were reed canary grass on higher ground and cattails on lower, wetter ground. In time, these habitat types are Invaded by brushy species. Over a period of fifty to one hundred years it is likely that brush swamps of splraea, willows, and dogwood would replace the present wetlands. If a sufficient local seed stock still exists, the trees common to historical conditions might become established, scattered throughout the brush swamps. HYDROLOGY Historically, the Green River Valley floor flooded periodically when runoff overflowed the banks of the Green River, the Black River,''or the tributary streams. Seasonally high water tables produced local flood effects or wetlands conditions. As flood conditions subsided, surface drainage to the rivers and tributaries was generally unimpeded. The U.S. Government Land Office township and section survey field notes for the area contain numerous notations estimating the annual Inundation to be in the range of 12 to 72 Inches in various locations. The Government Land Office survey notes are,rtot entirely clear regarding the hydrology of the valley floor. Swamps and bogs were noted and mapped, as were numerous small sloughs. In a few Instances, an Implication of relatively permanent flooding of certain areas was attributed to beaver dams in the small sloughs. In recent decades, the surface hydrology has been altered substantially. Most stream courses across the valley floor have been straightened and channelized; even the rivers have been channelized in place along their meanders. Panther Creek, In particular, appears to have been substantially rerouted. Filling preparatory to industrial or commercial development throughout the valley appears to r have had profound effects on surface runoff. The remaining wetlands of the Green River Valley are, for the most part, Islands surrounded by fill. Surface drainage out of the wetland Islands is often non-existent and otherwise probably Inadequate. The high rates of runoff from adjacent filled areas covered by Impervious surfaces (roofs, parking lots, etc.), In combination with Impeded surface drainage, may have created a different character of wetland than that which persisted historically. Alternately, the hydrologic changes caused by contemporary °;filling and drainage practices may be approximating the historic conditions created by beaver dams. • � 1 The existing surface hydrology of the study area Is Illustrated In Figure 2. The natural drainage pattern is dominated by the Springbrook Creek/Black River system. Springbrook Creek is fed by Mill Creek, Garrison Creek, a natural spring at the City of Renton Springbrook Watershed, and Panther Creek. These streams originate on the plateaus east of the Green River Valley and are supplemented by localized Inflow within the Valley. Springbrook Creek carries an average flow of about 350 cubic feet per second during high runoff periods and about 9 cubic feet per second during low flow periods. Springbrook Creek/Black River empties Into the Green River near Monster Road in the northwest portion of the study area. Springbrook Creek is channelized in some areas, and has been deepened and widened in past years by farmers and local jurisdictions to handle storm runoff. Local drainage to the creek is Irregular, and made more so by the sporadic pattern of landfill In the Valley. Because of the limited capacity of Springbrook Creek and smaller channels, and because of the restricted capacity of Green River to receive stormwater during periods of high flow, localized flooding occurs within the Springbrook Creek sub-basin. -3- f .�lab'kt •Rlv�r __ _ ,.. :,•t,�h�.• � 1.",tif, � •��13 .•Rjpartan' ..-ores ,�`�� •� !.' . •• ,• . \v' �+..�• cou K '•�+' FAltlf�,©T.QIJ''02 . •• •- .- \•�. ��. < INSET tMAP •` � ••;• �. �••1 1 " -' /'., •1't.i, :.�.sty�'� ; Ea .;j�• /" ��\ret sg r Wetlands' r toN?�C s off , i ..Unit'A !'.. —Unit B ,r'.I ._ (-,'�';.^'^•-- ..r•� rr..-., Uni Unit w-II• x VI/atland• Unit F J�.-.. u.r• 11, �` � r. o Orillia i . I ® Pond •• �j.:: _ .�, r .pit. Figure SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY Open WE)te,r T.�i�~ t j' i •�.. \l. ; -'�,I �:i; Surfaco Wa' rpr Ftow I•j.r'; .. I I;•..(ter .��.:�i f' t ... pipe or Culvert ,,.. ' I t�') r 1-:0 C Closed Drainage Basin The U.S. Soil Conservation Service's East Side Watershed Project, sponsored by local jurisdictions, is designed to convey and store stormwater to prevent most flooding In the area. This project Includes a pump plant (constructed in 1972), widened and realigned channels, and two major detention basins. Although the East Side Watershed Project will preserve 110 acres of wetlands in the Green River Valley (including the Panther Creek Wetland) as mitigation for the project, completion of this project will create conditions that allow filling and draining of. remaining wetlands. The necessity for retaining existing wetlands for flood storage will be removed. New urban development in the Valley will route surface drainage directly to the channels rather than to or through existing wetlands. The direct effect of the East Side Watershed Project on existing wetlands Is unclear. It may lower the water table sufficiently to change the character of existing wetlands over a period of years. This.r,emains to be seen. Springbrook Creek joins Black River south of the Black River Riparian Forest. The Black River at this point is a small remnant of the old Black River that drained Lake Washington before the Lake Washington Ship Canal and Ballard Locks were constructed. Drainage from the hillsides north of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks flows through the riparian forest and Into Black River. Additional runoff Is expected with the development of a major residential/commercial project northeast of the Black River Riparian Forest. There is currently a 60" storm sewer line outfall at the upstream terminus of the Black Rhver that handles runoff from the Rainier Avenue corridor and much of South Renton. Drainage through the Panther Creek Wetland and East Valley Wetlands Is complex. Although formerly part of a uniform agricultural drainage pattern, some of these wetlands have been Isolated and flows redirected. The Panther Creek Wetland was partially cut off from the rest of the valley by construction of the Valley Freeway --.SR 167. Panther Creek enters the wetland at the extreme southern end, just north of Valley General Hospital. The creek apparently flowed northward along the base of the hills prior to construction of the freeway. The flow of the creek now fans out just east of the freeway and most of the water makes its way through a culvert under the freeway near the south end of the wetland, only to slowly disappear in a maze of smaller drainage ditches and culverts. Local runoff from the hillsides, and perhaps some of the subsurface flow from Panther Creek, passes under SR 167 through a series of ten culverts spaced Irregularly along the length of the wetland. The Valley Freeway was also constructed with a sand blanket under the roadbed to ij.,permit some lateral movement of water under the freeway. These drainage provisions, '.'however, do not prevent surface water from ponding within the Panther Creek Wetland to a depth sufficient to support a wetland community. ; The north end of Panther Creek Wetland receives runoff from a 46" culvert that passes under FAI-405 and carries stormwater from Talbot Hill and Renton Village Shopping Center. Some of this flow moves south within the Panther Creek Wetland through an exacavated trough to eventually pass through one of the culverts under SR 167. The majority of the surface flow, however, crosses SR 167 In a box culvert farther to the north that empties Into Unit A of the East Valley Wetlands. The water level of the pond in Unit A Is maintained by surface water passing through the box culvert under SR 167. Some flushing action probably occurs so that water quality Is good. Water draining through this wetland crosses under Lind Avenue and enters Unit D of the East Valley Wetland. Flow through this wetland is diffuse, with surface water emerging at several points along the south side of the wetland. An open ditch here carries surface water to -4- Springbrook Creek. A continuous flow-through system, then, exists In this portion of the study area. Water from Talbot Hill and Renton Village passes through the northern end of the Panther Creek Wetland, flows through Unit A and the pond there, flushes through Unit D and finally enters Springbrook Creek. This hydrologic system maintains the health of these wetlands. There is some interchange of water between Unit B and Unit A, but Unit B Is basically a closed hydrologic system. Standing water --:often stagnant -- is present during most of the year. Unit C of the East Valley Wetlands receives local runoff from the properties along East Valley Road. This water moves slowly through the wetland to two large arch culverts under Lind Avenue at the northwest corner of Unit C, then follows an open ditch to Springbrook Creek. The other wetlands east of Springbrook Creek --. Units E and F - receive local runoff and empty directly into Springbrook Creek. This entire drainage system east of Springbrook Creek, as It now exists, will be modified by the construction of the P-9,channel of the East Side Watershed Project and of L.I.D. 314. The P-9, channel will be constructed from the Panther Creek Wetland to the approximate location of Springbrook Creek (P-I channel), passing along the north edge of Units E and C and under SR 167. The P-9.channel will direct Panther Creek and the runoff from the entire wetland through one outlet. The design of the drainage project will allow for detention of stormwater in the Panther Creek Wetland during flood periods. In addition, L.I.D. 314 proposes to redirect Talbot Hill and Renton Village drainage through Panther Creek Wetland to the P-9.channel rather than through Units A and D of the East Valley Wetland. Storm sewers will also be constructed along East Valley Road and Lind Avenue to handle local runoff. The combination of these drainage improvements will disrupt the current drainage patterns through the East Valley Wetlands. The Renton Wetland is fed by local runoff from mostly undeveloped lands west of Springbrook Creek. Water moves through this wetland and directly Into Springbrook Creek. Orillia Pond also Is maintained by local Inflow, but has no apparent outlet. The P-1 channel of the East Side Watershed Project will have some effect on the hydrologic regimes of both these wetlands. Orillia Pond Iles in the path of the P-1 channel and will be removed. The Renton Wetland lies adjacent to the proposed alignment of the P-1 channel, separated only by Valley Parkway. Construction of the parkway and the channel will remove some of the drainage area of the Renton Wetland and may eliminate most of the water flow in Springbrook Creek. What effect these projects will have on the Renton Wetland is unclear. Wetland conditions in Springbrook Wetland are,maintained by runoff directly from the adjacent hillsides. SR 167 contains several culverts and is laid over a sand blanket, but the roadway still 'i functions as a dike in keeping high water levels within Springbrook Wetland. The upper reach of Springbrook Creek -- which originates from a spring on the hillside east of Talbot Road - passes through the south edge of this wetland and under SR 167. The creek occasionally floods over a portion of Springbrook Wetland. The final wetland Included in this study is the Cedar River Marsh. This wetland receives runoff from the steep, heavily wooded hillsides above It and discharges to the Cedar River over a small cascade. This marsh is apparently perched on a relatively Impermeable sandstone bedrock layer that maintains the marsh level some 20-30 feet above the river. IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF WETLANDS This wetland study examines twelve important wetlands within the City of Renton. Because of time and funding constraints, this Investigation was conducted at a reconnaissance study level of detail. Field work was completed during November and December 1980. Therefore, detailed wildlife inventories, vegetation sampling, and soil and water analyses were not possible. Moreover, wetlands smaller than five acres and seasonally flooded fields and pasture were not Included in the study. -5- Adequate fieldwork was accomplished, however, to Identify dominant vegetation (usually to species), general soil characteristics, areal extent of wetlands, and location of wetland types, and to reliably estimate wildlife usage and potential, and hydrologic regime. Extensive field notes were taken and later re-written In narrative form. Many of these notes are Included in this document as Appendix I. Wetlands are characterized by certain features: the presence of water covering or saturating the soil during a significant portion of the year, water tolerant plants (hydrophytes), and undralned soils. At least one of these features Is present In every wetland. However, each wetland Is unique: different vegetation, soils and water regime. In order to evaluate wetlands for natural habitat value, to understand successional changes In wetlands, to develop management strategies for Individual wetlands, and to compare Individual wetlands, it is helpful to classify wetlands by type. A classification system based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats (December 1979) was developed for this study. Since all of the wetlands in the study area fall within the Palustrine System --:characterized by fresh water and by extensive vegetation --: the classification system used here is based on growth-form classes and dominant vegetation. Three major classes of wetlands were Identified: emergent wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands and forested wetlands. A fourth class - transitional -- was also included where soil, water and vegetation conditions did not clearly Indicate a wetland or an upland. Emergent wetlands are characterized by erect, non-woody, usually persistent perennial plants. Common dominants In the emergent wetlands studied Include cattails (T py ha latifoiia L.), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and smartweeds (Polygonum spp.). Scrub-shrub wetlands are characterized by woody plants --,Shrubs and small trees --, . up to 20 feet tall. Typical scrub-shrub dominants include willow (Sallx spp.), spiraea (S I� raea douglasii Hook.), and red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.). Forested wetlands contain woody vegetation greater than 20 feet tall. Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa T.&G.), willow (Salix i spp.), red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.), and Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia Benth.) are the most common dominants in this class. Maps on the following pages Illustrate the classification of wetland types. The limits of wetlands, linear wetland features, areas of permanent or seml-permanent open water, ;vegetation anomalies and the general flow of water through the wetlands are also Indicated on the maps. A key to wetland classes and dominant spegles Is Included Table 1). 1; TABLE 1 KEY TO WETLAND TYPES Wetland Classes I E -- Emergent Wetland $ -- Scrub-shrub Wetland r F -- Forested Wetland I T -- Transitional Habitat ® -- Open Water (permanently or semi-permanently flooded) I Vegetation Dominants 1 - Ty ha latifolia L. (Common Cattail) 2 - Phalaris arundinacea L. (Reed canary grass) 3 - Juncus spp. (Rush) 4 - Salix spp. (Willow) 5 - Spiraea douglasii Hook. (Spiraea) I 6 - Alnus rubra Bong. (Red Alder) 7 Populus trichocarpa T..& .G. (Black Cottonwood) 8 - Fraxinus latifolia Benth. (Oregon Ash) 9 - Dead 01 - Ranunculus repens L. (Creeping Buttercup) "j 02 - Polygonum spp. (Smartweed) 03 - Graminae spp. (Grasses) 04 - Cornus stolonifera var. occidentalis (T. & .G. ) Hitch. I (Red-osier Dogwood) 05 - Rubus spp. (Blackberry) 06 Acer macrophyllum Pursh. (Bigrleaf Maple) 07 - Evergreen conifers e.g. Picea sitchensis (Bong. ) Carr. (Sitka Spruce) Tsuga heterophylla (Raf. ) Sarg. (Pacific Hemlock) Thuja plicata Donn. (Western Red Cedar) Vegetation dominants may be combined. A slash "/" indicates co-dominants and parentheses " 0 " indicatle a sub-dominant. Vegetation dominants are listed in order of relative dominance. A general guideline that was followed is the 30% rule. If a vegetation type covered more than 30% of a wetland unit, that vegetation was considered a dominant or co-dominant. Sub-dominants covered less than 30% of the area but were significant to the character of the wetland. In all cases, overstory vegetation was given precedence in the classification if the overstory species covered more than 30% of the area. -7- REFER TO ATTACHED V G H [WETLAND IOTYPES ___ ____ CEDAR RIVER -- — ------------- ------- - MARSI-1 I II t Vegetated wetiand ISaturated or Seasonally Flooded) Open Water (Permanently or Semi-Permanently Flooded) Wetland Type Boundary Approximate Wetland Boundary Linear Wetland Feature I , -......... Included Wetland Feature SPRINGBROOK e— -- Open Water Channel WETLAND i ' _�'o r------ Pipe or Culvert Figure 6 I� I All Scales: 1"= approx.400' I . i.h ce i e $iI EV3 POND I I F6(I17} 1.1 I Sb(4)E r `F6 I I �i .' r Qq � POWER r m I m I • v�* i i LIKES m -- .. qz I - --s I r! r Fs<o� - -----' -------s_.J.-43rd_Street----- - �r S. 55{� Sfreel m -------- - ---- --- - -- - -' -------- -- m .�rl J f� r-4/7/6 =i� 1�1 T1/o5't1tr PANTHER ;CREEK I11 Y I I,r � it I 1 1tx - II WETLAND II i REFER TO ATTACHED EXPLANATION OF I I t VVETLAND TYPES I� v "* F M1/1/6--1 II rl� �B4/r9� 11 T-r ; Vogoteted Wotlond 11 t, 11 Scala I I I - , (Saturated or Seasonally Flooded Open Water 1"c'approx. 400' �1 j 1 } ,[Pormanenlly or Seml-Permanently Floodedl III I ilr•; S4/9/5/1 -- Wetland Type Boundary I Approzlmoto Wetland Boundary R.._.Ynro..,.»,... ,... .._, ...,...n-:vrnll«I«I.1 �{yilll'�•;:--f;i i�!�_ 1 1 `� � —•— Linear Wetland Feature A/F6 F4/7/6 1' ; Included Wetland Feature �1'll 11 r.C' a Open Water Channel 11 ` It Ii *-.,..-Pip" or Culvert Figure 5 11 ` 1 ` IF4(6) EI-LL---�1"rlt I I 1 ` CEt��I I I rr r I I I I I / I II 11 .. '1. i• ll rl I I I t 4,A i� , it .. II 'I� r• 1 ,, I y 1. • jj ., t1.11�2r� s � �ll�� �.... llll�`li,\;��=:�1't''�t7�11��`,��67!!';;��p,q.n•.- �,, _. 0. 11 1 ! I I l } 1 RN f/1}`, 1 �� r•, qII 1 11 '''�•��'r��"`il�f `\ `��` 1` Sri , Ali i�it•.•�,�J1•':..: 111 _ ��.. ------- ' ��i i ai I1;•rr: I�t -rll IN11;'r,:, tl 11 ;c•, � I _ WTI 1 II.••.••I'nr'.,i t`\I` • �I 131 I �1 I, �. t\ I Iwl IS ' ��:� 1` I I li .. 77YY t ' IS 1 1�1 '✓ t"�f-1 1 II i y r �I F4j7/8 I I Ia1E' i� I I } I '��'•�' I I 1 l l • II I I E01• 1 I r 11 II 11 I II T1/03,'r II I II - / li �II II I1 Itit II 1 li i II I it it I ' i t 1.1 lf�ir71 7 I I II f I _ 1 I I I Ixxr,T.C.i •I. II / 17i J. 11 II / I 1'`'• 'I 1 / I I II /rl II 11 , f EAST VALLEY AND RENTON WETLANDS i I If REFER TO ATTACHED __ I I -- -�` ---- --- EXPLANATION OF -' ------ - II _ FAI-�4o5 'I WETLAND TYPES ] II r' I I �1 --- f �..I x Vegetated Wetland I Maturated or Seasonally Floodedl -_-_-_-_-_- _--_-- - -- - --S-.l-,/.-1-0- -ST-R-EE-T en Water >\ I rr (Permanently or Semi-Permanently Floodedl Wetland 'type Boundary I I III Ir` 4 ---- Approximate Wetland Boundary. I It I I I —•— Linear Wetland Feature EAST VALLEY WETLANDS I I Included Wetland Feature v----- Open Water Channel ';Unit A It I r-- Pipe or Culvert II 7 I it i q E2(1), I• In 1 I E3 I x I I - Unit D I I - II ICI 1 I I Scale 'E1(9) II �'• `� IIIIIw1 T„= approx. 400' s 31 I Unit B II I,ul Ei/9 I Iu11 / E3 C t (1'iyEr I{�j�f,(t� t,Y QII II LQ , rh. O I I I I 1211 f f ,•, I I I I i f Figure 4 190 Fi F.4j'4;()i01�0c4j' Y, i' Unit E IIII1I,II IIIIiIIIII 1 Unit C 08/04/4 RENTON WETLAND �IlIII II II,II II 1 1 \ 1 I 1 I lrE2(I)�' { �' r � at •tc � t �` ��il a7Yab,� 1I QII r EE E1 I I 1 1 E3(4) I Unit F II I f 1 ys I I II II E02 \� d .•t - ��;� � � ,r e �7 �1j tt t' � E'�:t 5 ��` I � _ / II , If Sd ' �, . S4 I I tl• I I 11 BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST rREFER TO ATTACHED EXPLANATION]1 — , OF WETLAND TYPESAsk vegetated Wetland _____------- )Saturated or Seasonally Flooded)• Scale j Open Water approx. 400' ( IPermanently or Semi-Permanently Flooded I • Wetland Type Boundary --- Approximate Wetland Boundary S —•—Linear Wetland Feature $ N• R• R `��`�s q ......• Included Wetland Feature Figure 3 A��t5pen Water Channel Pipe or Culvert �.` � F1/8(6)(4) S4 F7/8(6). S4/6 ` ` - -------------- EZ E2 EDZ/3 F 7/8(6)(4) _ 0. E2 171/8(6)(4) 174/7 E2,13�: p-I Vamp - - F 4) = MONSTER RogD - se -• S.W. 7 STREET METRO COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF WETLAND HABITATS In the context of this reconnaissance report, wetlands are considered ,multl-purpose" natural areas. As functioning ecosystems, wetlands provide open space, wildlife habitat, natural flood storage and passive recreation. Because of size, isolation, vegetational character, open water and other variables, some wetlands are more valuable than others. Using a series of environmental variables, a comparative evaluation of the wetlands of Renton was performed. This evaluation resulted In a ranking of wetlands according to their overall value as multi-purpose wetlands. The following discussion of the Evaluation Matrix explains the criteria employed In this evaluation and ranking. EVALUATION MATRIX The ranking of wetlands for wildlife value is a problematic enterprise, raising such questions as "Which wildlife?", "For what habitat uses?", "With what degree of management?", etc. Many of these questions can carry with them value judgements which will be analyzed differently by Individual wildlife biologists, ecologists, and environmental advocates. The questions to which answers were sought during this reconnaissance study are summarized In Table I, and are discussed briefly below. Criteria 1. Adiacent Development The wildlife value of any habitat type to many species Is to some degree dependent on adjacent habitat types for complimentary needs, such as feeding, roosting, nesting, etc., that are not satisfied In the primary habitat. Wetlands lying adjacent to lands developed for human use are greatly diminished in wildlife value for many species when compared to existing or pristine conditions. Further, the nature of the adjacent developed land use Is also a factor. Residential lands are probably the most disruptive of adjacent wildlife habitats due to roaming pet dogs and cats, noise, the proximity of human presence, and occasional Intrusions. At the other extreme, commercial land uses, such as warehousing, may have little or no effect on wildlife. In considering the development potential on adjacent lands, the time period of ten years, the average life of a Comprehensive Plan, was used. Over longer periods of times, say 50 or 100 years, it Is likely that a parcel of land could be developed. As undeveloped land diminishes and land values Increase, what Is today considered undevelopabie due to financial or technical constraints may no longer be so. A period of ten years Is a somewhat arbitrary choice, but one which produces some differentiation between wetlands. Criteria 2. Isolation Direct human Intrusion Into a wildlife habitat can be sufficient to destroy the value of that habitat to certain species without any physical alteration to the habitat. It Is Important to recognize the difference between wildlife refuges, wildlife recreation areas, and public parks. In general, the criteria applied to evaluation of Intrusion effects on wildlife value are as follows: Low wildlife values were applied to wetlands adjacent to residential areas (Including potential residential areas), and to high use pedestrian pathways. Middling values were applied to wetlands adjacent to land uses such as warehousing, light industrial, or commercial. High wildlife values were accorded to wetlands that are and will remain Inaccessible, or of difficult accessibility such as lands bounded by steep slopes and/or freeways. Criteria 3, General Wildlife Diversity In a study such as this, conducted at a reconnaissance level of detail, general wildlife diversity must be estimated from the diversity and density of vegetation and habitat types within a wetland unit, rather than from direct observation. To a -8- i TABLE 2 EVALUATION MATRIX I i WILDLIFE VALUES RANKING CRITERIA HIGH MIDDLE LOW 1. Degree of Development , none/ high/ likelihood on adjacent remote possible developed parcels 2 . Isolation from intrusion high slight none or disturbance 3 . General wildlife diversity Present high moderate low I Potential high moderate low I I 4. Waterfowl population density � r Present high moderate low Potential high moderate low 5 . Uniqueness of unique middling common habitat type 6. Aesthetic Value high middling none 7 . Areal Extent >50 >20 < 50 <20 (acres) 8. Hydrology flood flow- closed basin through I limited degree, the experiences and records of wildlife observers frequenting the study area were consulted. Factors which must be considered in making such an estimate Include the quality and avallabllitiy of habitat for feeding, roosting, nesting, brooding, and for certain species, loafing. Criteria 4. Waterfowl In general, the same comments that apply to general wildlife diversity, also apply to waterfowl population density and diversity. The principal use of Green River Valley wetlands by waterfowl is for over-wintering ponds and nesting and feeding areas during migration. A lesser number of waterfowl species and populations nest and raise broods In the area. The Issue of present and potential value is important. The Green River Valley Is in a constant state of flux; the urbanization of the valley, only recently begun, will at least proceed apace, If not quicken both In pace and Intensity. A