HomeMy WebLinkAbout10A - Wetland Delineation
Whipple Residence Remodel
Habitat Management Plan &
Wetland Delineation
October 1st, 2020
Prepared for:
Larry and Mandy Whipple
591 South Bay Way
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Parcel: 921294006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 1
3. Project Description ............................................................................................................................... 2
4. Action Area .......................................................................................................................................... 4
5. Supporting Wetland Information Queries ............................................................................................ 5
National Wetlands Inventory ........................................................................................................... 5
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) ........................................................................... 7
6. Wetland Assessment Methods ............................................................................................................. 7
7. Wetland Delineation ............................................................................................................................. 8
Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Soils ................................................................................................................................................ 12
Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 13
8. Wetland Rating................................................................................................................................... 13
9. Habitat and Species Information ........................................................................................................ 14
Habitat Conditions On Site .............................................................................................................. 14
Washington State Priority Habitat and Species ............................................................................. 14
Federal ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat ........................................................................... 15
9.3.1. Rockfish ................................................................................................................................ 16
9.3.2. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon .............................................................................................. 16
9.3.3. Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon .............................................................................. 17
9.3.4. Southern Resident Killer Whale ........................................................................................... 17
9.3.5. Marbled Murrelet .................................................................................................................. 18
10. Analysis of Effects ............................................................................................................................. 18
Water Quality ................................................................................................................................. 18
Vegetation - Wetland and Riparian Areas ..................................................................................... 18
Construction Noise ........................................................................................................................ 19
Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................... 19
11. Avoidance and Minimization Measures ............................................................................................. 19
12. Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................... 19
13. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 20
References ................................................................................................................................................... 21
Attachment 1. National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soils Map and Legends ...................... 32
List of Tables
Table 1. Soil Map Unit ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 2. Wetland A – Sample Plot VSH-1: Vegetation ................................................................................. 11
Table 3. Upland – Sample Plot VSH-2: Vegetation ....................................................................................... 11
Table 4. Wetland A – Sample Plot VSH-1..................................................................................................... 12
Table 5. Upland – Sample Plot VSH-2 .......................................................................................................... 12
Table 6. WDFW PHS query results within the action area ............................................................................ 15
Table 7. USFWS/NMFS Critical Habitat within the action area ................................................................... 15
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................................................ 3
Figure 3. Map of Action Area .......................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map ........................................................................................ 6
Figure 5. Map of Wetland Delineation Results .............................................................................................. 10
Figure 6. Existing Site Plan ............................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 7. Jefferson County Wetlands Map..................................................................................................... 24
Figure 8. FEMA Flood Map........................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 9. Jefferson County Public Land Records – Critical Areas ................................................................ 26
Figure 10. Department of Ecology Water Quality Atlas ................................................................................ 27
Figure 11. Wetlands of High Conservation Value ......................................................................................... 28
Figure 12. WDFW Documented Forage Fish Spawning ............................................................................... 29
Figure 13. Marbled Murrelet Nesting Locations ............................................................................................ 30
Figure 14. Bald Eagle Shoreline Nesting Sites .............................................................................................. 31
Appendices
Appendix A. Wetland Determination Forms
Appendix B. Wetland Rating Form
Appendix C. Mitigation Planting Plan
Appendix D. Photo Documentation
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 1
1. Introduction
Marine Surveys & Assessments (MSA) was contracted by NewLeaf Design Construction to complete this
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and Wetland Delineation at parcel #921294006 (3.04 acres) in Port
Ludlow, Washington (Figure 1). The proposed development includes remodeling a single-family residence
within the existing footprint, as well as lateral/landward extension within the marine shoreline and estuarine
wetland critical area buffers. The remodel will tie together the existing mobile home and studio and add a
new covered deck structure, as well as a new garage. Part of the existing home footprint and one of the
existing decks will be demolished within the project area, and a portion of the concrete driveway will be
removed (Figure 2). The total new footprint area of the proposed project will be 2,126 ft2.
Because the proposed project is within the estuarine wetland and marine shoreline critical area buffers it
will require a Conditional Discretionary “C(d)” Use permit through Jefferson County. This report serves as
a Wetland Delineation Report (JCMC 18.22.450) and Habitat Management Plan (following criteria required
in JCMC 18.22.440) with FEMA flood zone information, and a Mitigation Planting Plan included as an
appendix.