more Important question, then, Is what the wildlife value of a parcel might be in coming decades. Criteria 5. Uniqueness In a regional context, any wetlands may be considered a unique habitat, and increasingly so each year. The analysis conducted here rates the relative uniqueness or commonality of each habitat as a wetland. Unique wetland habitats are important because they provide rare opportunities for wildlife populations that cannot be satisfied elsewhere. In evaluating each wetland unit, the Initial assumption was one of "low wildlife value." The wetland was then appraised for certain qualities, namely: permanent open water old growth vegetation, particularly trees substantial numbers of snags (dead, standing trees) abundance of plant food species representation of a remnant of a once larger or more widespread habitat type The more unique features Identified in a wetland unit, the more unique Is the classification, moving from low to middling to high. Criteria 6. Aesthetics In establishing wildlife values, aesthetic values are of no Importance. However, other factors being equal, human aesthetic values are a valid ranking Issue. Therefore, this study employs aesthetic values in the ranking system. In general, the basic aesthetic consideration for individual wetland units was prominence In a viewshed. The aesthetic appeal of a cattail marsh or willow brush swamp varies with the individual person; therefore, every attempt was made to avoid letting individual considerations about such matters enter into the evaluation process. Low ratings were given to wetland units not In public view. High ratings were given to units that are prominant features of a viewshed. Intermediate ratings were given to other parcels not fitting the high or low rating criteria. Criteria 7. Areal Extent The area covered by a wetland habitat can be an Important valuation factor, particularly when habitat characteristics are approximately equal. Certain wetland habitat types are subject to Invasion by "foreign" plant species along their edges; therefore, a certain bulk is necessary to Insure that the wetland will be self-sustaining as a vegetative community. In other wetlands, location and surrounding land uses may dictate that some part of the wetland periphery has value primarily as a buffer, not a wildlife habitat. The acreages defined in Table 1 are merely a guideline. Shape Is as important as area, and Ion g narrow wetlands such as the Panther Creek unit were downgraded due to shape despite their relatively high areal extent. _10- Criteria 8. Hydrology Ecologically, wetlands In the Green River Valley (and elsewhere In the Puget Sound basin) seem to function better and appear to be longer-lived If their hydrologic characteristics permit a through-flow as compared to wetlands which are closed basins. Closed basin wetlands were therefore rated lowest. Highest ratings were reserved for wetlands j which not only have through-flow qualities, but which also have the capability of serving as detention basins for flood flows from existing or proposed drainage channels. The evaluation and ranking of wetlands Is expressed In qualitative terms. By comparison with f other wetlands, each wetland unit was placed on a scale from high to low value for each of the eight criteria. The final ranking of wetlands for multi- purpose value was accomplished by examining the overall evaluation for each wetland, rather than merely by summing the high and low values within the matrix. This process takes Into consideration the differences in value between the eight environmental criteria. Because of the limited nature of the supporting data that can be collected and analyzed In a reconnaissance study, the ranking of wetlands is somewhat subjective. Therefore, the relative value of wetlands separated by only one or two places In ranking might be difficult to substantiate, but the general pattern of highest ranking to lowest ranking wetlands could be I supported by additional research. The potential ease or difficulity of preserving a particular wetland by the City was consciously excluded from consideration In the evaluation and ranking process. Recommendations for City action with respect to particular wetlands take Into account these limitations, however. The evaluation sheets for each wetland unit are included in this report as Appendix II. The final ranking of wetlands within the City Is as follows (from highest to lowest in value). 1. BLACK RIVER RIPARIAN FOREST This forested wetland in considered the most valuable wetland within the City. It Is large, fairly Isolated, has high overall wildlife diversity, high wildlife and waterfowl potential, and an extremely unique vegetational character composed of a complex of old growth riparian species. It provides high value open space and aesthetic qualities. The Interaction with Springbrook Creek and the P-1 channel detention basin increases Its wildlife habitat value. 2. RENTON WETLANDS This unit includes the 20 acre "Renton Wetland" and the contiguous unfilled f wetland to the south and west. This wetland has large open water areas, high general wildlife and waterfowl diversity and potential, and unique vegetational components. (NOTE: If the Renton Wetland unit is preserved in conjunction with Unit F of the East Valley Wetlands -- across Springbrook Creek to the east -- the combined value of these units is considered equivalent to the value of the Black River Forest. The additional size -- total of 60-65 acres -- and waterfowl potential under proper management make these combined units more valuable than either unit considered alone.) 3. PANTHER CREEK WETLANDS This long, narrow wetland Is relatively isolated, provides a variety of wildlife habitats and has high waterfowl potential with management. The potential for natural flood storage Increases the value of this habitat. -11- 4. CEDAR RIVER MARSH AND COTTONWOOD GROVE The combination of the perched marsh and adjacent riparian grove Is unique geologically and Is isolated. The aesthetic and recreational open space values are high. Without the riparian grove, this wetland has less diversity and falls in value. 5. COMBINATION OF UNITS A AND B OF EAST VALLEY WETLANDS This combined wetland of 30-35 acres provides much open water for waterfowl and aesthetic value. Although these units may be split by S.W. 19th Street, their combined area Increases their value substantially. 6. UNIT A - EAST VALLEY WETLANDS The presence of a sizeable pond with surface water feeding It gives this wetland high value for water- fowl. The lack of vegetational diversity and its small size limit the value of this wetland. 7. CEDAR RIVER MARSH The perched Cedar River Marsh and adjacent slopes considered alone are unique geologically and provide high aesthetic value. The small size and limited wildlife potential restrict its value. B. UNIT D - EAST VALLEY WETLANDS Small pools of open water, a highly varied vegetational community supporting a diversity of wildlife and high waterfowl potential make this wetland valuable. Adjacent development and small size are limiting factors. 9. UNIT B - EAST VALLEY WETLANDS This small wetland has high waterfowl use and potential. Its value is lessened by size and uncertain water supply. 10. ORILLIA POND While this pond with its numerous snags is well used by waterfowl for resting and loafing, its small size limits its potential as a wetland. This area is valuable as a complement to other area wetlands. 11. UNIT C - EAST VALLEY WETLANDS This wetland has a diverse vegetational character, including some overstory components typical of former Green River Valley Wetlands. Wildlife and waterfowl potential is high, but the size of the wetland is restrictive. 12. SPRINGBROOK WETLAND This wetland is rather isolated and serves as valuable open space. However, wildlife and waterfowl potential is middling and the vegetation --, except for a few large snags -- is not unique. -12- 13. UNIT F - EAST VALLEY WETLANDS Although this wetland has good potential with proper management --, especially If combined with the Renton Wetlands to the west across Springbrook Creek -- it is currently not highly valuable for wildlife or waterfowl. Open water areas have been closed off by the invasion of pioneer species and water supply is not assured. 14. UNIT E - EAST VALLEY WETLANDS This wetland is uniformly forested, provides some open space and limited wildlife and waterfowl habitat. Its primary value Is as a nesting, roosting area and as a link with other wetlands. -13- CURRENT POLICIES AND PLANS RELATED TO WETLANDS As part of this reconnaissance study, a review of current policies and plans affecting wetlands in the City of Renton was conducted. This background research was necessary in order to develop recommendations for protection of Important wetlands that would be compatible with the existing regulatory framework. The current policies and plans related to wetlands in the City apply only on a piece-meal or short-term basis. No overall policy for wetlands preservation or protection exists, nor is there a general plan for the establishment of a system of wetlands. The Comprehensive Plan designates some wetlands as greenbelts but does not distinguish them from other open space areas or link them as part of an overall system. Likewise, the Renton Zoning Code and other development regulations and the State Environmental Policy Act may be employed to mitigate or control impacts to wetlands, but only in an incremental fashion as development takes place. Under current plans and policies, it would be difficult to pursue a program of wetlands protection, acquisition and maintenance. Any action that the City might take to restrict or control development In order to preserve wetlands must be made on the basis of well-defined plans and policies. Further, unless a policy framework exists for a wetlands system In the City, wetlands will be viewed and managed as unconnected pieces. Although some of the wetlands that are preserved may, In fact, be Islands, they should be addressed as part of an overall wetlands system. Of the current plans aimed at wetlands within the City of Renton, the most focussed has been the East Side Watershed Project. As compensation for the wetland habitat that would be lost with the development of this drainage project, the local sponsoring-jurisdictions and the Soil Conservation Service signed a letter of agreement in 1974 outlining environmental mitigation. The City of Renton adopted Resolution 1923 on June 3, 1974 agreeing to these provisions. The agreement called for the acquisition of 110 acres of suitable wetland habitat within the project area, the requirement of a landscaping plan and two percent of additional landscaping for wildlife habitat In granting development permits in the Valley, the requirement that all land not being currently developed be planned and managed for wildlife until developed, and additional provisions for fish passage, riparian habitat and a land use plan. Several past studies have identified wetlands within the City of Renton (and elsewhere in the Valley) as appropriate for acquisition to meet the requirements of this agreement. No formal plan for implementing this agreement and no financial package to finance the mitigation was adopted, however. There was (and is) confusion concerning any responsibility the City has for acquiring a share of the wetlands. Twenty acres of wetland (the Renton Wetland) with an option for thirty-nine more (portions of the Renton Wetland and Unit F of the East Valley Wetlands), were donated to the City in anticipation of satisfying a portion of this agreement. In October 1980 an Environmental Mitigation Plan to implement the provisions of the letter of agreemetnt was finally adopted by the Green River Basin Executive Committee representing the local jurisdictions and by federal agencies. This Plan is being sent to local city councils along with a financial plan for the project. As approved, the Environmental Mitigation Plan calls for the Panther Creek Wetland to be preserved and managed as part of the East Side Watershed Project for stormwater detention and as forty acres of suitable wetland habitat for mitigation. The Green River Basin Program and the East Side Watershed Project have also Identified the Renton Wetland and the Black River Riparian Forest as valuable wetland habitat which could enhance the multiple purposes of the drainage project. These areas, however, are not currently linked to project planning in any formal way. -14- The other purpose of the environmental agreement -- two percent additional landscaping and retention of undeveloped land for wildlife -- have not resulted In the protection of existing wetland areas. Although these provisions are technically enforced, they are not applied specifically with a view toward wetlands nor within the concept of an overall wetlands system. The Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City of Renton in 1976, partially In response to the environmental mitigation agreement for the East Side Watershed Project. The Comprehensive Plan designates most of the Valley within Renton as Manufacturing Park. However, the Renton Wetland and Panther Creek Wetland are identified as greenbelts. Policies that accompany the Plan also encourage permanent reservation and management of large areas for wildlife habitat, and suggest that, wherever feasible, unique natural features should be incorporated into development plans. As applied to wetlands, these policies have not been supplemented by specific land use regulations or a wetlands acquisition program. An expanded Policies Element for the entire City is under consideration by the City Council at this time, but this must also be implemented by specific regulations. The Cedar River Marsh Is designated as recreation on the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan policies for the Renton Wetland, Panther Creek Wetland, Cedar River Marsh and other wetland areas are useful in providing short-term protection and as part of an overall wetlands policy, but are not adequate to provide permanent protection and management of important wetlands. The City of Renton Zoning Code, Subdivision Ordinance and Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance do not specifically address wetlands. These regulations may be used to condition development actions and to require retention of wetlands for storm runoff, flood storage or land use buffers. However, these ordinances may only be applied when specific developments are proposed. Any wetland habitat preserved is, therefore, usually small, extensively modified, or unconnected to other wetland units. To date, none of the wetlands identified in this reconnaissance study have been afforded protection under the Renton development regulations. Coordinated with a general wetlands policy and plan, however, these regulations could be effective. The Renton Shoreline Master Program establishes standards for development In or adjacent to shorelines of the City and associated wetlands. Of the wetlands identified in this study, only a portion of the Black River Riparian Forest and the Cedar River Marsh are within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program. The Black River and Springbrook Creek upstream to FAI-405 are designated as shorelines of the City and shown as urban environments. This jurisdiction extends 200 feet into the Riparian Forest bordering the Black River and has been interpreted to include the wetlands of the old Black River channel. The urban environment Is governed by regulations that control the quality of future development and provide for public access to the waterfront. Protection of wetlands outside the actual channel Is limited, however. The shoreline of the Cedar River adjacent to the Cedar River Marsh Is designated as a conservancy environment. The first 200 feet of riparian grove, the ridge separating the marsh from the river and the marsh itself are Included within this jurisdiction. Under the conservancy environment, commercial, Industrial and most residential uses are prohibited. Therefore, the Shoreline Master Program can be used effectively for preservation of most of the Cedar River Marsh habitat, although this protection may not be long-term. The State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW) and the Renton Environmental Ordinance (Title IV, Chapter 28 of the Renton Municipal Code) require environmental review of most development proposals in the City that affect wetlands. The City, through the Environmental Review Committee, may require environmental impact statements and may deny or condition proposed actions based on the adverse impacts of the proposed projects. All greenbelts, conservancy environments, and the 100-year floodplain are designated as -15- Environmentally Sensitive Areas which are not exempt from a determination of significance/non-significance in the City. These environmental regulations can be used to protect wetlands Identified in this study. However, such protection would be short-term, would be linked to a specific development project, and must be supported by strong factual evidence showing unacceptable impacts. Although it has not been employed to date to protect wetlands Identified in this study, Federal law has some potential to complement an overall wetlands policy within the City. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, administered by the Corps of Engineers, landfill in and adjacent to waters and associated wetlands of the United States is regulated. For a variety of reasons, however, the Corps does not currently exercise jurisdiction in the Springbrook/Black River watershed. Protection of wetlands under this review process would, In any case, be short-term and incremental. Approximately nine acres of the Panther Creek Wetland is currently protected and maintained as wetland under the provisions of the State of Washington Open Space, Agricultural and Timber Lands -- Current Use Assessment Law (Chapter 84.34 RCW). Under this law, property owners gain tax advantages by declaring their land (including wetlands) as open space. Although this protection for wetlands Is not long-term -- open space classifications may be changed -- this law has the potential for broader application within the City and could be coordinated with a general wetland policy. POTENTIAL MECHANISMS FOR LONG-TERM WETLAND PRESERVATION Ali of the plans, policies and regulations discussed In the preceding section may be employed to provide some measure of protection to wetlands in the City of Renton. This is especially true if important wetlands are recognized in City policy and recommended for preservation. However, with the exception of wetland acquisition through the East Side Watershed Project, each of these measures will provide only partial or short-term protection. Mechanisms for permanent protection must be implemented If the City desires to maintain a system of wetlands as wildlife habitat and open space. In reality, permanent protection translates into acquisition by the City or other agency. Acquisition could be in fee simple or by some means of partial acquisition. Purchase of title to wetlands in the City would require a clearly defined acquisition program and appropriate means of financing purchases. Federal, state and other sources of funding would have to be pursued. The primary restriction to outright purchases is the high land values in Renton, especially In rapidly urbanizing areas like the Green River Valley. A second means of acquisition in fee is by private donation. Several years ago, the City of Renton received title to twenty acres of the Renton Wetland through private donation. Although private donations are financially beneficial to the City, solicitation of additional donations is unlikely to produce significant new wetland acreage because of high land values and increasing development potential. The City has established the Green River Wildlife and Greenbelt Preservation Fund -- currently containing limited resources -- to accept donations for acquisition of wetlands. The City may also exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire important wetlands. In this case, the City would determine that the acquisition of certain wetlands was In the public interest, the property would be taken through condemnation, and just compensation would be -16- I paid to the owners. The City would have to adhere to a set of well-defined policies and plans outlining the public purpose to be served by the wetlands and the benefits of preserving the wetlands. Again, a major restriction to the use of eminent domain Is the cost of compensation In an area of high land value. Other agencies and organizations have In the past expressed interest In preserving some of the important wetlands in Renton. The City could encourage acquisition by, or joint acquisition with, other public and private agencies. Funds are sometimes available in State and Federal agencies for purchase of wetlands and wildife habitat. A King County bond issue for parks and open space is currently being developed for presentation to the voters. The City could pursue the inclusion of wetland acquisition In this measure. Private organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy and Trust for Public Land, could also be Involved In the purchase of land for wetlands preservation Partial acquisition of property Is another means of long-term protection of wetlands. This approach would involve the purchase of a drainage easement or wetland easement or the acquisition of development rights to a property. The process of acquiring partial interest in a property would be similar to full purchase, but would be most effective In specialized circumstances where some minimal or non-competing use of the property Is retained by the owner and the land is managed as wetland by the City. Except for these limited situations, partial acquisition is likely to be as expensive as full purchase. I -17- GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS I. WETLANDS POLICY -- The City of Renton should adopt by Ordinance a comprehensive wetland policy. This policy statement should define wetlands within the City, recognize the purposes of natural wetlands, set as a goal the preservation In a natural condition of those wetlands with the most value for wildlife habitat, surface water retention and open space, establish standards for evaluating the benefits of wetlands and for preserving the most valuable wetlands. 2. WETLAND PRESERVATION -- The City should follow the adoption of a Wetland Policy with efforts to preserve valuable wetlands. In the case of highly valuable wetlands, this protection should be permanent and the wetlands should be managed for maximum benefit. Potential mechanisms for preservation are discussed above. 3. NATURAL ISLANDS CONCEPT -- Historically, wetlands covered most of the Green River Valley floor. These wetlands were all part of the same ecosystem. However, in recent years extensive landfill and development has displaced most wetlands and broken up this system. Few of the wetlands that remain are functionally or spatially linked. Those wetlands that are recommended in this report for permanent protection, particularly the four highest ranking wetlands -- Black River Riparian Forest, Renton Wetland, Panther Creek Wetland and Cedar River Marsh and Grove -- should be perceived as "natural islands". An Island, or refuge, concept should guide preservation and management of these multi-purpose wetlands. This concept Is important because in the future these wetlands will likely be surrounded by urban development and will function as islands of wildlife habitat and open space. The wetlands that are preserved will become increasingly more valuable. This island concept also has implications for the critical size necessary to maintain the health of a wetland and for future recreational/educational enjoyment of the wetlands. 4. LANDFILL -- The City should adopt temporary regulations controlling future landfills in the Green River Valley. A moratorium should be enacted to prevent all speculative landfill (i.e. landfill without submission of specific building plans) unless significant environmental mitigation Is provided. Further, on those sites where landfill is permitted, the City should require that the volume of the 25 year design storm be retained on-site and that landfill be restricted to 50% of the site, In a concentrated pattern. All these restrictions should apply until the East Side Watershed Project or an equivalent floodwater conveyance system Is completed. This moratorium and landfill restriction is necessary because natural flood storage areas, I.e. wetlands, are being removed rapidly and the threat of floods is increasing. This recommendation is consistent with interim landfill control measures adopted by the Green River Basin Program. Landfill controls should apply to the entire valley floor within Renton, not just to the area of the current moratorium. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations apply to Individual wetlands. Wetlands are discussed in the order of their ranking. The first four wetlands are extremely valuable and the City should make every effort to afford them permanent protection. For other wetlands, opportunities for preservation are more limited, but where appropriate, measures to protect the natural functioning of the wetlands are recommended. Under each wetland unit, recommendations are listed in the order of urgency. -18- Black River Riparian Forest Because this wetland Is the highest ranked In the study area, the City should take all reasonable measures to permanently protect It. I. The City should deny any requested change In zoning from the current General Classification (G). This policy is based on the uniqueness of the forest and the adverse environmental impacts that would occur through rezone and subsequent development. Loss of this wetland cannot be adequately compensated through environmental mitigation. Loss of any of the riparian forest to urban development will severely impact the habitat value. Furthermore, at least 40 acres of wetland In one contiguous block would have to be retained in its natural condition in order for the riparian forest to continue as a functioning habitat. Anything less than this size would probably function primarily as low value open space. 2. The City should investigate the purchase of the entire 65-70 acre habitat for a wildlife/recreation area, possibly with the assistance of the Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land or other organizations. 3. The entire riparian forest should be designated as a greenbelt on the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the steep hillsides north of the riparian forest between S.W. Sunset Blvd. and the B.N. railroad tracks should be designated greenbelt to prevent severe erosion, loss of wildlife habitat, and adverse impacts to the riparian forest. 4. Through the Green River Basin Program, the City should insure that the design and construction of the East Side Watershed Project enhances the value of the riparian forest. 5. The Shoreline Master Program should be amended to show the north side of Black River as a conservancy environment. Renton Wetlands As the second highest ranking wetland In the study area, the Renton Wetlands should be permanently preserved as wetland habitat. This Includes the twenty acres owned by the City of Renton and ten to fifteen additional acres of wetland Immediately adjacent on the south and west. I. The City should retain ownership of its twenty acres of wetland. This valuable wetland should not be sold in order to acquire other wetland property. No wetlands of comparable value could be purchased short of acquiring the entire Black River Riparian Forest. 2. No LID assessment to this wetland property should be allowed. Significant assessments from LID 314 and future LIDs will in effect, require this wetland to be developed for urban uses. As a natural wetland, this area will receive no benefits from the LID, and the City should not permit the wetland to be destroyed In this manner. 3. The portion of this wetland that is currently outside the City of Renton ownership Is an integral part of the habitat. Much of the open water lies in the southerly portion of the site. The entire wetland must be protected if it Is to retain its high value for wildife habitat. Therefore, no landfill or development of the southern -19- or westerly portions of the wetland should be permitted. This could be accomplished by denying development permits on environmental grounds or by conditioning development of Unit F of the Valley Wetlands (to the east across Springbrook Creek) to require the retention of the natural wetlands lying south and west of the City owned wetlands. 4. The Renton Wetlands should be managed as wildlife habitat. Management should begin Immediately with measures to prevent indiscriminate dumping and disturbance and with enforcement of hunting regulations. The dirt road that currently bisects the wetland should be closed. 5. The entire Renton Wetlands and the Springbrook Creek corridor should be maintained as greenbelts on the Comprehensive Plan. Panther Creek Wetland The Panther Creek Wetland is the third highest ranking wetland in the City. The City should take all reasonable steps necessary to permanently protect this wetland. I. The Panther Creek Wetland Is planned as an element of the Soil Conservation Service East Side Watershed Project. The wetland will be used as a flood storage area which will preserve the wetlands In their natural condition. However, until such time as the ESWP acquires this property, the wetland must be protected from urban development. Therefore, the City should take all necessary measures to prevent development In the wetlands. These measures may include a temporary development moratorium or denial of development permits on environmental grounds. 2. The Comprehensive Plan greenbelt designation should be maintained for this entire wetland. In addition, the steep slopes that border the wetland on the east are necessary buffers for protecting the wildlife habitat value of the wetland. The City should amend the Comprehensive Plan to show these steep hillsides as greenbelt. 3. Until the Panther Creek Wetland is acquired for use in the ESWP, the City should manage the portion of the wetland in its ownership as wildlife habitat, and encourage other property owners to do likewise. Management could include enforcement of hunting and dumping restrictions, and an Integrated pest control program. The City should also encourage property owners to file for the Open Space Taxation Program. 4. At this time, the City should not attempt to purchase the Panther Creek Wetland unless this is the only means for Its preservation. If the ESWP is not constructed within a reasonable time period, then the City should explore alternatives for acquiring the wetland. Cedar River Marsh This wetland and riparian habitat is a unique environment and every effort should be made to preserve it. I. The City should renew efforts to acquire the Cedar River Marsh as an important open space resource and as a link in the Cedar River Trail System. Acquisition should include the cottonwood grove adjacent to the Cedar River, the marsh -20- r I Itself, and a portion of the surrounding hillside up to the elevation of the ridge that separates the marsh from the river. These areas surrounding the marsh should be preserved because they are critical buffers for this small marsh. The cottonwood grove is appropriate for low Intensity recreational use. 2. Urban development In the area of the Cedar River Marsh should be carefully regulated; development within the wetland Itself or within the required buffer zone should not be permitted. 3. The current Comprehensive Plan designation for most of the site Is recreation. This designation should remain In force and guide land use decisions Involving the property. Unit A -- East Valley Wetlands This wetland Is a valuable wildlife habitat, especially the large open water body. A current landfill permit for the site and LID 314 (which proposes to drain the pond) threaten the existence of this wetland. Therefore, opportunities to preserve the wetland are limited. I. As a condition of short plat approval for the site, the Hearing Examiner required the dedication of easements to protect the natural drainage and stormwater I retention qualities of the site. These easements should be enforced by the City. 2. The City should authorize administration representatives to negotiate with the property owner concerning possible means of preserving the pond. This might Involve incorporating the existing pond Into development plans for the site. The pond with a small buffer strip would still be valuable to wildlife and would enhance design of a future development. Even when LID 314 is constructed, natural water supply to the pond could be provided which would maintain the water level and quality of the wetland. Unit D -- East Valley Wetlands This wetland provides diverse wildlife habitat and efforts should be made to preserve as much of this wetland as possible. Even an area as small as 5-10 acres would be valuable for wetland habitat If surrounded by a buffer area and managed for wildlife. An active fill permit exists for the site; therefore, any action to preserve a portion of the wetiand must be timely. I. The City should authorize administration representatives to negotiate with property owners to preserve a portion of the wetlands. This could Involve an offer to trade previously filled land owned by the City In some other location In exchange for 5-10 unfilled wetland acres. 2. The extension of Raymond Avenue S.W. Includes a portion of the wetland on the west side of this site. Raymond Avenue should not be developed In this location If efforts to preserve a portion of the wetland are successful. The property to the west of the wetland can be adequately served by Valley Parkway and S.W. 19th Street. Unit B -- East Valley Wetlands Much of the value of this wetland Is based upon Its relationship to Unit A. Because of LID 314 and the development of S.W. 19th Street, the value of this wetland unit will be diminished. -21- i I. The landfill controls in General Recommendation 4 apply to this property. No speculative fill should be allowed; when development does occur, only 50% of the site should be filled; the remainder should be left In Its natural condition. These regulations should apply until the ESWP is constructed. 2. If S.W. 19th Street is not constructed, this right-of-way should be abandoned and a portion of this wetland combined with the Unit A pond. Orillia Pond This heavily used pond lies directly in the path of the proposed P-1 channel. I. Until such time as the site is incorporated Into the ESWP, no development should be allowed. Unit C -- East Valley Wetlands An active landfill operation Is in progress on this site. Therfore, few opportunities exist to preserve portions of the wetland in a natural condition. I. If the wetland is not entirely filled within the period of the Special Permit, the ` City should then re-examine the value of this wetland and the possibilities for preservation. Springbrook Wetland This wetland should function as a greenbelt, as a natural stormwater detention area, and as wildlife habitat. I. On those properties between Talbot Road South and SR 167, the City should require that development be clustered on uplands. This will protect the natural functioning of the wetlands and preserve the viewshed from the hillside. 2. Landfill should not be allowed within the wetlands for the purpose of enlarging the developable acreage of a property. Developments adjacent to the wetland should incorporate natural stormwater detention within the wetland rather than excavating a detention basin. 3. The Comprehensive Plan Greenbelt designation Includes a portion of this wetland along SR 167 and Springbrook Creek. The Comprehensive Plan should be amended to expand the greenbelt to cover most of the wetland. Unit F -- East Valley Wetlands This wetland Is presently of only moderate wildlife value. As a complement to the Renton Wetlands to the west, however, this unit could be very valuable. I. The recommended landfill controls should apply to this wetland unit. When development of this property does occur, an open space buffer along Springbrook Creek should be provided. 2. If possible, the City should condition the development of this site on preservation of the unfilled wetland south of the Renton twenty acre wetland. -22- I Unit E -- East Valley Wetlands This site currently provides medium value wildlife habitat and open space. A few large I cottonwoods along Springbrook Creek are the most valuable natural elements of the site. I. Any future development of the site should be conditioned upon the retention of the large cottonwood trees and a suitable buffer along Springbrook Creek. MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES For the wetlands of the City of Renton to have any substantial wildlife value, they must possess a variety of habitat components, including open water, Internal screening vegetation such as cattails, waterfowl food plants such as polygonum, and edge brush and trees having cover and/or songbird habitat value such as willows or dogwoods. The extensive wetlands of pure stands of cattail or reed canary grass common In Renton have limited wildlife value in their present state. Past studies of Green River Valley wetlands and proposals for wetlands management have centered around the East Side Watershed Project. Wetlands mitigation for that watershed project has emphasized waterfowl almost to the exclusion of other forms of wildlife, although fisheries have also been considered. For the purposes of this wetlands Inventory and evaluation, all wildlife are considered, birds are given emphasis, and waterfowl are given prominence. It is beyond the scope of this project to design management guidelines for the various wetlands units, but certain general guideline suggestions are in order. It Is Important to remember that local topography and land use should influence the design of specific management landscaping and operations procedures at each wetland chosen for protection or preservation. Peripheral screening In the form of fast growing deciduous trees (e.g., alders, willows, cottonwoods) and compatible brush (e.g., willows, dogwoods) would serve multiple purposes. Vegetation strips such as this along uplands edges of wetlands provide habitat for songbirds, small mammals, and In some Instances upland game birds. The strips can also function as barriers to human intrusion Into the wetland, as well as provide aesthetic features In an I otherwise urban setting. The density of peripheral vegetation can be varied, depending on the degree of protection desired. 1 Monospecific stands of cattails should be broken up by excavating circuitous channels and small pools throughout the cattail wetland. Some of the excavated material might be left on site adjacent to the channels and pools to create Islands of slightly higher ground capable of supporting brush and small trees. These elevated areas could serve as potential nesting sites for some ducks. Portions of the excavated pools should be' planted with aquatic species of high waterfowl and general avian food value, e.g., polygonums, potamogetons, or bulrushes. Reed canary grass has little wildlife food value and Is of doubtful value as a wildlife habitat, particularly when It occurs in extensive pure stands. Transitional wetlands dominated by canary grass should be sculpted Into a generally lower topography to permit or promote more frequent flooding and, thus, a condition more suitable for true wetlands species. Circuitous open water channels and pools should be provided. Limited cattail plantings should be made for cover, as well as extensive plantings of aquatic food plants. -23- The question of vegetative succession does not appear to have been addressed by previous wetlands preservation Investigations and proposals. From a limited search Into present and historical vegetative patterns In the Green River Valley, as well as from field experience In other Puget Sound river valleys, it appears that cattail stands and open water habitats are relatively shortiived. Reed canary grass and cattails are both pioneer species which commonly become established in low, wet places that have been disturbed In some way. The normal patterns of vegetation succession, however, lead to brush swamp composed of willows, dogwood, splraea, and others. Any management program for wetlands preservation and maintenance must recognize that changes of this nature are likely to occur over a period of fifty to one hundred years. Wetlands can be maintained In an early succession stage by periodic disturbance. The desired degree of human use of any preserved wetland should be clear from the beginning of any site-specific program. There Is a big difference in the wildlife value of any natural area depending on whether It Is regarded as a wildlife refuge (little or no human access and Intrusion; Le., emphasis on wildlife), as a wildlife recreation area (wildlife and human use equally Important), or as a natural setting public park (human use emphasized, with wildlife use secondary). � b eared In summary, the management plan for each wetland to be protected should a pr p Individually, taking Into account topography, local land use, site hydrology, the wildlife species Intended for the site, and the degree of human use to be allowed or encouraged. -24- Appendix 11 EVALUATION SHEETS it i i 1a Wetland Unit: Black River Riparian Forest Location: Section 13 (T23N, R4E) ; South of BNRR, North of Earlington Golf Course Size: 75facres Zoning: G, small portions GS-1, R-2 , M-P Comprehensive Plan Designation: Manufacturing Park Ownership: Alterra Corp. , First City Equities, CHG International Descriptive Characteristics The site Is a mature hardwood riparian forest, typical of large riparian forests that formerly covered portions of Puget Sound floodplains. Vegetation Is characterized by old growth black cottonwood up to 7' dbh, mature Oregon ash, big leaf maple and willow. The site has been relatively undisturbed. The Oregon ash may be the most unique vegetational component, but the complex of mature hardwood species sets this site apart. The southern edge of the forest Is traversed by the old Black River channel. Flooding Is seasonal, although some areas have saturated soils year round. The ground surface Is Irregular but relief Is only 5'-10'. In low areas I standing water pools to some depth during the wet months, providing suitable waterfowl habitat. An old RR grade, which supports grasses and emergent wetland plants as well as open water, bisects the site from east to west. Wildlife Is diverse. Songbirds and waterfowl are abundant at various times of the year. Black-tailed deer and red fox have been observed In recent years. The site also Includes a small pond north of the railroad tracks which Is poor In water quality but has high waterfowl use. - Values - Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development I Likelihood 2. Isolation 3. Wildlife Diversity present potential 4 . Waterfowl present potential �] 5. Uniqueness 6. Aesthetics 7. Areal Extent 8. Hydrologic L '1 b I Combination Metla nd ®nit: Renton Wetland/Unit F -- East Valley Wetlands I Location: Section 25 (T23N , ME) , Section 30 (T23N, R5E) r West of Lind Avenue, south of S.W. 27th Street I Size: 60-65 acres Zoning: G, M-P Comprehensive Plan Designation: Greenbelt and Manufacturing Park Ownership: City of Renton, Burlington Northern Descriptive Characteristics This combination of Renton Wetland and Unit F Is primarily an emergent wetland. Springbrook Creek separates the two sites. Unit F Is dominated by phalaris and cattail with scattered willow scrub. The Renton Wetland contains phalaris, cattail, willow and polygonum with significant areas of open water. The combined size of these wetlands provides wildlife with significant cover for resting, feeding, foraging and nesting. The site Is currently Isolated from development. Values - Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development 0 Likelihood 2. Isolation i 3. Wildlife Diversity present potential [■] 1 4 . Waterfowl present potential 5. Uniqueness 6. Aesthetics 7 . Areal Extent 8. Hydrologic 1 2 Netland Unit: Renton Wetland Location: Section 25 (T23N, R4E) West of Springbrook Creek, South of 27th Street Size: 35t acres i Zoning: G, M-P Comprehensive Plan Designation: Greenbelt, Manufacturing Park Ownership: City of Renton, Burlington Northern lDesoriptive Characteristics Twenty acres of this wetland Is currently owned by the City of Renton. This Is primarily an emergent wetland In the early stages of succession from a farmed unit. Vegetation Is characterized by phalarls, cattail, Juncus, willow scrub and polygonum. The latter Is found In large monotypic stands which Is somewhat unusual. Several large permanently flooded open water ponds are located In the central portion of the site surrounded by heavy vegetation for cover. Water supply Is from local runoff and drains through the site to Springbrook Creek. Waterfowl are abundant in winter and general wlldife diversity Is high. A dirt haul road cuts through the site from north to south, providing access for cars and garbage dumping, which threatens the habitat. - Values - Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development Likelihood f 2. Isolation Q 3. Wildlife Diversity present potential 4 . Waterfowl present potential 5. Uniqueness Q 6. Aesthetics Q 7. Areal Extent Q 8. Hydrologic Q 3 Netland Unit: Panther Creek Wetland Lication: Sections 19 , 30 , 31 (T23N, R5E) Directly east of SR 167 Size: 65tacres Zoning: P-1 , G-9600, L-1, GS-1, G. SR-1 ' Comprehensive Plan Designation: Greenbelt Ownership: City of Renton, Puget Sound Power & Light, State of Washington , King County Hospital District 1 , sixteen (16 ) private ownerships E�eseriptive Charaeteristies This Is a long, narrow wetland that Is separated from the rest of the Green River Valley wetlands by the Valley Freeway-SR 167. The site contains a mix of wetland types. To the south where Panther Creek enters the wetland, there is a forested unit of cottonwood, willow i and alder. Moving north, there is a wetland transition zone of phalarls and mixed grasses, followed by an emergent wetland, 3000' long, of predominantly cattails. This area is in early succession from cultivation-- farm ditches are still evident. North of the emergent wetland, t two utility crossings cut the site. The rest of the wetland Is mostly scrub-shrub with willow, spiraea, alder and dead snags dominant, Interspersed with open water. The wetland Is fed by Panther Creek to the south (partial flow), Renton Village drainage to'the north, and runoff from the adjacent hillsides. Besides the open water pools, standing water is present during the wet season, and the soil is probably saturated most of the year. This is a diversity of habitats for wildlife. Waterfowl, which are limited to open water pools now, could be greatly Increased with proper management. - Values - Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development Likelihood 2. Isolation 3. Wildlife Diversity present potential 0 4 . Waterfowl present potential 5. Uniqueness 6 . Aesthetics 7 . Areal Extent 8. Hydrologic 4 Combination Wetland Unit: Cedar River Marsh and Cottonwood Grove Location: Section 21 (T23N , R5E) South of Cedar River in Maplewood Area Size: 30facres Zoning: SR-1 comprehensive Plan Designation: Recreation, Greenbelt Ownership: C. Parker Descriptive Characteristics This Is a combination of a perched marsh and cottonwood grove adjacent to the Cedar River. The marsh Is located 20+ feet above the river level, apparently perched on an Impermeable sandstone layer. The marsh is situated In a unique geologic bowl separated from the river by a large ridge. The cottonwood grove Is on a bench formed by river deposition. Vegetation within the marsh Is In concentric zones, beginning with a small open water pool, then a cattail and juncus unit, a scrub alder zone, and finally a ring of alder and evergreen trees. These zones I represent successional stages from wetland to upland. The riparian grove Is dominated by large cottonwoods. The water level in the marsh is maintained by local runoff from the steep hillsides above. Water passes over a cascade from the marsh to the river. A diversity of wildlife habitats is available, although waterfowl use is limited. The site is well Isolated from intrusion. Values - Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development Q Likelihood 2. Isolation 3. Wildlife Diversity present 0 potential 0 4 . Waterfowl present Q potential Q 5. Uniqueness 6. Aesthetics Q 7 . Areal Extent Q 8. Hydrologic ' I 5 Combination Wetland Unit: Units A & B -- East Valley Wetlands i Nation: Section 19 (T23N, R5E) Between Lind Avenue S.W. and East Valley Road, both sides of S.W. 19th Street Size: 30-35 acres Zoning: H-1, G Comprehensive Plan Designation:_ Manufacturing Park Ownership: Metro Industrial District (Descriptive Characteristics These wetlands are divided by the right-of-way for S.W. 19th Street. Unit A to the north contains a large pond which Is heavily used by waterfowl. Surrounding the pond is an emergent wetland of Juncus and phalaris. Unit B south of S.W. 19th Street Is an emergent i wetland of cattails and dead willow snags Interspersed with pools of open water. Unit A receives surface water from a large culvert under SR-167. Water flow passes through the pond and exits the wetland through a culvert under Lind Avenue. Some Interchange of water occurs between Units A and B. A landfill is encroaching on Unit A. Values - Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development Likelihood 2. Isolation 3. Wildlife Diversity present potential 4 . Waterfowl present potential 5. Uniqueness 6. Aesthetics 7. Areal Extent 8. Hydrologic 6 Wetland Unit: Unit A -- East Valley Wetlands Location- Section 19 (T23N, R5E) Between Lind Avenue S.W. and East Valley Road, north of S.W. 19th Street Size: 20-25 acres I Zoning: H-1 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Manufacturing Park Ownership: Metro Industrial District Des(criptive Cnaraeteristies The site contains a large pond which Is heavily used by waterfowl. Surrounding the pond Is an emergent wetland -- to the west dominated by juncus, to the east mainly phalaris. Surface water flows Into the wetland from a large culvert under SR 167, passes through the pond, and flows out under Lind Avenue. The water table Is fairly high In the western portion of the site. This area was farmed until the early 1960's and Is In the early stages of succession. A current landfill is active on the north edge of the site. Values - Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development QQ Likelihood 2. Isolation 3. Wildlife Diversity present potential 4 . Waterfowl present potential 5. Uniqueness 6. Aesthetics 7. Areal Extent 8. Hydrologic Wetland Unit: Cedar River Marsh Location: Section 21 (T23N, R5E) South of Cedar River in I Maplewood Area Size: 15facres Zoning: SR-1 Comprehensive Plan resignation: Recreation f Ownership: C. Parker Des�itive Characteristics This sheet considers only the marsh alone. The marsh Is perched 20+ feet above the river r level, apparently on an Impermeable sandstone layer. A unique geologic bowl separated from I the river by a 30'-50' ridge contains the marsh. Vegetation within the marsh Is in concentric zones, beginning with a small open water pool, then a cattail and juncus unit, a scrub alder zone, and finally a ring of alder and evergreen trees. These zones represent successional stages from wetland to upland. The water level in the marsh is maintained by local runoff from steep hillsides above, with water passing over a cascade as It flows to the river. The various vegetational zones and large cedar snags provide wildlife habitat diversity. Values Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development ® ` Likelihood 2. Isolation © l 3 . Wildlife Diversity present potential 4 . Waterfowl present potential I 5. Uniqueness 6. Aesthetics 7. Areal Extent 8. Hydrologic 8 Wetland Unit: Unit D -- East Valley Wetlands Location: Section 19 (T23N, R5E) West of Lind Avenue S.W. , south of S.W. 19th Street Size: 25facres Zoning: G Comprehensive Plan Designation: Manufacturing Park Ownership: M. Summers , BEMP Descriptive Characteristics This Is a diverse wetland, containing emergent, scrub-shrub, forested and open water units. An active landfill Is In progress on the east edge of the site. The central portion of the site Is dominated by cattails with numerous snags for perching and nesting sites. Openwater pools are found in this area. The northern portion of the site Is a forested unit characterized by willow and red-osier dogwood. The south third of the wetland is a scrub-shrub unit with cattails merging with willow shrub and being replaced by phalaris. Surface water enters the site at the northeast from Unit A, flows diffusely through the wetland and emerges at a drainage ditch along the south edge. Wildlife useage Is high and diverse because of the variety of habitats. - Values - 1 Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development Likelihood 2. Isolation 3. Wildlife Diversity present potential 4 . Waterfowl present potential 0 5. Uniqueness 6. Aesthetics 7. Areal Extent 8. Hydrologic 9 Westland Unit: Unit B -- East Valley Wetlands Location: Section 19 (T23N, R5E) Between Lind Avenue S.W. and East Valley Road, south of S.W. 19th Street Size: 15tacres Zoning: G Comprehensive Plan Designation: Manufacturing Park Ownership: Metro Industrial District , City of Renton Descriptive Characteristics This Is an emergent wetland, of fairly uniform character, dominated by cattails and dead willow snags Interspersed with pools of open water. The site. receives local runoff and some interchange of water from Unit A to the north. However, water quality Is generally poor because of stagnant conditions. Water level remains high much of the year. Waterfowl are abundant, but general wildlife diversity Is average because of the uniform nature of the habitat. I - Values - Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low f 1 . Adjacent Development Likelihood 2. Isolation Q 3. Wildlife Diversity I present Q potential 4 . Waterfowl present potential 5. Uniqueness Q 6. Aesthetics 7 . Areal Extent 0 8. Hydrologic 0 . Sass;. , .,,,,..... . :.,.. r.