2. Project Location
Address: 591 South Bay Way, Port Ludlow, WA 98365
County: Jefferson
Tax Parcel: #921294006
Property Zone Description: Rural Residential 1:5
S E 1 /4 Quarter Section: 29, Township: 29N, Range: 1E
Latitude, Longitude: 47°58’ 22.17” N, -122°41’ 40.42” W
Water resource inventory area (WRIA): WRIA 17 South (Quilcene-Snow)
Water bodies in which work will occur: None
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 2
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
This project site includes an existing single-family residence, private driveway, maintained lawn, and
undisturbed forested area within the south and west portion of parcel #921294006. Elevation of the
southwest and west project site is 60 feet above sea level, which decreases northeast to 10 feet above sea
level. The estuarine wetland is 10 feet above sea level, in a partially bermed depression adjacent to the Oak
Bay marine shoreline. The wetland is tidally influenced through underground culverts connected to Oak
Bay. The tide at the time of the field survey was ~8 feet MLLW and ebbing to ~3 feet MLLW. The wetland
delineation conducted in the field is described in section 7 and can be seen in Figure 5. A pre-construction
elevation survey concluded that the proposed project site was outside of FEMA Flood Zone AE (Figure 2).
3. Project Description
The proposed project includes removal of existing impervious surface and an extension of overall square
footage. The west portion of the existing mobile home will be extended to connect it with an on-site studio
office. The existing home footprint is 50’ x 27’ (1,350 ft2) and the existing studio office is 20’3” x 32’ (648
ft2) (Figure 2).
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 3
Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 4
The proposed development project includes 1,307 ft2 of new living space and a reduction of 385 ft2 of
existing living space for a total increase of 922 ft2 of living space. 105 ft2 of existing deck will be removed
and 609 ft2 of new deck will be constructed for a total increase of 504 ft2 in deck space. A new 700 ft2
garage will also be constructed. The total increase in footprint will be 2,126 ft2.
Approximately 1,600 ft2 of existing impervious driveway was removed in 2018 on the eastern side of the
property and an additional 200 ft2 of driveway on the northern part of the property is to be removed before
construction (Figure 2).
To summarize, impacts to the wetland buffer include 2,126 ft2 of proposed new project footprint
development. With the 1,800 ft2 of impervious driveway removal counting towards mitigation, the
remaining new project area impervious surface will be mitigated through the installation of a native planting
plan. Mitigation is discussed further in section 12 and the complete plan can be seen in Appendix C.
4. Action Area
The project area includes the actual construction footprint, as well as any areas used for staging materials
and equipment for accessing the site. The action area additionally extends to any area that may have
potential ecological impacts from short-term construction activities or long-term habitat modifications.
Conservatively, this area will extend ¼ mile and includes neighboring shoreline parcels, somewhat
undisturbed forested area, and the Oak Bay marine shoreline (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Map of Action Area
3
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 5
5. Supporting Wetland Information Queries
National Wetlands Inventory
The United States Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory map shows three mapped wetland types
within ~0.1 miles from the project site: Freshwater Emergent (PEM1C), Estuarine and Marine Wetland
(E2USN), and Estuarine and Marine Deepwater (E1UBL) (Figure 4). According to the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States,
National Wetland Inventory code interpretations are as follows:
• Freshwater Emergent (PEM1C)
o P: System PALUSTRINE: The Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands
dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such
wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 ppt.
It also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation, but with all of the following four
characteristics: (1) area less than 8 ha (20 acres); (2) active wave-formed or bedrock
shoreline features lacking; (3) water depth in the deepest part of basin less than 2.5 m (8.2
ft) at low water; and (4) salinity due to ocean-derived salts less than 0.5 ppt.
o EM: Class EMERGENT: Characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes,
excluding mosses and lichens. This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in
most years. These wetlands are usually dominated by perennial plants.
o 1: Subclass PERSISTENT: Dominated by species that normally remain standing at least
until the beginning of the next growing season. This subclass is found only in the Estuarine
and Palustrine systems.
o C: Water Regime SEASONALLY FLOODED: Surface water is present for extended
periods (generally for more than a month) during the growing season but is absent by the
end of the season in most years. When surface water is absent, the depth to substrate
saturation may vary considerably among sites and among years.