-; •. :�•: . >�r:,•.. ... . ..,.,::. , i 10 Wet1andl Unit: Orillis Pond Location: Section 36 (T23N, R4E) North of S.E. 43rd Street, east of BN railroad tracks Size: 5facres i Zoning: G Comprehensive Plan Designation: Greenbelt Ownership: Burlington Northern Railroad f Descriptive Characteristics This is a large pond with dense snags covering two-thirds of the water surface. The pond Is fed by local runoff and has no apparent outlet. Railroad tracks to the west and north, and an Industrial dry waste heap to the east have dammed this water body. Waterfowl are plentiful; the habitat is ideal for resting, nesting and roosting. There Is little human disturbance at present. Values - iRanking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development Q { Likelihood I 2. Isolation 3. Wildlife Diversity present potential Q 4 . Waterfowl present Q potential 5. Uniqueness 6. Aesthetics 7. Areal Extent 8. Hydrologic Q V i - 11 Wetland Unit: Unit C -- East Valley Wetlands I Location: Section 30 (T23N, R5E) Between Lind Avenue S.W. I and East Valley Road, south of S.W. 23rd Street Size: 15-20 acres Zoning: L-1 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Manufacturing Park Ownership: Iconco Descriptive Characteristics This wetland Is rather diverse for so small a site. An active landfill operation Is in progress on the east side of the wetland. The northern portion of the site is dominated by cattails and dense willow snags, giving a scrub-shrub character to this unit. Small open water pools are scattered among the snags. The south third of the site is a forested remnent of a much larger forested wetland that was typical of this portion of the valley. Oregon ash, red-osler dogwood and willow dominate here. Water level is at or near the surface much of the year. Local runoff feeds this wetland. - Values - Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development Q Likelihood 2. Isolation 3 Wildlife Diversity present potential Q 4 . Waterfowl present Q potential 0 5. Uniqueness i 6. Aesthetics 7. Areal Extent Q 8. Hydrologic i 12 Wetland Unit: Springbrook Wetland Location: Section 31 (T23N, R5E) East of SR 167 , West of Talbot Road South, north of S. 55th Street Size: 30facres Zoning: G CoWrehensive Plan Designation: Single Family, Greenbelt Ownership: State of Washington, 8 private ownerships Descriptive Maracteristics This is a forested wetland maintained in a middle succession stage by human disturbance. Uniform age alders dominate the wetland with older conifer snags Interspersed and young conifers growing throughout the site. The soll Is saturated, with little standing water evident. Runoff comes from local hillsides and overflow from Springbrook Creek. SR 167 acts as a dike to maintain water levels. Wildlife diversity Is middling because of the uniform habitat. Values - Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development Likelihood 2. Isolation I 3. Wildlife Diversity present potential I 4 . Waterfowl present potential 5. Uniqueness 6. Aesthetics 7. Areal Extent 8. Hydrologic s f I • 13 Wetland Unit: Unit F -- East Valley Wetlands Location: Section 30 (T23N, R5E) Between Lind Avenue S.W. i and Springbrook Creek, south of S.W. 27th Street Size: 25tacres r Zoning: M-P I Commprehensive Pian Designation: Manufacturing Park � Ownership: Burlington Northern Railroad Descrijptive Characteristics This is an emergent wetland dominated by phalaris and cattail with scattered willow scrub. This unit was farmed in recent decades and is In an early succession stage. A pond area in the center of the property has been Invaded by pioneer wetland plants to the point of choking off the open water. Water Is supplied by local runoff which drains Into Springbrook Creek. Wildlife Is not diverse because of the present uniform vegetation and lack of open water. - Values - l Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development Likelihood 2. Isolation 3. Wildlife Diversity present potential 4 . Waterfowl I present 0■ potential 5. Uniqueness 0 6. Aesthetics i 7. Areal Extent 8. Hydrologic i * '14 I Netland Unit: Unit E -- East Valley Wetlands Location: Section 30 (T23N, R5E) Between Lind Avenue S.W. and Springbrook Creek , north of S.W. 27th Street Size• 20tacres Zoning: H-1 CoWrehensive Plan Designation: Manufacturing Park Ownership: Mobil Oil Corporation, Burlington Northern Railroad Descriptive Characteristics This wetland Is located just west of the Mobil Oil Tank Farm. It Is a forested wetland unit characterized by willow and red-osier dogwood. A row of large cottonwoods lines the banks of Springbrook Creek. The wetland is fed by local runoff. Little surface water Is evident. Wildlife habitat is provided by the dense vegetation, particularly by the large cottonwoods. - Values - Ranking Matrix = High Middle Low 1 . Adjacent Development Likelihood 2. Isolation 3. Wildlife Diversity present potential 0 4 . Waterfowl present potential 0 5. Uniqueness 6. Aesthetics 7. Areal Extent a 8. Hydrologic i TPMCkeNziC o<S rc.b9� WESTEUGENE COMPREHENSIVE WETLANDS PLAN: A CASE STUDY Q { rr Prepared for the Conservation Foundation and World Wildlife Fund By Steven C. Gordon Senior Program Manager Lane Council of Governments 125 E. 8th Ave. Eugene, Oregon 97401 (503) 687-4283 September 1990 INTRODUCTION caught many people Oregon The discovery of extensive wetlands in west Eugene, area planned for devel- Having a large tract of wetlands in an area p _ by surprise. protection laws into direct n opment brought Federal and State we tlandslns - threatening past public flict with local comprehensive land use P in planned private industrial and . experienced loss of wetlands over the facility investments and delaying or stopping P How commercial development• This same area o t communication is so century; an alarming circumstance tficha environmental community. past y ha en in a scientific g en in Oregon which could this discovery PP � How could this great and information so rehensivedlandouseoplanning parogram. prides itself on its comprehensive citizen involvement happen in -Eugene where environmentaliuedtoresolves many rconflicts Wit is cn the are- How eu is intense, and planning is pity? How can a community ithtthecares issuesabout raisedeby�the wetlands discovery. fully planned growth deal w se study will offer answers to those questions. It will describe a This case en in many other communities during series of events which are .likely to happen of Eugene officials the next decade. It wi chose to be ll describe how they comprehensive planning process - a pro-active in finding a solution using agencies, property owners, process which involved affected governmental ag environmental organizations, and other interested citizens and groups- land is not complete, the process to date can While the West Eugene Wetland P com rehensive wetland plans. The west provide some insights into developing P Eugene case study offers a model for resolving wetlands and development planning process. issues using the p BACKGROUND Eugene lies Located at the southern end ofthe broad, ranges l (Refer amette Valle to Map�Nos. 1 & 2) . between the Coast and Cascad e of Oregon's second largest metropolitan area drains into the While most Amazon Willamette and McKenzie Rivers, west and drainsains intointo Fern Ridge Reservozon Creek. ir, Creek flows westerly througTEugene veranwhich flows northward into Benton which drains into the Long County and joins the Willamette River. a The ert oAmazon asSoi dredandConservation Service channelized in the 1950 s and 60 P to SCS) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers effortsthe north control flooding an stormwater drainage and to promote farming to the Kalapuya Prior to white .settlement in the southern Willamette bu�in9'the prairies, Indians routinely set fire no fhWoadylvegetation to benefit their gathering they controlled the invasio grasslands p ced and hunting way of life; camas which grows in the wet g bulbs used as the major staple in the Kodu tloainfluenza� p contact andsmallpoxepidemics, whites, the Kalapuyas quickly died due next 150 ears, much of the Valley and burning practices ceased. Over the aYn crops and rye grass seed was converted to agriculture. Sheep pasture, g production are the predominant agricultural uses today. tte Valley. To alleviate Historically, flooding was frequent in the Willame flooding, a series of dams was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- 1 LU 't z ct t W `'''•' d0�y N Ali.• .� . O :;;}, LLL J {r cc 00 f{ r Y : �: fh �h{fl fh•':':'Y•}:ti•}:}:{:::':•.;f' •�'•. Jam' ...:::: '• v{;,..:'.. • 4 � '{+}{,i•};�~f::Y45tXf ��:i}tip •:yX•:;L}.4,'•ki?:� {}}„4',: .;:tir}{::.••�..,v v'.•,,•,'r•,r•••. yy 1' •Ty � f k} `}:"•'}'}t''y;:::LL{ }}�}ll�'y�f�},���'�t':.,v,{i:}�::{'$:;:iti:{�:::..;:'r~~• t`•.�` '� '}r,Y :: •S^ O +Sri•y{;' tG.,Y • r 41 �\h r Jtth• �t t. ` ti•' I saw6mr. w"MII 4 - 0 BUOEN'E AIRPOCLzoxLAjmm FERN RIDGEi tff• RESERVOIR z• ••#flat STATE SI D WILDLIFE ••. MOT.AREA •.Ad DIV IN �•.� ,►�,� •. ' •� 1 �u w TO FLORENCE rv.ttttiA PACIFIC OCEAN t • M l AVL • • Its tUttt� • • • i ! • 0 IIIIt SI ��I . s � ��tllttt111 Map No. 2 , West Eugene Wetlands Study Area & Vicinity ..•• STUDY AREA footstool" CITY LIMITS dra ere or neers in the upper Willamette zieiRiversainnLanehCountyewhichtalt reddflowsn the upper Willamette and McKen three zie lain was within the Eugene-Springfield region g on•winterefloods,tthe�bro broad there typically covered west Eugene 9 Today, reduced dramatically by the dams and the Amazon channelizazon, and minor is a fairly narrow floodway fringe associated withing the Amaoro�events. flooding occurs about once every ten years Outside the Portland region, urbanization in Oregon is a fairly recent phe- nomenon, with most development occurring ndn the Springfie d'sld War II populationrwas Eugene's population in 1940 was , lation was about 3,805. In 1990, the Eugene-Springfield urban r'e910Develo�nt in west Eugene 190,000 and Eugene's population exceeded 112,000. was made possible only with the control of flooding heu19509sfand used for supported programs. Zoned for industrial usemixture of light lumber production, west Eugene is now more abut on andrse hcommercial uses. manufacturing, warehousing, dis industry, 9 to conversion to In summary, loss of wetlands in this region was due l7h lood control, and draining• eonce vast extent of agriculture; clearing, f the 1980's. The prairie grasslands and wet ash forests were reduced by twelve Nature Conservancy's Oregon Natural Heritage data base listed only remaining Desch sia ces itosa gs theadominant plantd sites in 19ain oeswet prairie ces itosa, or to to airgrass, � ant community. In recent years, urbanization also co tribu andlosstoff etlandl loss, - P but Oregon, prompted by concerns over sP tural resources, adopted a 1973 statewide land use planning act to contra urbanization through careful management Under Oregon's planning program, each city has a defined urban growth bounda- ry (UGB) within which urban level development isoconcentratetionofs d. UG61s, all counties have land use p 9ment is laces agricul- tural and forest resource lands. Rtmentsal etolfuture rural development where existing development lansrwere�approved by the State. at the time the county p Under the statewide planning program, the local plans were also required to inventory wetlands and to develop programs to protect important natural resources. However, outside coastal areas, wetlands law and definitions were not well understood in the late 1970's when most of Oregon's planning inven- tories were being conducted. An extensive v{9oPolitanhregion iabitat nP1977-78,oand was undertaken for the Eugene-Springfield some wetlands were identified. They tended to be the kinds of wetlands commonly identifiable, such as marshes,d. The wetlands and riparckets and ash iansdefinit a few small wet meadows were also lands identified. Two west tions were combined, so many wetlands were not properly Eugene sites were protected in the land illowlCreek, ae1001 acre sash gforest5 acre marsh with forested edge, and 2) W wetland with one of the finest prairie werra esdiscovered ant t willoweCreek, andg in the Willamette Valley. Rare plants The Nature Conservancy now administers tha t site as a natural area through es lease agreements and recent land p DISCOVERY AND INVENTORIES LEAD TO WETLAND PLAN DEVELOPMENT In 1985 a permit to fill a pond adjacent to the Willamettellametteocal River near a local shopping center stirred controversy among and the known problems with the the local Audubon Society was especially concerned with wetland values. The permit was never issued, but the controve y 1977-78 wetland inventory prompted the Citifies of Eugene andcon Springfield to jointly fund a new natural resource inventory through aract with a consulting biologist. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS) Natioaboutnal e1982.tland IEventthen, the draft maps.for Eugene were not available unto . NWI maps did not show the extent of wetlands in tinterpretationSince resultedwine wet meadows and prairies, the aerial photography open ponds and mapping of about one-quarter of emergent he total wetlwetlandswereamapped.mostly vertheeshotohraphy streams, but few of the se emerg alongwith 1986 aerial photography . maps and the 1977-78 vegetatio;nt�for nthe biologist's inventory. were used as the beginning p As part of the 1987-88 natural resources inventory, a 765 acre concentration of wetlands was discovered ?on the identification o region. outlineThat wetlands (the prevalence or off-site vegetate land definition used was similar i o the rySmethodologyt included dannevaluation of wetland plant species). The of wildlife habitat values for we Fortla the first�time,ethe region shad andinven- selected upland resource areas. For the tory which provided comparative quantification of relative resource values on a broad scale. One of the first wetland issues to sintocitsnthird ph west aseedevelop was a ment lan on an existing electronics firm to expand indicated that the firm twelve undeveloped acres. The west Eugene inventory indicated Environmental Pro- wasit completely surrounded by wetlands. By applying, the firm rde- tection Agency (EPA) Region X wetland mitigation guidelines, signed its site plan and reduced the wedtlhnedf mmpacts to to .5tacres.gate f When nait applied for a fill permit, EPA require and 1985 thorized fill which had unknowingly beeent. The firmed on tquicklyncomplied, and during the first two phases of developm _ the Amazon is currently constructing wetlands on 27.5600,OOO. The discovery 5 acres downstream of wetlands Channel , at a total cost caused the Eugene City Council and the issues faced by an existing company, to reflect on its role and the impact th of we lands let ondi a co munis go thro ftethe considering two approaches: 1) do nothing permitting process, or 2) develop a comprehensive approach to solving the wetlands dilemma to provide community benefit wetland assist forvwestmEugenethe Council decided to develop a comprehensive cted Because the majority of the 765 acres of wetitndCouncs in ilsanduPlanningt Eene eCommishe City's industrial , vacant land supply, the City sion decided to contract with the lane-Council of Governments (L-COG)comprehensive to prepare a "West Eugene Wetlands Special Area Study" wetlands plan. The objective of the Plan was to nity developmenteneedsct eino lower lvalue wetland resources while meeting community wetlands. The Council couded that the piecemeal ermittingons iPhodedsnotspraowdeunpre- dictable, and often resulted rms of cumulative positive cowmunity benefits in aewetlandd plan,donce adopted and rotection or economic development. On the other permitting adopted process, implemented, should add certainty, should facilitate the and should result in consensus on Prova uednwetlands of the �when cst lombined with aes while allowing development on Jesse mitigation plan. In addition, the plan provided restorations and mitigation be volvement and proposed a scheme of pro streams rovide developed to make a connected sett ofwetlaa wetlands system. P greater values than an unconnected, fragmented point in the process, the wetland planning�nents withwas ortuL-COG nded solely At thisPtal by the City of Eugene through intergovernmenresentation at a locally spon 1988, EPA officials were invited to mg about the City's intentions, EPA sored wetlands workshop. Upon hearing responded favorably to a officials in Oregon and regional offices in Seattle, west rant proposal and funded a more detailed delineation if This $50e000 study l ands, including an assessment of functi ons and was conducted through L-COG with an environm n1989C0 suitingral firm. ThiIden- inventory used methodologies contained in lied the level 2 tifying and Delineating jurisdictional) Woutl1n430 acressm and wetlands were Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET)- Refer to Map delineated using both the on-site entoried,nd �abote utt705oacres,�or(49% of the No. 3). Of the larger acreage in the total. were disturbed agricultural wetlandkn ledge l d of wetlands inwestEugene biologist's habitat value inventory, the 9 increased tremendously. THE WEST EUGENE WETLANDS SPECIAL AREA STUDY (WEWSAS) . ram was approved by the Eugene WEWSAS is being managed by L-COG. A work City budgeted funds for three Planning Commission in late 1988, andhfor�the wetlands planning efforts. consecutive years to fund L-COG support In .1989, .the Eugene Citd and y Council fundlobbs,danodnapproximately�$2509000 was napprO- water quality planning and study funds, PP e additionalassistance riated to EPA to providrpublic release int fall e1990ne twith Tfhe draft wetlands plan is scheduled o local adoption planned in 1991. as To assist in plan preparation, an interdepartmental staffteusinessf assirmed s- - with representatives from L-COG and from ydepartments: tance, public works, planning, parks, community development, intergovernmen tal affairs, and finance. In addition, a technical advisory committee (TAC) Lands was formed with representatives from program) ,e gon. ivis nCorps of tofeEngineers, (administrators of Oregon's wetland EPA, and USF&WS. The TAC meets about ovresstwissues three , and draft planrsec- comments to the local staff team on pr g tions. The Eugene Planning Commission provided policy direction for the planning process. The City's Citizen involvement a�arteofa the nd PWEWSASgwo�k progoram. approved the citizen involvement program P Rather than form a citizen commit tee le, l ocaleitizens have been ts,nand adseries through newsletters, field trips,of workshops. Brochures on the planning process, wetlands functions and (41 ur-,I"r M- -Mill -Tl to r Wile Vra .61 gr imi 16 .......... MR wgm L Fo- IS P 4 R- 1. 4 RUM fl: u 4"A's On--mil jr 1, WM_151 .. a Q's will gill OWN now.- -L�, -V-h M. k7k. &&r-,OPINIONS c k LIZ. Rr '7i no 6 V10 Milli values, and a self-guided tour of the west Eugene wetlands were prepared to inform citizens. A mailinlist asfthe interested project progressed.citizens Starti gwas withYel oped, and the list was expandedHers with about 250 names, the list now totals overe600. All property o to the mailing identified wetlands on their property list. News releases, posters, and fivenworkshops hletters ave beenre used held announce attene workshops to the public. To date, have dance varying from 35 to 145 citizens. The fiver wokshoas survey fofucitizen 1) issues and information, 2) inventory methodology and goals and objectives, 4) inventory results and three future attitudes, 3) 9 preliminary staff recommendation on protection, wetland scenarios, and 5) a p Ydraft development and mitigation. The next eannworkshop ill focus on tworkshopsPlan and will be hosted by the Eugene Planning number oftechniques were used to obtain citizen reactions mark ton), direct mation: informal bean jar surveys, questionnaires, maps contact with the planning team and representatives of State and Federal agencies. The field trips have included special events for environmental groups, City Lane County Planning Commissioners and Planning Commissioners and Councilors, League of Women the County Commissioners, other interest groups (e.g., 9 Vot- ers) , and the staffs of Senator Hatfield's and oRepresentative DeFazio'soduceizens offices. The field trips provide a unique opportunity to the. wetlands, wetlands restoration opportunities, and land use issues. The results of the citizen involvement pro gram he rs andnlossiofve.wetlandsewas wetlands discovery was upsetting to prop y disturbing to environmental interests, the development of a balanced approach gained strong support through this process. One problem which occurred during the process was a change in wetlands definitions and methodologies presented in the 1989 Federal Manual. The new methodology approximately doubled the amount of wetlands in west Eugene from 765 acres to 1,430relimi- There are still individual property owners who are unhappy P out the "takings" issue, but the majority of nary staff recommendations and ab participants are supportive of the direction the plan is taking. A major concern of the environmental community is uncertainty about the ability to recreate successfully the prairie grassland ptarit community. Despite those concerns, the overall reaction to the WEWSAS process has been positive. At each step, citizen comments were documented and taken into account as the plan developed. The results of every workshop were published and mailed to the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions, the City Council and Board of County Commissioners. t The periodic meetings of the TAC have also produced positive reactions. While details of the plan remain to be decided, the general direction gained widespread support from the State and Federal agency representatives. The TAC was able to review methodologies, advise on policies, review draft ma- terials, and suggest funding opportunities. The TAC was instrumental in making sure that the wetland plan reflected accurately State and Federal wetland definitions, laws, regulations, and policies. Based on local needs, Oregon wetlands and land use planning law, and on Federal direction for advanced identification and special area studies, the West Eugene Wetlands Study contains the following features: introduction, purposes, study area & citizen involvement descrip- tion executive summary functions, and wetlands definitions and description of types, values from local and national inventories historical perspective and background - wetlands - development history - public infrastructurestateloo cal law and regulations, and legal framework: federal , permitting processes issues analysis: guidelines (required ratios mitigation using EPA �andatimintion of replacement) for mitigation by typewetlands protection, wildlife habi- multiple use objectives ( flood control , open space, tat, water quality improvements, recreation) maintaining (who, what, when and how) monitoring, operating, - buffering techniques land use protection measures act analysis environmental, social, economic imp mitigation bank or store public, private, and non-profit roles = financing (costs -and revenues for land aandlmaintenance)troction and mitigation, and on-going operationsunder Or law, a and recommended policies goals, objectives, plan has policies which have refinement to the local comprehensive p of local land use law - eventually, the wetlands plan the affect may lead to a regional permit) impact analysis - buildable land inventory P d . will be published in two documents, a technical report containings, The study and a P immapplementing and much of the detailed information out above, and policies. Upon adoption, a more detailed atlas for use in imp the plan is anticipated. goals and In developing scenarios and the preliminary staff recommendation, re ared, and the public was invited to respond to them. objectives were p P and economic implications Detailed information on the environmental , soci coual environmental and of the scenarios was also provided so citizeasreflectingerstand the implica- tions of alternatives. In addition�eSented and applied to individual wet community development va were pre in the preliminary staff recommendation lands. The criteria applied included: protecting rare plant sites retaining existing natural designated f areas dplain protecting sites within the 100-y ear protecting wetlands within 300 feet of a waterway rotecting wetlands that serve as connections to other wetlands and p stemgrass - providing waterway system prairie habitat diversity and considering unique p land plant community f s furthering attainment of the goals and objectives reflecting approved permits from regulatory agencies separate from developing isolated, disconnected wetlands which are the wetland waterway system developing wetlands adjacent to existing infrastructure investments (streets, roads, sanitary sewers, and water) developing wetland areas fronting on major accessible highways developing wetlands where severely impacted by existing . P- ments roach, 1,160 acres of wetlands were identified in Through this balanced app were the preliminary staff proposal for protection and restoration, and 370 identified for development. The preliminary staff proposal also icompleted vision system o twetlandsnwould accompanied by a diagram showing what the look like in twenty years upon successful completion of the project. The plan will recommend methods for protecting important wetlands and recom- mendations for acquiring them or allowing some to remain in private owner- ship. Mitigation will emphasize enhancement of remaining wetlands and resto s along with stream restoration. A multiple ration of disturbed wetland purpose plan will feature wetlands protection, water quality improvements, flood control , wildlife habitat enhancement, recThetplan(willlcontainwildlife observation, fishing, canoeing, and nature n general public, non- recommendations for Federal, State, local government, and profit group, and private funding for acquisition, willtbecdescribed.onAgoing operations. The roles of various City d P. major thrust of the plan is water quality mment to address anticipated EPA regulations for municipal storm watersystems. In the interim, the City of Eugene's permit center staff comes rectheed wetland training. When an applicant for a building permit NWI and permit cen- ter, planners check the wetland inventory maps (also at inventory,ck the SCS soils map west Eugene detailed wetlands inventory) . They os ma for hydric soils. If any ofishreferred inventories the Stateindicate andaFederal wetland agencies for tial wetland, the applicant a wetland determination. Only with a written responseerinit a be wetland ex�s s or with proper wetland permits will a local building p Through agreement with the DSL, the City also eevas i°pations,acomplaints, spondence from DSL regarding local wetlands (p PP delineations, or enforcement actions). This serves as a useful tool as wetland decisions are made within the metropolitan region. Discovery of wetlands has affected land values. Recently, the county asses- sor's office issued a report indicatin that to aboutw$800ntovS1U000es 1pereacreUgeSales had reduced assessed property values of undeveloped, industriaWe� Zsellingrinithen west range ofgen�3e500,to S7,800 to upere of the assessor's report e acre on parcels containing wetlands. This reduction has ve yrelieved elievet to d ownerspt I ofselling continuing, high property tax payments, but owners vacant wetlands for $1,000 per acre. itional unity The City and L-0O0 staff conductedeneaWetlandscStudy- Anwetlands outreach programs prior to the onset of the West Euged. been and the State and for property owners was developed. Setlandssdefinitionsable to individuals to explain the regulatory programs, w was to Federal permitting processes. A major objective of this Program is being prepared. There is a inform interested parties and to make lam that local development conforms o State and Federal law as the wetland p a wetlands curricu- ram beyond the study. As a result of the modest community education program Y field trips, local educators are inte srestedWetlandslclasses are already part lum for elementary and secondary of the community recreation and adult edruoc t- PSeveral classesdaththe s City Parks and Lane Community College p 9 e, adding a wetland University.of Oregon studied wetlands relatedtion systems class issueinlandscape architec- component to a geographic ture) . QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS All but the latter question raised in the introduction are answered below. The latter question is answered in the is so How could this discovery happen iclusion section. n a scientific age when enni1nn Oregon nwhich great and information so widespread? How could this hrogram? How could this prides itself on its comprehensive land use planning program? involvement happen in Eugene where environmental interests are high, is intense, and planning is used to resolve many conflicts within the commu— nity? 1. Despite understanding among environ�eWidelsts about lindplanningdefinitions and values, that information was no Y distributed circles until the late 1980`s. ot an 2. The .Federa] regulatory agencitoward planne are rs. and do Oregon,nsuchaaepro— educational program directedpermit h a pro— gram gram would be useful since many land use and building are key to wetlands permitting and protection. Furthermore, the distance from federal offices and expertise has a bearing on the significance of the wetland fromissues the at Seattle the local level. Oregon is distant from Washington, D EPA offices, and from EPA field ofeecunless Portland. wetlandse issue econfronts a informed and active citizenry local area, Federal agencies are not likely aloo e involved als ineveryoneg development decisions. Assumption by is aware of Federal law is a false assumption, even in communities that t are committed to doing the right 9 hod3. The original NWI inventory map met anddid not ser did not a veas ante early extent early of wet grasslands in west Eugene, a Y warning of the extentof wetlands ththey were localnotintegrated use the NWI p r intothe produced after planacknowledgment, local comprehensive planning process. Oregon now has better law re quiring"periodic of new information into plans through a process called periodic review". 4. The developmen t of comprehensive land use plans in Oregon took more than a decade of intensive effort and investment. Once those plans were acknowledged by the State, many governments were relieved and directed efforts toward plan implementation. 5. Oregon went through a severe recession from from comprehensi 1979 to 1984. In ve every region outside development. Portland, planning to economic development. In most of Oregon, that emphasis continued throughout the 1980's and continues into the 1990's. 6. The wetlands issue is complex and confusing to comprehensive planners fferences who must be knowledgeable about an array of subjects-nces insdefinitions, among Federal agencies over jurisdiction, differences among State and Federal authorities and officialscaused to ignore wetlands confu- sion. It was easy for local plannersable and give attention to more pressing issues like jobs aotherfnat exacerbated by ional housing; important social issues often policies and programs.. 7. The local environmental community sp nt efforts in the Oregon lateold glrowths and 1980's to wilderness bills, Alas Oregon while some forest issues. People were thinking and acting globally, local issues went unnoticed. To property owners and the development community, discovery of wetlands and dealing with wetlands issues is notulike we h he experiencedan ndenialalanger,oes and hases through when facing death. Eugene, some acceptance. To date; most rkinrs antowardlapers curehsidenby sidehw�ith the blissful state, but many are 9 environmental interests. None OoCet�he above discoveryanswers wasimadetethereawasnaereuse for ignoring wetland issues sponsible effort to take corrective action. While wetlands legislation has nteres�has been since revived late since0thetNationaearly 1970's, the Federal and State ' Wetlands Forum and the 1988 Presialaint,�agthoroughawarenesn turalaused by a local permit, a statewide plannin re 9 qureme resources inventory, better State and Federal participation, and growing attention stemming from the current Federal administration with appointment of William K. Reilly to head EPA. The reaffirmation of the "no net loss" policy and recent trenUnlimited, nli ited national develop9platformssforsuch wetlands the protection are on Society and Ducks Unlim , indicators that water resources and wetlands are likely to remain subjects o interest during this decade. CONCLUSIONS In the introduction, the question was posed: "tiow can a community that cares about the environment and about carefully planned growth deal with the issues y? WEWSAS serves as a model for answering raised by the wetlands discover that question. the West Eugene Despite problems encountered over the past three years, Awareness Wetlands Special Area Study has been beneficial to the community. a os- of wetlands issues and laws has increased. entecco community is seekingonspil itive solution to an environmental public and private benefits. provide a community compromiseositive workingt will ereationships with State and Local governments developed P iti solution which will Federal representatives. The goal of finding a balanced serve as a model for other communities is achievable• f advantages over comprehensive wetland planning approach has a number o The comp permitting approach. Those are outlined in the the traditional wetland p problems encountered are also summarized. conclusion section. Some of the p permitting 1. The advantages to a comprehensive wetland plan over the p process experienced in the west Eugene study include: through a a. iecemeal nature of the permitting It is easier to develop a reasoned, balanced approach comprehensive examination. The p does not allow for regional issues to be weighed- processnificance b. It is easier to determineeistespecially trueive values and ainaahregional - to wetland resources. Thisnt planning approach which include an of theeregionalfdevelopmentnc Lions and values and an analysis effects and options. C. It is easier to balance The permitting system isebia edmbecauseental npropertypinterestsment raresnot an ht- balanced with local environmentaun ty whensplanningsdevelopment, ened developer involves the c Y other interests must be protected y regulators iortth permitting public review or appeals processes*process, there is not an opportunity for dialog and compromise between development and environmental interests. permitting d. It is easier to analyze thereaisvnoiattempt toBecause measurethe the impact process is incremental , period of time. T of permits issued within a provides aion over a ofraework for estimat- comprehensive planning approach ing and measuring cumulative impacts. permitting ro- e. It is easier to develop community consensus. The p roach cess invites confrotictiationThe fromoapwidenvarietyaoficemmunity promotes active participation roach to prob- lem it provides for a more collaborative approach resolution. f. It is easier to educate citizens about etdasduissues. once frontation is introduced through a p P to present facts and offer Pnallowsions neducationuto�take aplace hin a comprehensive planning processworkshops, field trips, variety of ways, including newsletters, P � presentations to organizations, and direct contact with interested citizens. discuss cations 2. Accurate inventories are esseamustlbeo fairly rder ospecific sopProtection with property owners, boundaries and development implications can be considered. It is also important to gather information about the functions and values of wetlands in order to determine relative significance. Eugene.A Hav wildlife informationaonng system also proved valuable in wetland types, acreages, and values allows for better decision-making t to in a regional context. Without that information, it is diffyi,,cetjands assess the impact of a filrenuiresnalgood wetland. informationnbase so the protection and developmentq lap for a community and regulatory agencies can reach agreement on a p regional wetland resource. en- 3. Support of elected officials develoomenttconflicts�with sw y to l t etlandslawin tion to wetland values or to P roach allows issues a crisis mode, a comprehensive wetland planning approach allows rsu to be debated in comprehensive approach allowsore rational manner wetlands issu Unlike the es to be addressed cess, the comprehe PP -active fashion. In addition to elected offi- in in a positive, protant commis- cials, other decision-mkrs are is eof regionalrsignificance2i tp planning may be advisable sioners. If the to involve State and National elected representatives. hat includes roert 4. A citizen involvement program tcommun. y, educators, an e other ninter-en- tal interests, the development ested citizens and groupt is hem in to onsuccess.of enceaal lows hthem to community and involving eP provide suggestions for creative solutions. In the West Eugene ation project, we found widespread support for concept such as matconnected banking, building wetlands in advance of need, greenbelts, and a finan- system, a balanced approach to protection nd develop profit group cial plan with Federal , State, local , private roles. The citizen involvement program is key to the success of a comprehensive planning rmation 5. Involvement of State and FederaWkedagencies wrelliin critical . West Eugeneoproject.of a Technical Advisory committee or We conducted meetings in Portland, Salem and Eugene to meet the time constraints of individual members. Members of State and Federal agen- cies participated in every workshop. This involvement allowed them access to local citizens and gave them an opportunity to view the wetlands first hand. (. The 1989 Oregon wetlands sll Phatidedtais list summarizediinmthescontents for a comprehensive we Plan portion of this case study. Among problems encountered were the following: 1. Confusion about wetianfede�alnlawtnwhich about applyjurisdiction, wetlandsaadndabout the various State and planning hampered community understanding. 2. Changing Federal methodologies and definitions during the process Federal agencies and local staff who car damaged credibility of - ried the news to property owners, the development community, and local elected officials. 3. Continuing interpretations in the 1989 Federal Manual add to the confusion. There is continuing opposition to the disturrbed, agricultural definition of wetlands and using the 404 p 9 process to protect those disturbed resources. This issue is related to the issue of significance. Qustions often on asked of local staff are: "Why is the same emphasis lands as on natural, functioning wetlands? Since these areas are disturbed, why must we replace them at the same ratio as natural wetlands?" The logic of the definition and protection for dis- turbed wetlands has not been accepted in Eugene. The West Eugene plan uses the disturbed definition, includes agricultural wetlands in the inventory, and addresses them in the balanced plan, bny utd owners, the development community, ome -officials do not agree that these are wetlands worthy of the same protection emphasis as a marsh or prairie grassland. 4. The takings issue remains as a�ers point. thatDespite when wetlands deci- sionsto the contrary, property Yis laws cause reduction in property values or when a wetland protect protected, a "taking" occurs. If State and Federal laws p wetlands and restrict o prohibit sreasonable bareeconomic burdenreturn, who compensates land owners whyhould federal environmental regulations? 5, for better are not inventories awhichecannbegood used tosmaketlocalylandhuseays for better decisions? 6. Wetland studies and planning are expensive — Again, who pays? 7. There are few programs to pay for wetlands acquisition or restora— tion, even where State wetland priority plans identify the most significant wet�ind�eno�h resources tlandnresourcenis ofain, who regionalpors' . . Particularly national significance? 8. There is a need for more wetlands education — Especially among city and county officials. Wetlands is a land use issue and most land use decisions are made by local officials — an educational effort should be directed toward them. 9. The "no net loss" policy is a goal . There should be a program to rate wetlands significance. It should be more difficult to devel— op an important wetland and easier to develop a less significant one. 10. The newer definitions of disturbed agricultural wetlands is drawing opposition among many Oregon planning circles. Just as Oregonians were learning of the NWI and the three parameter definition of wetlands and of lists of wetland plants and soils, the new Federal "Manual" was produced in 1989. Under the Manual , vast acreages may now be disturbed wetlands, affecting significant areas planned for future development. The "Manual" and the disturbed definition reduced what credibility wetlands issues gained in the late 19801s. While Oregon has an intricate urban growth management program, the Federal guidelines do not recognize the program and account for needs issues to be addressed through a comprehensive ve plan. The impacts of the new definitions on regional and communi- ty economic development is not well understood - in many areas, wetlands will be pitted directly against development. The battles which ensue will be unpleasant. To end on a pleasant note, despite the problems li sted above, the comprehen- live wetland approach is an et or of wetlands requires more to address wetlands isseintensive substate region where a pocket Y foravailable treatment. The comprehensive wetlands plan allows tThebcsomprehensb e information to be integrated into a rat wetland resources; planning approach should not be an excuse for developing stems it provides an opportunity to protect valuable wetlands throu approach rather than th a The result- rough the incremental permitting p ntal and produce future Lane County multiple eresidents ing system of west Eugene of presenta social benefits for the enjoym P and visitors. REFERENCES AVAILABLE 10 1989- "West Eugene Wetlands Special Area StudyWork Program" February , (Includes a citizen involvement pro g )• "Why Are Wetlands Important?", 1989. (Handout) . "Self-Guided Tour of West Eugene Wetlands", 1989. (Handout) . "West Eugene Wetlands Special Area Study", April 1989. (Handout) . "Preliminary Inventory of Eugene and Springfield: Wetland, Riparian & Upland Areas for Wildlife Habitat Value, Esther Lev for Lane Council of Govern- ments" Revised February, 1990, $10.00. , (Results of the first "Status Report on Public Involvement", September 1989. two citizen workshops) . "West Eugene Wetlands Public Preference Survey Results", February 1990. (Results of the fifth citizen workshop) . "Citizen Workshop No. 4, Wetland Information and Scenarios February 1990. (Booklet handed out at the fourth citizen workshop) . Oregon", "Wetland Inventory and Wetland Functions and Values Lake Oswego,in tOregon for L-COG. February 1990, by Scientific Resources, Inc. , (Includes wetland delineations as assessment of functions and values using the Wetland Evaluation Technique) . "Results of Public Workshop No. 4„, April 1990."Citizen Workshop No. 5, Preliminary Staff Recommendations", May 1990. (Booklet handed out at the fifth citizen workshop) . "West Eugene Wetlands Special Area Study: Draft Technical Report, L-COG, scheduled for publication, fall 1990 "West Eugene Wetlands Special Area Study: Draft Recommended Plan, L-COG, scheduled for publication, fall Memorandum of Agreement for Development and Use of a Wetland Bank in Idaho 1 . Preamble: a. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) operates within the direction given by Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands". Federal aid projects must comply with Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5660.1 A, "Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands" which results from this executive order. DOT Order 5660.1 A requires that ITD demonstrate there is no practicable alternative to construction in a wetland and all practicable measures to minimize harm have been included in the project. b. Impacts to wetlands for which there is no practicable alternative may require mitigation. In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR §1508.20), mitigation includes: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. c. Avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, or reducing wetland impacts is, at times, impossible to accomplish onsite, comes with such risk that successful mitigation cannot be assured, or can be accomplished only at extraordinary cost. Use of a previously constructed, off-site wetland may be appropriate in these situations to compensate for wetland losses. Such use is consistent with the definition of mitigation provided by 40 CFR §1500.20(e). 2. Authority: a. This memorandum of agreement is established in accordance with the following authorities: •Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.) -National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq.) •Executive Order 11990 -Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands (DOT Order 5660.1 A) •Mitigation of Environmental Impacts to Privately Owned Wetlands (23 CFR 777) •Stream Channel Protection Act (Idaho Code §42-3803 et seq.) -Lake Protection Act (Idaho Code §58-104(9) and §58-142 et seq.) page 2 3. The Wetland Banking Concept: a. Wetland banking, for the purposes of this memorandum of agreement, is defined as the following: The offsite creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands, which are waters of the United States, to compensate for unavoidable impacts due to roadway development, operation, and maintenance activities by the Idaho Transportation Department. The bank represents a net gain of wetlands to be drawn upon to offset losses caused by activities which otherwise comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. 4. Consistency with Established Legislation, and Rules and Regulations: a. The wetland banking program will operate within the constraints of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, Executive Order 11990, and all other federal and state legislation, and rules and regulations. b. The term wetland is defined by US ACE rules and regulations [33 CFR §328.3(b)]. 5. Areas and Activities for which Wetland Banking may be Considered: a. The wetland bank will be considered one of the practicable mitigation alternatives for ITD construction, operation, and maintenance activities. It may be used only after all other mitigation methods [ie. 40 CFR §1508.20(a) through (d)] have been examined and found to be impracticable. b. The wetland bank will not normally be used to mitigate for the loss of wetlands which are considered unique because of their physical, chemical, or biological composition or ecological importance. These wetlands will be identified during the early coordination phase of the environmental review process and plans will normally be made for mitigation other than wetland banking. 6. Criteria for Location and Development of a Wetland Bank: a. ITD may use its best judgement and consultation with interested agencies to locate and develop individual wetland bank sites at depleted borrow sources, uneconomical remainders of right-of-way, and other publicly owned properties. As a general rule, ITD will locate individual wetland bank sites at locations that have the physical, chemical, and biological character to support wetland development, and as close to anticipated impact sites as possible. b. FHWA will participate in the cost of development of a wetland bank when a loss to a wetland resource, attributable to a federal aid construction activity, has been documented. FHWA will approve federal aid participation page 3 for that portion of the wetland bank required to mitigate for specific impacts attributable to a single federal aid project. c. ITD acknowledges that regulatory and resource agencies provide no guarantee that an individual wetland bank site will be accepted as mitigation at the time of a proposed trade, or that permits for a particular project will be issued even though mitigation is offered. d. The wetland bank shall be publicly owned and maintained. 