• Estuarine and Marine Wetland (E2USN)
o E: System ESTUARINE: The Estuarine System consists of deepwater tidal habitats and
adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by land but have open, partly
obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least
occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically
increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low-energy coastlines,
there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Offshore areas with typical estuarine plants and
animals, such as red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) and eastern oysters (Crassostrea
virginica), are also included in the Estuarine System.
o 2: Subsystem INTERTIDAL: The substrate in these habitats is flooded and exposed by
tides; includes the associated splash zone.
o US: Class UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE: Includes all wetland habitats having two
characteristics: (1) unconsolidated substrates with less than 75 percent areal cover of
stones, boulders or bedrock and; (2) less than 30 percent areal cover of vegetation.
Landforms such as beaches, bars, and flats are included in the Unconsolidated Shore class.
o N: Water Regime REGULARLY FLOODED: Tides alternately flood and expose the
substrate at least once daily.
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 6
• Estuarine and Marine Deepwater (E1UBL)
o System ESTUARINE: The Estuarine System consists of deepwater tidal habitats and
adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually semi-enclosed by land but have open, partly
obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least
occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically
increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low-energy coastlines,
there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Offshore areas with typical estuarine plants and
animals, such as red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) and eastern oysters (Crassostrea
virginica), are also included in the Estuarine System.
o 1: Subsystem SUBTIDAL: The substrate in these habitats is continuously covered with
tidal water (i.e., located below extreme low water).
o UB: Class UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM: Includes all wetlands and deepwater
habitats with at least 25% cover of particles smaller than stones (less than 6-7 cm), and a
vegetative cover less than 30%.
o L: Water Regime SUBTIDAL: Tidal salt water continuously covers the substrate.
Figure 4. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 7
The NWI map documents were prepared primarily by stereoscopic analysis of high altitude aerial
photographs taken in 1980 and 1981. Wetlands were identified on the photographs based on vegetation,
visible hydrology, and geography. The aerial photographs typically reflected conditions during a specific
year and season when they were taken. Some small wetlands and those obscured by dense forest cover may
not be included on the map. In addition, there is a margin of error inherent in the use of aerial photographs.
The NWI map was not consistent with the wetland typing in the field, which determined that the wetland
was estuarine and tidally influenced. The delineated wetland boundary was also further west of mapped
boundaries (Figure 5).
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Table 1. Soil Map Unit
Soil Map Code Soil Name Percent
AmC Alderwood gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 10.6
ClC* Cathcart gravelly silt loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 46.4
Co Coastal beaches 1.6
SuB Swantown gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes 33.4
Td* Tidal marsh 8.0
*Soil Map Units sampled at the project site
The tidal marsh map unit occurs on alluvial cones (between 0 to 100 feet elevation) with 30 to 100 inches
precipitation and a mean annual air temperature of 50° F. The typical profile for this soil is mucky silt loam
between 0 to 6 inches (H1) and stratified sand to silty clay between 6 to 60 inches (H2). The soil unit is very
poorly drained with depth to the most restrictive layer at more than 80 inches, very low to moderately low
(0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) capacity to the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat), and a depth of water table at
the surface. Flooding and ponding are frequent in this soil map unit (Attachment 1).
Cathcart gravelly silt loam soil occurs on colluvium ande residuum from sandstone and shale with 35 to 50
inches of mean annual precipitation and 46° to 48° F annual air temperature. The typical profile for this soil
is gravelly silt loam between 0 to 9 inches (H1), gravelly loam between 9 to 30 inches (H2), very gravelly
loam between 30 to 38 inches (H3), and weathered bedrock between 38 to 42 inches (H4). The soil unit is
well drained with depth to the most restrictive layer between 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock,
moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) capacity to the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat), and
a depth of water table at more than 80 inches. No frequency of flooding or ponding are recorded. The soil is
not rated as hydric (Attachment 1).
Three additional Soil Map Units were recorded within the project site. A full description of these soils can
be found in Attachment 1.