7. Criteria for Use of a Wetland Bank: a. Conceptual review and concurrence in the proposed use of the wetland bank will be sought from regulatory and resource agencies as part of the early coordination phase of the environmental review process. Normally, this will occur after project alternatives and their impacts have been identified. Conceptual review and concurrence will require ITD to demonstrate a wetland bank site is likely to function according to a previously prepared plan. b. Final concurrence from regulatory and resource agencies for use of the wetland bank will normally be sought during the §404 permit review process. Significant new information not available at the time of conceptual review and concurrence will be provided at this time. c. ITD will retain ownership or interest in the wetland bank, and responsibility for operation and maintenance until an agreement with another public agency is completed. ITD will normally solicit a public resource agency to accept ownership and responsibility for an individual wetland bank site at the time all of the resource credits from the site have been withdrawn. No public agency is obliged to accept ownership or responsibility. d. Lands withdrawn from the bank shall normally be fdnctionally equal to those damaged or destroyed. Replacement for impacted wetlands shall normally be on a one to one basis, by area. Situations exist when it is more practical to construct a greater acreage of lesser quality wetland rather than the same acreage of equal quality wetland. In such case, a loss of quality may be compensated for by an increase in quantity. However, in no case may the dollar value of out-of-kind replacement exceed the cost of in-kind replacement. e. Wetlands intentionally or incidentally created by ITD prior to execution of this agreement shall not be credited to the wetland bank. Wetlands created or enhanced by ITD after execution of this agreement shall be credited to the wetland bank. page 4 f. The wildlife values offered by early successional stages of a wetland bank site will be credited to ITD at the time of a proposed trade according to the amortization process outlined by HEP. g. The wetland bank may be used to mitigate for cumulative impacts to wetlands resulting from several roadway activities. 8. Evaluation Methods: a. The FHWA Method for Wetland Functional Assessment (Adamus method) may be used to evaluate wetland functions and values. The US FWS Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) may be used to evaluate wildlife values when they are of prime concern. Both methods may be used in combination to provide the greatest level of detail. Wetland evaluations shall be done by a team, with representatives from interested agencies. b. Neither Adamus nor HEP may be required in simple situations where best professional judgement will do. Full documentation will be required, regardless of the method of assessment . c. The appropriate assessement method(s) will be agreed to by representatives from each of the interested agencies. 9. Record Keeping: a. ITD will establish and maintain records which document the activity of the wetland bank accounts. Signatories to this memorandum of agreement and other interested agencies will be sent periodic statements documenting the status of the account. Statements will be generated after each transaction and at the end of each construction season. 10. Pilot Project: a. The initial wetland banking effort will be limited to pilot projects in borrow sources. In addition, ITD may inventory existing wetlands for potential enhancements. The experience gained by the pilot projects will be used to review and modify this agreement prior to further development of the wetland bank. 11 . Modification and Termination of the Memorandum of Agreement: a. This agreement and the attached operating procedures may be modified with the approval of all signatories to the memorandum of agreement. Modifications may be proposed by a single or inter-agency team of signatories. Proposed modifications will be submitted for a sixty day period of review to all signatories and approval of the proposed modification will be indicated by written acceptance. page 5 b. This agreement and the attached operating procedures should be viewed as working documents which will be reviewed by all signatories to the agreement and interested agencies within two years of establishing the first wetland bank site. c. A signatory may terminate their participation in this agreement upon written notice to all other signatories. Idaho Transportation Department Date ,,Oderal Highway Administration Date 16 17el2a-r 14 S m gineers Date S En ronmental Protection Agency Date y/2 Z. S Fish and Wildlife S ice Date /� � PAn S -2 ti - $'l M Fish d Game Date X er4l Idaho Departme f ater Resources Date L 0�- I aho Dep ment of Lands Date Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Date i ■ Figure 1 - Outline of the Wetiand Banking Process Roadway Operation and Maintenance Roadway Development Wetland Enhancement and Development Who Tr•rwpatUdew Department WA. Trrlop.rudon Department WM Tr•neport•tbw Dep.rtmoM Make TTrawepetUdon Depu meat Make Tr ortod w Do -b-oll end •Mar kwore•ted • ondo. a•) ud etlw here.b.d . orwtea 60) end .Thar Inreroaed • encl.. (N) I Develop operwlon and maltior w. Awiw budon Atom."wa end hw>tar"k*V wedards and nrlr.a end Wway Wedrw Mp•ca I WWWPr t WWW►np—. Weray nr A""for anArwerrrrr r wed"•M.rwemerr and w«,ur pdaruW caoperr►+e aoMw dw.kprrwr gp«tunrlea br*Nwxwmrd and d*"&4xrw. wtnln the roadwq rlpM d-wr. d w.rlrWa. 1 W&M Trsnoporullea (Ibj Was Trow. eoud" D. .rtmawl (tb) Develop mtaeaun b Dvaiop troaauaa 10 mew trrrnd b,113.61'w 1.6bn•tr"W rrpeoa Id•M Ter» t{•1t D.pwu prtmeM (7.) Prepat.wed"etihmco urr 1 Or Ow*ekpmwil pear` Make Tr.mgart•INw D+pwtm•rtk •md raeetrce a lea &Awk wocliv eaa d mddpadom aaa-----W NW 00opi.nw wM .ppkAbW Moo end 1 Make Trews bd•w De pN Federal N Admrlalatrod" ({a) Interagency Con"atatlon Mob Trart.pwl•dart Dapwtat•rr� 1Ae and raa•uro* • ndee I I&.7d.7g) Comoepenl wA w ant oarw wrrlo• Idaho Tare'erullon Do rt *M(6a.76) In re plapmad Ire d M• Enhance ov develop wedrd bonL wetted bN[rte. (mr+drmlrtl�0 dq tevlaw) M•b Tr•jert+aWw Oeprtm.wl M.evw or OIL Public • n (6d.7c) Apple for WW1 aaerm alwrtbrt, The end te.ponobay la opert bon and YtYe►•d•brrbn prlrir. y10 ffakyorw"a DOWyd. end rese roe Cl IQ.w Ile X 7g)Final nothoo and rmwamlrlce tolerance-4- rprin a IIIIn•p+oposad Was 1n d . b►lOA 10+oA rred•rd bwUL (1�or�0 day wv4efw) Action AO.ncloe(Ice 6S 7b.7d.7t) b�ratary •M iW .ttd Key Aarv«r Idaho tt•rwpatullon Department it ape&d) Parana bred. F400" procee". Operating Procedures for Development and Use of a Wetland Bank in Idaho The following are operating procedures which result from the memorandum of agreement for developoment and use of a wetland bank in Idaho and are intended to further define and implement the memorandum. Procedures for additions and modifications to these operating procedures are outlined in the memorandum of agreement. 1 . Preamble: a. The Idaho inter-agency wetland banking team has investigated the usefulness of banking as a mitigation technique for roadway impacts to wetlands. Team members include representatives from the following agencies: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) United States Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environment (IDHW, DE) Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) b. The team concluded that appropriate use of a wetland bank could benefit both development and resource agencies. It will: •Allow for mitigation of unavoidable impacts to wetlands. -Create the opportunity to develop a comprehensive mitigation plan - rather than piecemeal mitigation - for several projects with minor individual, but significant cumulative impacts to wetlands. -Allow for better evaluation of a mitigation proposal by presenting a functioning wetland, rather than a paper plan. -Create the opportunity to develop one large, more easily managed, wetland mitigation site rather than numerous, small sites. •Improve agency coordination by positioning agencies in a planning rather than a reactive mode. -Expedite project permit review. page 2 2. The Wetland Banking Concept: a. Examples that illustrate the definition of wetland banking provided by the memorandum of agreement include, but are not limited to: -Reclamation of a borrow source, prior to construction of a roadway project, in a manner which provides the wetland values lost as a result of the project. -Wetland development in uneconomical remainders of roadway right-of-way. The developed wetland may serve the function of improving the quality of roadway runoff prior to discharge to a receiving water. -Restoration of wetlands, within the right-of-way of a roadway protect, in excess of that required to mitigate for a loss attributable to the project. Mitigation beyond that required is credited to a wetland bank for use by future projects, distant from the restored wetland. -Purchase of private propperty adjacent to existing public lands and development of the purchased property as a wetland. Title and maintenance of the land is assumed by an adjacent public agency other than ITD (ie. US FWS, US Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, IDL, IDFG). -Fencing an off-site wetland, immediately threatened by grazing or other activity, and supplementing existing wetland vegetation with intentional plantings to improve wetland values. 3. Areas and Activities for which Wetland Banking may be Considered: a. Examples of ITD activities that may impact existing wetlands and may potentially be mitigated by the wetland bank include, but are not limited to: -Reconstruction of roadways on improved alignments. -Placement of sliver fills for roadway widening or curve straightening. -Placement of fills for bridge abutments and piers. -Placement of rip-rap on the face of roadway fills to prevent losses due to erosion. 4. Location and Development of a Wetland Bank: a. The need for a wetland bank should be identified, and the location of potential wetland bank sites should be reviewed in ooperation with interested agencies. b. The wetland bank must either be a newly developed wetland, or the enhancement of an existing wetland. The reservation of an existing wetland is not consistent with the concept of wetlandbanking, with one exception. That exception being the purchase of privately owned wetlands, which are threatened with immediate destruction or alteration and not regulated by federal, state, or local regulation. page 3 c. The wetland bank should be capable of compensating for the wetland functions and values (ie. ground water recharge and discharge, flood storage and desynchronization, shoreline anchoring and dissipation of erosive forces, sediment trapping, nutrient retention and removal, food chain support, habitat for fish and wildlife, active and passive recreation and heritage value) lost as a result of a project . d. Strategies to guide development of a wetland bank include: -Developing a wetland of a particular type (eg. palustrine persistent emergent wetland), with no emphasis given to any one function or value. -Developing a wetland with emphasis given to functions or values of greatest concern (eg. bald eagle habitat, ground water recharge). Other wetland values may be incidently provided by this strategy but are not an intentional part of the prescription to compensate for losses. These and other strategies should be tailored to the anticipated impacts of a proposed roadway project. e. Credits may remain in an established wetland bank after its partial use by a project. In such cases, ITD may request regulatory and resource agencies to identify the geographic boundaries that surround other roadway projects for which the wetland bank may be acceptable mitigation. This will allow ITD to anticipate possible use of the wetland bank by future projects. f. In accordance with FHWA policy, in-kind wetland replacement outside of roadway right-of-way is acceptable only when in-kind replacement within the right-of-way (ie. within the roadway median, borrow pit areas, interchange areas, and along the roadside) is impossible or extraordinarily expensive. g. Guidelines for location of a wetland bank include, but are not limited to: -The bank site should be as close to the impact site as possible. -The bank site should be within the same hydrologic basin as the impact site. -The same public affected by an impact site should be compensated by the bank site. -The bank site should be within the same ITD district as the impact site. h. ITD will insulate wetland bank sites from outside influences and impacts (eg. alteration of drainage or topography by ad'acent land owners, disturbances to wildlife by visitors, vandalism). recognized methods include careful location of the site to minimize impacts, developing large-in- page 4 size wetlands, and coordinating with other agencies and local governments to ensure appropriate land use policies are in place. 1. Cooperative projects with IDFG, US FWS, and land management agencies such as the US Forest Service and the US Bureau of Land Management are encouraged. The principal advantage of cooperative projects is the ease of managing contiguous areas as compared to isolated bank sites. j. ITD will design and construct wetland banks. Regulatory and resource agencies will be encouraged to express their interests and to provide expertise as requested by ITD. k. A wetland bank site will be designed to be easily managed and to function with little or no human intervention. Suggested methods to achieve these goals include developing one large - rather than numerous small, wetland bank sites - and locating the site adjacent to an existing management area. IDFG will normally be the first agency offered ownership in a wetland bank site and responsibility for operation and maintenance. I. The costs associated with the development of a wetland bank that are determined by FHWA to be practicable mitigation measures for federal aid projects, are eligible project costs and reimbursable to ITD. FHWA financial participation in the development of a wetland bank is dependent on the continued maintenance of the site by a public agency. FHWA will not pay for maintenance of a wetland bank. m. ITD will normally bid contracts for revegetation of a wetland bank site with the provision that plant materials will be replaced by the contractor if they perish within one growing season. n. Instruction will be provided by ITD to the public agency assuming ownership of a wetland bank site to assist them in managing wetlands for values other than those within their area of expertise. e o. Use of the wetland bank to mitigate for project related wetland impacts will require ITD to demonstrate the following: 1 ) The activity causing a wetland impact is unavoidable. 2) All other restoration and compensation methods have been examined and found to be impracticable. 3) A functioning wetland has been created according to a previously prepared plan, and its usefulness documented by an evaluation program. page 5 F Strategies to mitigate impacts to wetlands will be examined in the llowing order: Use of traditional mitigation measures: 1 ) Avoid impacts by selecting alternative alignments or locations. 2) Reduce the impact by limiting encroachments, using less intrusive construction techniques, or other methods. 3) Restore the impact area to as near its original condition as possible. 4) In-kind replacement, on-site and within the right-of-way. Use of the wetland bank: 5) In-kind replacement, off-site and within the right-of-way. 6) In-kind replacement, off-site and outside of the right-of-way. Use of traditional mitigation measures: 7) Out-of-kind replacement, on-site and within the right-of-way. Use of the wetland bank: 8) Out-of-kind replacement, off-site and within the right-of-way. 9) Out-of-kind replacement, off-site and outside of the right-of-way. Right-of-way includes the roadway median, borrow sources, interchange areas, and along the roadside. A combination of mitigation strategies may be used if it is demonstrated they better mitigate for the impact than the use of a single strategy. q. As a general rule, wetland bank sites offered as mitigation will be the same system, subsystem, and class as those impacted by development (i.e. in-kind replacement of palustrine, forested, wetlands will be accomplished by trading for the same). r. Justification exists, at times, for mitigation to provide more or less than one acre of replacement land for each acre taken. Justification exists when 1 :1 replacement, by area, is not a trade of equal value as measured by habitat units or average annual habitat units defined by US FWS Habitat Evaluation Procedures. This includes: when considerabiL3 time must pass before a bank site provides the wetland functional values provided by the impact site; when there are considerable differences in the initial quality of the impact site as compared to the bank site; and when the area impacted by a project extends beyond easily identified boundaries, such as the limits of fill. s. The acceptability of a trade of greater size but lesser quality, or lesser size but greater quality than the impacted wetland shall be determined by agencies with a statutory interest, or an interest by mutual agreement, on a case by case basis. page 6 t. Applications will be filed to obtain needed water rights, stream alteration permits, or similiar authorities from IDWR and other agencies. 5. Evaluation Methods: a. A proper evaluation of wetland quality and quantity requires the use of standardized methods capable of producing repeatable results. The goal shall be to ensure that credits given to different sites are comparable. b. Proper evaluation of an impact site and a wetland bank site may require all or some of the following: •Evaluation of a proposed wetland banking site prior to enhancements. •Evaluation of a wetland bank site at the time an exchange of credits is proposed. •Evaluation of the impact site both pre- and post- construction. c. The US ACE Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) and the US FWS Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) are appropriate tools to evaluate wetland quality, and a proposed trade involving unequal wetland qualities and quantities. Signatories to this agreement will develop a formal set of guidelines to best describe the application of HEP and other evaluation methods to the wetland bank. d. The US ACE Wetland Evaluation Technique is recognized as an appropriate methodology to evaluate wetland functions and values including ground water recharge and discharge, flood storage and desynchronization, shoreline anchoring and dissipation of erosive forces, sediment trapping, nutrient retention and removal, food chain support, habitat for fish and wildlife, active and passive recreation and heritage value. The US FWS Habitat Evaluation Procedures is recognized as an appropriate methodology to evaluate fish and wildlife functions and values provided by wetlands. HEP will be the method to determine fish and wildlife values accrued over time. e. Selected wetland bank sites and selected sites accepted as mitigation will be monitored to assess creation, restoration, and enhancement techniques and to evaluate the success of the wetland banking program. Signatories to this agreement will cooperate in the development of monitoring programs. 6. Record Keeping: a. A sample record sheet is provided as an attachment to this document. Attachment 1 -Sample Record Sheet _ _ USGS ad ».». «..i......_......».._ t.........»._................ � :District ECOUnI Site/Pro ect Name Ke At ii Qu Name ITownshi SectionPostin »Date=Effective Date Y _ »1«««. _Y. . .l.. ...««««»_ _ .. _». .E . ;Rare ...».«..»» ;.Latitude.........;'.Longitude.. .I.._........ ............:............................... ._ _ « _ _ ... _ . ...... ...».. . _ ., _ »».._........»...................................................................».................... t I « 1 Kootenai Cougar Bay «=NA _« (Coeur d'Ale_ne. Idaho IT.50N. IR.4W. 15=;•47041 00" I116°49'00" 2/6/87 2/6/87: ur d'Alene Idaho T.50 _ _ «..._...».....................:..............................._...................... ..............................; tenai Coeur d'Alene East 2343 Coeu N, t »» � ° ° ..........» ...........: __. _ ».._......_. .c R:4W. »i 17'47 00'OW '1160f »......2/16/87: ..............2/16/87=. ...... .. .........................j..» ...j.» Wetland Bank Account Record of Activity as of 2/28187-Page 1 Attachment 1 -Sample Record Sheet »w»....� »...�.».............. Transaction Description She Providing Credits for this Withdrawal Transaction A ou , . ....,... .::.: : N N ": :;::;'�"""'"" » »_ M » _..»» �?....nt NewBalance :�.» .:........»».............. .. » » »......................».......»»»............... ...»..». ..»». ..! ;Credit-Establishment of new bank she NA » 132 acres _ M acres I :Withdrawal Co�ar Bair I12 acres »»»»»» 120 acres» }» »»».».»....................... ................... . •M....•..... ..y. ..»I-»w.......»»..»....�..................».».. ....................... ............... ».... .� Wetland Bank Account Record of Activity as of 2/28/87-Page 1.1 r J A Bank Account for Idaho Wetlands Prepared by: Rob Tiedemann, CFS, CWB Ecologist/ Principal Environmental Planner IdahoTransportation Department August 10, 1987 Money placed in a bank account accrues interest over time, to the benefit of the account holder. In similiar fashion, a created wetland placed in a "wetland bank" will, in time, improve in quality and contribute "interest" to the agency holding the account. The recent development of a draft memorandum of agreement authored by the Idaho inter-agency wetland banking team describes how this may occur. What is Wetland Banking? Wetland banking - as envisioned by the team - is the offsite creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands to compensate for the unavoidable impacts of road building, and operation and maintenance activities by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Individual wetland bank sites may be located miles from the impacted wetland. Wetland banking has been used in few other states to mitigate for the impacts of a single project or to compensate for minor wetland losses. However, the Idaho effort is the first to enlarge the scope of wetland banking to an entire state and to all the activities of a single agency. Why Change Present Practice? Federal policy requires the Idaho Transportation Department to avoid impacts to wetlands by alternative roadway locations or benign construction techniques. Impacts to wetlands for which there is-Ono "practicable alternative" may require mitigation in the form of restoration or compensation. History has shown that wetland restoration is, at times, impossible to accomplish where the impact occurs, comes with such ecological risks that successful mitigation cannot be assured, or can be accomplished only at extraordinary cost. Use of a previously constructed, off-site wetland may be appropriate in these situations to compensate for wetland losses. For the past 22 months, the inter-agency wetland banking team has investigated the usefulness of banking as a mitigation technique for roadway impacts to wetlands in Idaho. Team members include representatives from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, page 2 Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, and Idaho Departments of Fish and Game, Water Resources, and Transportation. The team concluded that appropriate use of a wetland bank can benefit both the Idaho Transportation Department, and regulatory and resource agencies. It would allow for successful mitigation of several projects with minor individual, but significant cumulative impacts. It would allow for better evaluation of a mitigation proposal by presenting a functioning wetland, rather than a paper plan. It would improve agency coordination by positioning agencies in a planning rather than a reactive mode. And, it would expedite project permit review. Examples of Idaho Transportation Department activities which may be mitigated by the wetland bank are the placement of sliver fills for roadway widening or curve straightening, placement of fills for bridge abutments and piers, and placement of rip-rap on the face of existing roadway fills to prevent losses due to erosion. The Wetland Bank Does Not Give ITD Carte Blanche. The team agrees that use of the wetland bank comes with conditions. For example, a wetland bank should be capable of compensating for all the wetland functions and values (ie. ground water recharge and discharge, flood storage and desynchronization, shoreline anchoring and dissipation of erosive forces, sediment trapping, nutrient retention and removal, food chain support, habitat for fish and wildlife, active and passive recreation and heritage value) lost as a result of a project. While the wetland bank will be considered one of the practicable mitigation alternatives for ITD construction, operation, and maintenance activities, it may be used only after all other restoration and compensation methods have been examined and found to be inappropriate. . r Finally, it is recognized that the wetland bank may not be appropriate mitigation for wetlands considered unique because of their physical, chemical, or biological composition or ecological importance. And, it may not be practical to establish a wetland bank for some wetland types, such as forested wetlands. The Nuts and Bolts of Wetland Banking. The terms of the agreement state that ITD may use its best judgement to locate and develop individual wetland bank sites at depleted borrow sources, uneconomical remainders of right-of-way, or other publicly owned properties. As a general rule, ITD will locate individual wetland bank sites at locations that have the physical, chemical, and biological character to f page 3 support wetland development, and as close to anticipated impact sites as possible. Prior to this agreement, borrow sources were reclaimed as prescribed by state law. This resulted in steeply sloped pits, revegetated with grasses intended only to control erosion. With a finalized agreement, ITD will be encouraged to reclaim borrow sources in a manner that results in fully functioning wetlands. This includes the use of native trees, shrubs, and grasses that are best adapted to the site. ITD will design and construct the wetland bank. Regulatory and resource agencies will be encouraged to express their interests and to provide their expertise. Each of the wetland bank sites will be designed to be easily managed and to function with little or no human intervention. Two strategies will guide development of wetland bank sites. They include developing a wetland of a particular type (eg. palustrine / persistant / emergent wetland) with no emphasis given to any one function or value. A second strategy is the development of a wetland with emphasis given to functions and values of special concern (eg. bald eagle habitat, ground water recharge). Other wetland values may be incidently provided by this strategy but are not an intentional part of the prescription to compensate for losses. These and other strategies will be tailored to the anticipated impacts of a proposed roadway activity. ITD acknowledges that regulatory and resource agencies provide no guarantee that an individual wetland bank site will be accepted as mitigation at the time of a proposed trade. Conceptual approval for use of the wetland bank will be sought from regulatory and resource agencies as part of the early coordination phase of the environmental review process. Conceptual approval will require ITD to demonstrate a functioning wetland has been created according to a previously prepared plan. Final approval for use of the wetland bank will normally be sought during the §404 permit review process. A transaction from the wetland bank will not be complete until a public agency, preferably a resource agency, accepts ownership of the property and responsibility for operation and maintenance. No public agency is obliged to accept these responsibilities. The Future. If the agreement is finalized, the initial wetland banking effort will be limited to pilot projects in borrow sources. The experience gained by the pilot projects will be used to review and modify the memorandum of agreement prior to expansion of the wetland banking program. page 4 The path the Idaho team has pioneered is now being promoted by the Federal Highway Administration as a model for other states to follow. State transportation agencies will likely use the Idaho experience to guide questions and answers, and the development of their own wetland banking programs. There is optimism that the efforts of each of the state teams will improve our knowledge of methods and techniques to intentionally create wetlands and to develop successful mitigation. In addition, there is optimism the program will allow transportation projects to move more speedily through a wetlands review and save valuable monies that could be better spent on road building. 'NOTE: he purpose of this agreement is to establish a general framework under which individual mitigation banks may be implemented a d operated. A task force will be preparing additional guidan on the technical considerations associated with implementinkg program. WETLAND COMPENSATION BANKING AGREEMENT MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose: The purpose of this wetland compensation banking agreement (Agreement) is to establish a wetland banking system to provide effective compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to wetlands resulting from Maryland State Highway Administration highway related construction activities and It is intended to represent a commitment by signatory agencies to seek and develop problem resolution. The banking system is intended for use only when it has been demonstrated that there is no practicable alternative to construction in a wetland and all practicable measures to minimize impacts have been incorporated in the project. B. Goals: Under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1997 , Federal and State agencies are committed to work together to protect and preserve the area's remaining wetlands and to strive toward an immediate goal of no net loss with a long-term goal of a net gain in wetland acreage and function. The goal of the wetland banking system put forth in this Agreement is to replace the function and value of wetlands which are lost or altered as a result of necessary highway related construction activities . All compensatory mitigation projects should be designed to ensure maintenance and restoration of the physical , chemical , and biological integrity of waters of the United States. C. Background: It is generally recognized that wetlands perform beneficial functions, including the following: 1. Groundwater recharge and discharge. 2 . Flood flow attenuation and alteration. 3 . Sediment stabilization, shoreline anchoring. 4 . Water quality improvement. 5. Food chain support. 6 . Fish and wildlife habitat. 7 . Aquatic habitat. 8 . Uniqueness , heritage. O 9 . Recreation. July 22 , 1991 �)4 alp It is often not practicable to mitigate effectively, unavoidable wetland impacts on-site. This is especially true of highway projects with many small impacts. In these instances, off-site compensatory mitigation may be more feasible and more beneficial. Benefits of a wetland banking system include, but are not limited to: 1 . Effective and adequate compensatory mitigation accomplished before project approval. 2 . Comprehensive rather than fragmented compensatory mitigation. 3 . Larger, more easily managed mitigation sites rather than numerous small sites. 4 . Improved agency coordination. 5 . Faster mitigation review and approval process. D. Definitions I. Bank: Wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement undertaken expressly for the purpose of providing compensation for wetland losses from highway related construction activities. It includes only actual wetlands restoration, creation, or enhancement occurring prior to elimination of another wetland as part of a credit program. Credits may then be withdrawn from the bank to compensate for individual wetland impacts. 2 . Bank site: Property designated expressly for wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement for the purpose of providing compensation for wetland losses from highway related construction activities. A bank site becomes a bank when credits become available for withdrawal. 3 . Basin: Corresponds to the "Minor Basin" or "Federal Basin" watershed designation (s) established by the State of Maryland, Water Resources Administration, copy enclosed. 4 . Creation: Actions performed which establish wetlands on upland (non-wetland) sites . 2 July 22 , 1991 r tl - I �F r i 5. Credit: Value given for wetland restoration, creation, ior enhancement made as part of a bank. 6. Debit: Value given for wetland impacts associated with i a project accepted for compensatory mitigation in accordance with this Agreement. 7. Enhancement: Actions performed to create additional I functions or to improve the existing functions of wetlands. B.' In-kind: The replacement of a specific wetland class with the same class. The class is defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service' s Cowardin et. al. (1979) Wetlands Classification System. 9 . Ledger: An accounting of credits and debits. 10. Mitigation Review Team (MRT) : A group of representatives of the following agencies: a. U. S. Army Engineer District Baltimore (Corps) b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) d. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) e. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) f. Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) g. Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) h. Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) 12 . On-site: Within the boundaries of the property owned or controlled by, or reasonably available to, SHA provided: a. The property is in the same sub-watershed as the impacted wetland resources , b. The property is the same as, or adjacent to, the parcel on which wetlands will be impacted, and 3 July 22 , 1991 C. Compensation can be provided adjacent to the impacted wetland. 13 . Out-of-kind: Replacement of a specific wetland class with wetlands of another class. 14 . Practicable: Available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. 15. Restoration: Actions performed which establish functional wetlands on former wetland sites. 16 . Sub-watershed: Corresponds to the "segment" watershed designation established by the State of Maryland, Water Resources Administration, copy enclosed. 17 . Watershed: Corresponds to the "Sub-Basin" watershed designation established by the State of Maryland, Water Resources Administration, copy enclosed. 18 . Wetlands: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs , and similar areas. II. AUTHORITY Legislation, directives and regulations govern construction and maintenance activities in and near wetlands. The authorities and responsibilities of the signature agencies remain unchanged by this Agreement. This agreement is intended to comply with the following authorities: A. Federal: 1. -Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq. ) 2 . Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403 ) . 3 . National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq. ) 4 July 22 , 1991 r 41�p 4 . Executive Order 11990; Protection of Wetlands. 5. Final Rule for Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers (33 CFR Parts 320 through 33C' 6 . Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (40 CFR Part 230) 7 . Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act, Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines. 8 . Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands (DOT Order 5660. 1A) 9 . Mitigation of Environmental Impacts to Privately Owned Wetlands (23 CFR 777) 10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy, B. - State: 1. Natural Resources Article; State of Maryland 2 . Environment Article; State of Maryland III . DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MRT The MRT shall, by concensus: A. Evaluate and recommend approval of bank site locations . B. . Evaluate and recommend approval of bank development plans. C. Evaluate and recommend approval for use of banks and bank sites, including valuation and exchange of debits and credits . D. Recommend :codifications to this Agreement. E. Establish criteria for bank site selection, development, and use. 5 July 22 , 1991 4 IV. LOCATION OF BANK SITES AND DEVELOPMENT OF BANKS A. SHA will locate individual bank sites that have the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics to support wetlands development in watersheds where impacts are anticipated. Proposals for mitigation banks shall be distributed to the MRT and shall include documentation of the anticipated need for the bank, evaluation of existing site conditions, and feasibility of wetland development on the proposed site. The evaluation and recommendation for approval of bank sites shall be accomplished on a case by case basis by the MRT. SHA shall receive written confimation of the recommended approval for each bank site from each other agency of the MRT. B. At such time that SHA proposes to develop an approved site, a bank development plan shall be submitted to the MRT. The bank development plan shall include construction plans and design specifications including grading, planting, soils, and hydrology detail and the post-construction monitoring and maintenance strategy. The evaluation and recommendation for approval of bank development plans shall be accomplished on a case by case basis by the MRT. SHA shall receive written confimation of the recommended approval for each bank development plan from each other agency of the MRT. C. FHWA will, upon request of SHA, participate in the cost of development of a bank for existing or future Federal aid or Federal aid eligible projects. The SHA' s accounting process of credits and debits will also show the Federal aid projects and types of funds used. D. Post construction monitoring shall be performed for a period not to exceed five years with annual reports submitted by SHA. E. The banks and bank sites shall have public ownership or public interest in privately held land to ensure the long-term maintenance of the bank. V. USE OF WETLAND BANKS AND WETLAND BANK SITES A. Project Applicability: The projects eligible for compensatory mitigation in accordance with this agreement are those where all practicable measures to avoid, minimize and rectify harm to wetlands have been taken and on-site, in-kind compensatory 6 July 22 , 1991 mitigation is not practicable. Evaluation of proposed work shall proceed through the sequential steps outlined in the enclosed compensation banking flowchart. Should a bank or bank site not be available SHA shall conduct a mitigation site search in accordance with the established interagency mitigation process. B. Use of Banks: When on-site, in-kind compensatory mitigation is not practicable credits from a bank may be used provided the bank is in the same watershed as the area of impact. C. Use of Bank Sites: When on-site, in-kind compensatory mitigation is not practicable SHA shall locate an area for in-kind, restoration followed by in-kind creation off-site in the sub-watershed. A bank site may be used provided the bank site is in the same sub-watershed as the area of impact or the MRT has approved an individual site for use within more than one specified sub-watershed or watershed. D. Valuation of Debits and Credits: The impacted wetlands and banks may be evaluated by the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) , Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) , best professional judgement, or other method determined appropriate by the MRT. E. Exchange of Debits and Credits: Debits and credits will be quantified and exchanged through use of criteria established by the MRT. F. Record Keeping: SHA will establish and maintain the ledger which documents the activity of the wetland bank accounts. The MRT and other interested agencies will be sent periodic statements documenting the status of the account. Statements will be generated biannually. VI . MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT This agreement may be modified with the approval of all signatories. Modifications may be proposed by one or more signatories. Proposals will be submitted to the Corps to be circulated to all signatories for a sixty day period of review. Approval of the proposals will be indicated by written acceptance. A signatory may terminate their participation in this agreement upon written notice to all other signatories . 7 July 22 , 1991 v VII. RELATIONSHIP OF THIS AGREEMENT TO OTHER AUTHORITIES Nothing in this agreement is intended to diminish, modify, or otherwise affect the statutory or regulatory authorities cf the agencies involved. Maryland Department of Transportation Date Federal Highway Administration Date U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Date U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date National Marine Fisheries Service Date Maryland Department of Natural Resources Date Maryland Department of the Environment Date 8 July 22 , 1991 MARYJLAHD WA ITRS1-Yl`D EI ',SIG1 A-TIONS o 2.1.1-IU �1' t 02-.1J 011 02-1-1.O3 11 /— ► 02-13-05 � I�,t:•l11 �'t��IC lI�ISiII_P�alllti Ll ' 02.13•11.' 1 (I? I.t►wcr Stttitlucl►;tnna 02- 14.02 ll'- 1.1 111 Occan Cow dal n'y t;( II' I.111 Voct1mok1 0 0., 1.1 11.1 N;tnlic11k.v/\VicoIII co � , Oz 1J 04 II'- 1.1 Ili (:Itcslcl /1- 1 ► ? ��. 11.' I.111/ 1111s11 1 ' / (I.' I 1 11l1 (it►nl►►►��►Icr ���,� �i, I';tlapsct► 3 ,t ll.'- 1.1- III \Vc.%l ('Ilcs;tl►cctl:c �02.14'01 � �c-,r' II' I.1 I I I';tltut:l►l 02 lJ UJ -- 0.1. I.1 (11 I .►►w(:r 1't►I0I11;1c (12- 1.1 W \V;tsititll;lt1t► t`-Icltt►l►►►l11011 I1' 1.1-l1.1 Middle II! I•I-(IS l)l►I►cr I't►It►nrlc II! I I- I11 N►►IIII 111,trtch I'Ult► lwc 1, �' 1l � 02-1.1-03 IIS II.'. II! Yt►tll;lli►►I;It� lty ( ( �t r 11! I 1 99 ( Itc�;t1►c;t1,c Il;ty I�I;lill,lcttt ' �- -- stil►-hasin �Itltttl►cr Y - - - Fctictal Basin Nt►nti►cr gr I --- - - -- Fc►Ict;tl t`I;►jur I{;tsitt Nu►►►I►cr V PROCESS ------------------------------------------ provosed Project '-facts waters of the un;=ed s-ates I onal ------------n_ludinc --:------i---- -e_-an_s----------- ------v------ ---------------- „voidance •. S:te U __-- Location Flternatives Minir,ization --------- ------------------V v--------------------- --------------- Avoidahce I Design *:ini zaticn -------- IAlte_natives V - Co --------- -nsation ------------------------------------------ identify area and type of resource affected (acreage, Linea_ feet, etc. ) resource and functions and values -------- 7 aCt . den-_fy Assessment/1 of affected wetland -dent' :v nature of the :pact _ on acruatic resources ----------------------------------------- I -n- v- ec o- I _Or._s-_e ---------------- 1 /- -- ----------------- ' ------------------v-------------------- � ----- lc `n t :^. =aee--- sed r •ai'_a�:e '.'_t_-at_c^ �a:j}= -------- ----- ------------------------------------------ or - --------------------- �.va:la�Ie *!:tication =any Site -n-?:ind%/estcrat_cn I off-site ` - U I ------ ; =n su!: w• - atershec -------------- _ __cam------------- ----------------- }. nd/c_e=U --------------- iOff-smote ------�z__a..' e-":_ cats- -a-}: 5_te I -------- i - ?-a-S�ed ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ----e----------- ---------- ---------- S- _; earn _ :--posed _ MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OREGON DIVISION OF STATE LANDS OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT U.S . FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERY SERVICE U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND U. S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES AND CREDITS FOR OPERATION OF THE ASTORIA AIRPORT MITIGATION BANK This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is entered into to establish the interagency operating procedures and credits for operation of the Astoria Airport Mitigation Bank. A more detailed analysis of estuarine benefits of the mitigation bank is contained in the attached "Astoria Airport Mitigation Bank Resource Credit Evaluation" prepared by the Oregon Division of State Lands. i BACKGROUND I The Astoria Airport Mitigation Bank is available for projects that have been approved in the state and federal permitting process and found to be consistent with the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Plan . The mitigation bank will be available to offset impacts of estuarine intertidal and subtida-1, water dependent development as specified below. Each eligible project will have been reviewed to eliminate all but unavoidable and necessary losses and all measures will have been taken to minimize or eliminate impacts prior to consideration of mitigation bank use. Prior to use of the mitigation bank, mitigation at the site of the project shall be explored and utilized to the maximum extent practicable. Federal or State requirements to mitigate for unique functions and values not available at the mitigation bank may require action by the development interest on other sites. This agreement does not eliminate the applicant or agencies responsibilities under applicable laws and/or regulations . UNDERSTANDING The interagency team that evaluated the Astoria Airport Mitigation Bank identified that there is uncertainty concerning the natural resource trade offs involved in mitigation. It has 2 ' also been recognized that there has been significant loss of high marsh and tidal swamp in the Youngs Bay estuary. The Ihistorical diking has created some freshwater wetlands which ' provide resource values . Resource. values lost or altered by the mitigation action were evaluated utilizing the Division of ' State Lands relative value system and a modified version of the U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service HEP procedure. The Oregon Imitigation policy established in law is to create, restore or enhance estuarine areas to maintain the functional characteristics and processes of Oregon' s estuaries. To balance state emphasis on estuarine resources with federal consideration of wetland environments in general, habitat based credit values were established at a level less than that developed by applying O-regon' s rating alone. MITIGATION BANK CREDITS It has been agreed that there are 70 . 0 credits in the Astoria Airport Mitigation Bank . The Division of State Lands habitat relative value system (OAR .141-85-240 to 141-85-266 ) shall be utilized in withdrawing credits . 1 3 i MITIGATION BANK PROPOSAL The proposed mitigation bank is being constructed on property owned by the Port of Astoria and Oregon Division of State Lands . Approximately 33 acres of diked land will be exposed to tidal inundation by the mitigation action. The title of lands held by the Port of Astoria will be conveyed to the Oregon Division of State Lands upon construction of the mitigation bank . The bank area will be retained by Oregon Division of State Lands in perpetuity for natural resource production purposes. OPERATIONAL PROVISIONS It is mutually agreed that : 1 . The bank shall be available for projects that require mitigation, are otherwise approvable under Oregon' s Removal-Fill Law (ORS 541 . 605 - 541 . 695 ) and Corps of Engineers permit requirements under the authority of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and/or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Public Law 95-217) and have met the impact elimination and reduction requirements. Only projects involving unavoidable and necessary impacts which have been approved under the local comprehensive plan will be eligable for the Astoria Airport Mitigation Bank . 4 2 . The bank shall be available for projects only where on-site mitigation is unavailable or where on-site mitigation only partially mitigates for project impacts . 3 . The bank shall be available to all water dependent projects between the tip of Tongue Point and the west bank of the Skipanon River along the Oregon side of the Columbia River estuary. 4 . The bank shall be operated according to Oregon Division of State Lands administrative rules for mitigation banks (OAR 141-85-260 ) . 5 . The Division of State Lands shall maintain a balance sheet of credits and debits for the mitigation bank. No debits or credits can be applied until all parties to this Agreement concur with the DSL data sheet analysis. Such concurrence, substantiations of the reasons for nonconcurrence or request for additional time to consider the data sheets must be forwarded to the Salem office of the Division of State Lands within 15 working days after receipt of the data sheets . Failure to respond within 15 days shall be deemed to indicate concurrence: Copies. of signed transaction data sheets shall be held as a 5 ' I permanent record by the Division of State Lands . The Division of State Lands shall prepare and provide to all parties, on a calendar year basis, an annual summary of debits and credits to the mitigation bank . 6 . The mitigation requirement for proposed projects will be determined by utilization of Oregon Division of State Lands mitigation rules OAR 141-85-240 through 141-85-258 . 7 . The Division of State Lands will prepare an annual monitoring report and provide copies to the agencies executing this agreement . 8 . The Division of State Lands will conduct habitat enhancement actions as necessary to achieve estuarine resource benefits. 9 . It is recognized that the Astoria Airport Mitigation Bank is a pilot program. After five ( 5 ) years, the Division of State Lands will convene an interagency review of the site and conduct a complete evaluation of the mitigation bank using HEP, or a mutually agreeable and credible methodology. Whenever significant operational and/or structural changes are made to improve success, another complete evaluation should be made in three ( 3 ) to five ( 5 ) years following those changes . 6 10 . Modification to this Agreement can be proposed at any time, but shall not be adopted unless agreed to by all parties to this Agreement . The parties recognize that revisions may become necessary . In such event,. the parties shall consult to attempt to resolve the issues and amend this Agreement accordingly. If , however, such revisions are not agreed to within one ( 1 ) year after proposed , then the party proposing the revision may elect to terminate its participation in this agreement . 11 . This agreement becomes effective on the date of the tune of the parties involved. Ed Zajonc , Di ec or Date Division of S e Lands* g and fisher , Director Da e Oreg,bn Dept . of Fish and Wildlife Rdss , Director Date Oregon Dept . of Land Conservation and velopment 87 Colonel GaIps A . Lord Date U .S . Army of Engineers 7 2 11197 David F . Riley , Asst . Regbonaf Director --�` Date ',U .S . Fish a d ildiife Service Robie ussel eg. Administrator Date U.S. Environmental Protection Agency i Rolland A. Schni t en, Regional Director 'Date National Marine Fisheries Service f f I I I I I I I I 8 4, s Foy-- p Su►xs CITY OF RENTON _ (� 4043 6F PJV*,'U V.5 WETLAND MITIGATION BANK MODELS City of Everett The City of Everett is considering creating a wetland mitigation bank at their wastewater treatment facility. The Department of Public Works is exploring the concept of mitigation banking as an alternative approach to wetland mitigation. Because public works projects often have small, unavoidable impacts on wetlands associated with road widening, utility crossings, and other projects, this approach appears to be a practical alternative for the department. The Department of Public Works is considering a palustrine emergent open water wetland north of the city's sewage treatment lagoons as a mitigation site. Historically, this area was an intertidal wetland that was part of the lower Snohomish River estuary. However, the diking of Smith Island changed the site from intertidal wetland to nontidal wetland and upland area. In 1991, the Snohomish Estuary Technical Advisory Committee was formed to provide guidance regarding wetland resources in the estuary. The committee consists of representatives of Snohomish County, the Washington Department of Wildlife, the Washington Department of Fisheries, the City of Marysville, the City of Everett, the Snohomish Wetlands Alliance, and the Tulalip Tribes of Washington. This committee has developed an overall management plan for the Snohomish River estuary. The management plan outlines eight goals for the estuary, including wildlife preservation, habitat restoration, and education. Although the committee does not have any regulatory authority, it works to coordinate wetland preservation and restoration projects within the estuary. The City of Everett recently approved a wetland ordinance that identifies wetland mitigation banking as a potential mitigation tool. Mitigation banking might be allowed when the proposed project is water-dependent or water-related, when onsite or offsite mitigation is not practical, when no other reasonable use or feasible alternative with less impact is apparent, or when the impacted wetland is of lower value than the banked wetland. The ordinance gives the planning department authority to develop administrative criteria regarding mitigation banking. The city would consider mitigation banks on a case-by-case basis, applying the administrative criteria to proposed mitigation banks. As of yet, these criteria have not been developed. The city has no official position on the use of wastewater in wetlands. There are several problems with the proposed mitigation site. One is that the site would not necessarily be in the same local drainage basin as the impacted wetlands. This would result in a net loss of wetland functions and values within a particular basin. Another is that the mitigation site under consideration would probably be classified as a Category II wetland under the city's rating system meaning it already possesses moderate functional values that could not be sufficiently enhanced to mitigate the loss of impacted wetlands. Also, the use of wastewater as a potential water source for the mitigation site might not increase the functional value of the wetland. Another problem is that there is little to no area available for a sufficient upland buffer, which would be required in the enhancement project. Another potential problem is that the mitigation site was historically a brackish water wetland. This would lower the likelihood for success of freshwater mitigation projects necessary for in-kind replacement of the type of wetlands impacted by the public works department. Lastly, reed canarygrass is already established near the site and would likely out-compete other planted wetland species. Astoria Airport The Astoria Airport Mitigation is a completed mitigation project on the Columbia River in Astoria, Oregon. Thirty-three acres of diked estuarine wetland have been reestablished along the Columbia River to be used as a mitigation site for impacted estuarine wetlands associated with development at the airport. An interagency Memorandum of Agreement between Oregon Div. of State Lands, ODFW, Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Dev., COE, USFWS, the EPA, and NMFS was signed in 1987 outlining operating procedures and crediting process. Under the Memorandum of Agreement, all projects must be considered necessary and all measures taken to minimize or eliminate impacts prior to consideration of mitigation bank use. The bank will be owned and operated in perpetuity by the Oregon Division of State Lands. Bank credits can be used for water-dependent activities in a predesignated area. An annual monitoring report is required, with a complete evaluation of the bank after 5 years and again after 8 years. The project is similar to the City's in size. It is also similar in that both mitigation sites were previously wetlands that had been filled or diked making their chance for successful re-creation excellent. (The operating procedures and crediting process are outlined in the MOA, which is in the mail) -is this bank used only to offset airport development, or other development nearby as well? *Who over saw the process?--Dept. of State Lands. -what was the order of events? did the restoration occur first (all at one time) establishing all credit, then were the credits purchased by the airport? -what was the replacement ratio? •What does the monitoring report examine? Idaho Transportation Department The Idaho Transportation Department (IDT) has operated a wetland mitigation program for several years to replace wetlands unavoidably impacted by road construction and improvements. Under this program, IDT develops mitigation sites usually in unused rights-of-way owned by IDT or on adjacent properties available for purchase. Once the wetland is established, its ownership and maintenance is given over to one of numerous public agencies, such as USFWS, BLM, USFS, IDL, IDFG. Wetlands created in excess of a mitigation project are applied to the next project. The IDT uses a ratio of 1:1, which is questionable since the replaced wetland takes a while to reach the level of functioning as the impacted one if it reaches it at all. The IDT guidelines for location of a wetland bank include: -The bank site should be as close to the impact site as possible. -The bank site should be within the same hydrologic basin as the impacted site. -The same public affected by an impact site should be compensated bt the bank site. -The bank site should be within the same ITD district as the impact site. As one of its objectives, the ITD seeks to utilize wetland biofiltration functions to reduce the amount of pollutants entering water systems from roadways. Design and location of wetlands would therefore be related to highway run-off. Minnesota Dept of Transportation Biringer Farm Biringer Farm is a 363-acre farm located in the lower Snohomish River delta in Snohomish County. The farm is being proposed as a future mitigation site for countywide development. Under the proposal, the farm would be restored to a brackish intertidal marsh. Developers could then buy acreage in the mitigation site to offset losses associated with development in the county. This project would not replace standard mitigation procedures or the normal permitting process, but would be a means to compensate for wetland losses after all standard mitigation procedures were exhausted. Needless to say, the project has not been well received by Snohomish County because the created wetlands would not necessarily be in the same drainage basin as the impacted wetlands or have the same habitat type as the impacted wetland. The current status of this project is unknown, but is sounds suspect. It is important that the City adhere to the requirement that the mitigation site be in the same drainage basin and that the type of wetland habitat created be similar or better than the impacted wetland's. -who is developing the mitigation bank? -what is the current state of the project? •how will it operate? Mill Creek Special Areas Management Program A mitigation bank program is being considered as part of an overall wetland mitigation plan for the Mill Creek Special Areas Management Program (SAMP) in Kent. A SAMP is an interjurisdictional wetland program agreed upon by the appropriate agencies, cities, counties, and other interested parties. The outcome of a SAMP is a regional wetland permit that outlines development actions and predetermined mitigation approaches for wetlands within the special area. Wetlands that are to remain undisturbed are also identified. Although the Mill Creek proposal is in the very early conceptual phase, the mitigation bank is proposed to be a public entity established through an interagency agreement. An unknown acreage along the Mill Creek corridor will be enhanced and used to offset losses of specific impacted wetlands smaller than 10 acres that are of the same general habitat type and functional value. This project is still in the early stages of development, but is somewhat similar to what the City will set up. Some questions are: •if the mitigation bank is to be a public entity, who will operate it? •what will the process be? LaTerre Mitigation Bank CITY OF RENTON WETLAND MITIGATION BANK MODELS The following are a few examples of existing or proposed wetland mitigation banking projects. Elements of each model that are applicable to the City's project are mentioned briefly. Important points are in bold type. Idaho Transportation Department The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has operated a wetland mitigation program for several years to replace wetlands unavoidably impacted by road construction and improvements. Under this program, ITD develops mitigation sites usually in unused rights-of-way owned by ITD or on adjacent properties available for purchase. Once the wetland is established by ITD, its ownership and maintenance is given over to one of numerous public agencies, such as USFWS, BLM, USFS, IDL, IDFG. Wetlands created in excess of a mitigation project are applied to the next project. The ITD uses a ratio of 1:1, which is questionable since the replaced wetland takes a while to reach the level of functioning as the impacted one, if it reaches it at all. The ITD guidelines for location of a wetland bank include: -The bank site should be as close to the impact site as possible. -The bank site should be within the same hydrologic basin as the impacted site. -The same public affected by an impact site should be compensated by the bank site. -The bank site should be within the same ITD district as the impact site. As one of its objectives, the ITD seeks to utilize wetland biofiltration functions to reduce the amount of pollutants entering water systems from roadways. Design and location of wetlands would therefore be related to highway run-off. One of the objectives for the ITD to make the mitigation site more manageable is to create one large wetland rather than many small wetlands and to locate the site adjacent to an existing management area. The ITD will normally bid contracts for revegetation of a wetland bank site with the provision that plant materials will be replaced by the contractor if they perish within one growing season. Use of a wetland bank to mitigate for project related wetlands impacts will require the ITD to demonstrate the following: -The activity causing a wetland impact is unavoidable. -All other restoration and compensation methods have been examined and found to be impractical. •A functioning wetland has been created according to a previously prepared plan, and its usefulness documented by an evaluation program. As a general rule, wetland bank sites will be the same system, subsystem, and class as those impacted by development (i.e. in-kind replacement of palustrine, forested, wetlands will be accomplished by trading for the same). The 1:1 replacement ratio used by ITD is flexible at times. Exceptions to the ratio are justified when the 1 to 1 replacement is not adequate due to differences in the quality of habitat being created. This includes cases where considerable time must pass before the bank site provides the wetland functional values provided by the impacted site. Having a policy like this would seem to make possible much bending of the rules and compromised mitigation measures unless the process was strictly and honestly managed. Also, determining how long it will take a created wetland to reach a target level of functioning (if it reaches that level at all!) seems suspect, since scientific understanding of wetland creation is relatively limited. Mitigation should be done with at least a 1:1.5 ratio, as in the City's policies, to compensate for the time of development and the potential disturbances to wetland succession. The ITD states as a goal that a proper evaluation of an impact site and a wetland bank site may require the use of standardized methods capable of producing repeatable results. The goal shall be to ensure that credits given to different sites are comparable. The ITD suggests using the Corps of Engineers Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) and the USFWS Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) to evaluate wetland quality. Selected wetland bank sites and selected sites accepted as mitigation will be monitored to assess creation, restoration, and enhancement techniques and to evaluate the success of the wetland banking program. Astoria Airport The Astoria Airport Mitigation is a completed mitigation project on the Columbia River in Astoria, Oregon. Thirty-three acres of diked estuarine wetland have been reestablished along the Columbia River to be used as a mitigation site for impacted estuarine wetlands associated with development at the airport. An interagency Memorandum of Agreement between Oregon Div. of State Lands, ODFW, Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Dev., COE, USFWS, the EPA, and NMFS was signed in 1987 outlining operating procedures and crediting process. Under the Memorandum of Agreement, all projects must be considered necessary and all measures taken to minimize or eliminate impacts prior to consideration of mitigation bank use. The bank will be owned and operated in perpetuity by the Oregon Division of State Lands. Bank credits can be used for water-dependent activities in a predesignated area. An annual monitoring report is required, with a complete evaluation of the bank after 5 years and again after 8 years. The project is similar to the City's in size. It is also similar in that both mitigation sites were previously wetlands that had been filled or diked making their chance for successful re-creation excellent. (The operating procedures and crediting process are outlined in the MOA, which is in the mail) -is this bank used only to offset airport development, or other development nearby as well? -who over saw the process?--Dept. of State Lands. -what was the order of events? did the restoration occur first (all at one time) establishing all credit, then were the credits purchased by the airport? *What was the replacement ratio? •What does the monitoring report examine? City of Everett The City of Everett is considering creating a wetland mitigation bank at their wastewater treatment facility. The Department of Public Works is exploring the concept of mitigation banking as an alternative approach to wetland mitigation. Because public works projects often have small, unavoidable impacts on wetlands associated with road widening, utility crossings, and other projects, this approach appears to be a practical alternative for the department. The Department of Public Works is considering a palustrine emergent open water wetland north of the city's sewage treatment lagoons as a mitigation site. Historically, this area was an intertidal wetland that was part of the lower Snohomish River estuary. However, the diking of Smith Island changed the site from intertidal wetland to nontidal wetland and upland area. In 1991, the Snohomish Estuary Technical Advisory Committee was formed to provide guidance regarding wetland resources in the estuary. The committee consists of representatives of Snohomish County, the Washington Department of Wildlife, the Washington Department of Fisheries, the City of Marysville, the City of Everett, the Snohomish Wetlands Alliance, and the Tulalip Tribes of Washington. This committee has developed an overall management plan for the Snohomish River estuary. The management plan outlines eight goals for the estuary, including wildlife preservation, habitat restoration, and education. Although the committee does not have any regulatory authority, it works to coordinate wetland preservation and restoration projects within the estuary. The City of Everett recently approved a wetland ordinance that identifies wetland mitigation banking as a potential mitigation tool. Mitigation banking might be allowed when the proposed project is water-dependent or water-related, when onsite or offsite mitigation is not practical, when no other reasonable use or feasible alternative with less impact is apparent, or when the impacted wetland is of lower value than the banked wetland. The ordinance gives the planning department authority to develop administrative criteria regarding mitigation banking. The city would consider mitigation banks on a case-by-case basis, applying the administrative criteria to proposed mitigation banks. As of yet, these criteria have not been developed. The city has no official position on the use of wastewater in wetlands. There are several problems with the proposed mitigation site. One is that the site would not necessarily be in the same local drainage basin as the impacted wetlands. This would result in a net loss of wetland functions and values within a particular basin. Another is that the mitigation site under consideration would probably be classified as a Category II wetland under the city's rating system meaning it already possesses moderate functional values that could not be sufficiently enhanced to mitigate the loss of impacted wetlands. Also, the use of wastewater as a potential water source for the mitigation site might not increase the functional value of the wetland. Another problem is that there is little to no area available for a sufficient upland buffer, which would be required in the enhancement project. Another potential problem is that the mitigation site was historically a brackish water wetland. This would lower the likelihood for success of freshwater mitigation projects necessary for in-kind replacement of the type of wetlands impacted by the public works department. Lastly, reed canarygrass is already established near the site and would likely out-compete other planted wetland species. Questions/ideas: -To what extent might the Transportation Dept. be able to use the bank or even staff it? -is there a Green River Valley Technical Advisory Committee and if so, should it be involved in the mitigation project? Biringer Farm Biringer Farm is a 363-acre farm located in the lower Snohomish River delta in Snohomish County. The farm is being proposed as a future mitigation site for countywide development. Under the proposal, the farm would be restored to a brackish intertidal marsh. Developers could then buy acreage in the mitigation site to offset losses associated with development in the county. This project would not replace standard mitigation procedures or the normal permitting process, but would be a means to compensate for wetland losses after all standard mitigation procedures were exhausted. Needless to say, the project has not been well received by Snohomish County because the created wetlands would not necessarily be in the same drainage basin as the impacted wetlands or have the same habitat type as the impacted wetland. The current status of this project is unknown, but is sounds suspect. It is important that the City adhere to the requirement that the mitigation site be in the same drainage basin and that the type of wetland habitat created be similar or better than the impacted wetland's. -who is developing the mitigation bank? -what is the current state of the project? •how will it operate? Mill Creek Special Areas Management Program A mitigation bank program is being considered as part of an overall wetland mitigation plan for the Mill Creek Special Areas Management Program (SAMP) in Kent. A SAMP is an interjurisdictional wetland program agreed upon by the appropriate agencies, cities, counties, and other interested parties. The outcome of a SAMP is a regional wetland permit that outlines development actions and predetermined mitigation approaches for wetlands within the special area. Wetlands that are to remain undisturbed are also identified. Although the Mill Creek proposal is in the very early conceptual phase, the mitigation bank is proposed to be a public entity established through an interagency agreement. An unknown acreage along the Mill Creek corridor will be enhanced and used to offset losses of specific impacted wetlands smaller than 10 acres that are of the same general habitat type and functional value. This project is still in the early stages of development, but is somewhat similar to what the City will set up. Some questions are: -if the mitigation bank is to be a public entity, who will operate it? -what will the process be? CITY OF RENTON Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Earl Clymer, Mayor Lynn Guttmann, Administrator APA/PAW AWARD NOMINATION CITY OF RENTON VALLEY WETLAND MITIGATION BANK PROGRAM Project Summary The City of Renton Valley Wetlands Mitigation Bank, initiated in 1992, will commence during August, 1993. Key participants include the City and Glacier Park Company. Implementation entails: ■ Acquisition of property; ■ Creation of a wetland restoration plan; ■ Creation of a banking system for users; and, ■ Operation, maintenance and monitoring. Project Description Wetlands have historically occupied portions of the Green River Valley, but many sites were filled and developed for industry. As the industrial land base decreased, vacant filled sites became more attractive for development. However, the presence of small perched wetlands often restricted development opportunities. The concept of wetland mitigation banking was seen as a way to benefit both the City and the development community. Impacts to perched wetlands could be mitigated either on-site through wetland replacement, or off-site in areas more suitable for wetland creation and restoration within the drainage basin. For off-site mitigation, lower quality perched wetlands could be filled provided several conditions were met. Created wetlands would need to be located in the same drainage basin and be likely to succeed. In addition, no net loss of wetlands could occur. The City determined that the soils and hydrology necessary for wetland re-establishment probably existed under areas of fill. By excavating some of the fill and introducing wetland plants, restoration of historic wetlands would have a good chance of success. The City then had to find and acquire a bank site that would meet these criteria. By chance, the Glacier Park Company decided to sell its land assets by May, 1992. Two large properties had existing high quality wetlands adjacent to generous areas of fill which could be removed. Other parcels were restricted by low quality wetlands, leaving little industrially developable area. Glacier Park donated the two large parcels to the City. In exchange, the City agreed to issue Glacier Park permits to fill up to one acre of low quality wetlands on their six remaining parcels. The City also assumed the obligation of mitigating the impacts to the six acres of wetlands likely to be filled after these properties sold. Project Implementation The City Council approved the acquisition of the site and the mitigation bank concept, and executed a wetland mitigation banking agreement with Glacier Park on May 18, 1992. The City Council's decision to acquire the site was the most critical step in the implementation of this progressive approach to wetland mitigation. Funding for the mitigation plan was another crucial ingredient in establishing a successful wetlands mitigation bank program. The City's Storm Water Utility allocated funds to finance a wetland restoration plan for the site, based on estimated savings from beneficial flood storage functions performed by potential future wetlands. Since inception of the mitigation banking concept in April 1991, the City has acquired property for the bank, assembled an interdepartmental team to manage the creation of a mitigation plan, and will hire a consultant to draft the wetland restoration plan and banking system (debits, credits and management of accounts). The estimated date of completion for the wetland restoration plan, which includes a site analysis, conceptual master plan, and a monitoring and maintenance plan, is August 1, ® 1993, with start-up of the mitigation program to follow. The City intends to operate, maintain, and monitor the mitigation site in perpetuity. Public and Private Involvement The project demonstrates a unique and successful partnership between the public and private sectors resulting in a win-win solution for all parties. Glacier Park benefitted by an increased return for their parcels on which low quality wetlands existed. The City will benefit through increases in tax base, wetland functional value, and passive recreation opportunities. The Army Corps of Engineers and the State Department of Ecology Staff have supported the concept as an innovative, win-win approach to wetlands protection. The Audubon Society and Trust for Public Land supported the transaction because large areas of existing habitat, including high quality wetlands, will be preserved and larger, more contiguous wetlands will be created replacing scattered, low quality wetlands. The Growth Management Act's goals of environmental protection and economic development will be met, benefitting citizens of the State of Washington. The City of Renton's mitigation banking program will ensure a more regional, comprehensive, and coordinated approach for compensating impacts to wetlands due to development.