6. Wetland Assessment Methods
The field delineation followed the methodology outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (effective January 1987): Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast
Region 9 (Version 2.0; USACE, updated May 2010). This is the standard manual, used in determining
wetland areas when applying state and local government regulations under the Shoreline Management Act
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 8
and the Growth Management Act in Washington State. Preliminary information was gathered on the project
site prior to the field review, rating, and delineation. General information sources included:
• 1974 National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS;
March 12, 2019)
• Web Soil Survey: National Cooperative Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; April 4, 2019)
• Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Atlas (WECY)
• Chapter 18.22 Jefferson County Critical Areas Municipal Code [Ord. 3-08 § 1]
• 2016 National Wetland Plant List (NWPL): Western Mountains, Valleys & Coast. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE)
• Pocket Guide to Hydric Soil Field Indicators Based on Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
United States (Version 7.0; 2013)
• Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with National Technical
Committee of Hydric Soils (NTCHS) (Version 8.2, 2018)
• 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington 2014 Update. (Hruby, T
Washington State Department of Ecology)
The field rating followed the methodology outlines in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for
Western Washington (2014 Update) field manual, published by the State of Washington Department of
Ecology. The specified buffers, identified in accordance with each individual wetland’s rating score, are
specified in Jefferson County Critical Areas, Chapter 18.2.330(1)-(3), Table: Wetland Categories, Rating
Scores and Buffer Widths…
The extent and location of the wetland were delineated during field work completed on April 9th, 2019.
Field work conditions varied between cloudy/overcast (~50° F) and sunny (~60° F). The time of year and
recent precipitation history were considered in assessing the extent of the wetlands presumed to exist on
site: conditions were deemed seasonal and typical (Appendix A).
Specific field methodology used in determining the extent and location of wetland areas include:
1) As part of the initial project site reconnaissance, the site was walked to determine the general extent
and location of potential wetland areas.
2) Wetland (wet) and upland (dry) sample plots were established in the identified potential wetland
areas and in the adjacent upland areas (blue and white ribbon); and
3) The extent of the wetland was located and flagged using pink ribbon. A GPS unit (Garmin 64st) was
used to map the location of flag points.
7. Wetland Delineation
A wetland delineation establishes the specific boundaries of a wetland for the purposes of federal, state, and
local regulations. In determining these physical parameters of each individual wetland, indicators of
vegetation, soils, and hydrology are analyzed to assess critical areas. By defining the transition zone
between scientifically established upland and wetland indicators, an established accurate boundary of the
wetland can be identified between a pair of data points; one representing the upland and one representing
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 9
the wetland. It is common for paired data points, when linked to vegetative indicators (such as an obvious
transition line of upland grass into an emergent herbaceous community), to inform the identification of the
wetland delineation. A delineation, often in conjunction with a subsequent rating, is a necessary procedural
step in obtaining information which will inform subsequent construction.
A wetland delineation was conducted to obtain the accurate wetland boundary of an estuarine wetland east
of the proposed project site. Field work for the wetland delineation was completed between 9:00 am to
11:00 am on April 9th, 2019. Conditions at the project site were cloudy/overcast (~55° F) and calm. The
wetland was confirmed, delineated, rated, and mapped (Figure 5). A moderate impact land use, according to
Jefferson County municipal code (18.22.330(2); Wetland Categories, Rating Scores and Buffer Width for
Moderate impact as indicated Land Uses), was selected to represent the construction of the proposed
remodel project (Figure 2). The wetland was delineated using one standard sampling plot pair (wet and
dry). The sampling points were designated Vegetation, Soils, and Hydrology or “VSH.” VSH-1 represented
the wetland sampling point, VSH-2 represented the upland sampling points. Each data points consisted of a
test pit dug to standard depth of 18 inches to expose a representative soil profile, with the exception of a
potential restrictive layer. Each data point was then assessed for the presence of three wetland indicators:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Following the successful location of paired
data points, flags were placed between data points to mark the wetland boundary. The test pits were geo-
located with GPS (Garmin 64st) latitude and longitude (Figure 5).
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 10
Figure 5. Map of Wetland Delineation Results
5
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 11
Vegetation
To distinguish the types of plants that grow in different hydrologic regimes, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service incorporated a system of wetland plant indicator status to classify individual plant species. The
wetland indicator status of a species is based on the individual species occurrence in wetlands in 13 separate
regions within the United States. A plant indicator status is applied to the species, although individual
variations exist within the species. Plant species were identified and given an indicator status according to
the National Wetland Plant List: Western Mountains, Valleys & Coast U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(NWPL, 2016). Indicator categories are as follows:
OBL – Obligate Wetland – Almost always occurs in wetlands under natural conditions.
FACW – Facultative Wetland – Usually occurs in wetlands, occasionally found in uplands.
FAC – Facultative – Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands
FACU – Facultative Upland – Usually occurs in non-wetlands, occasionally found in wetlands.
UPL – Obligate Upland – Almost always occurs in uplands under natural conditions.
To meet the qualification as a site dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, wetland plant species must show at
least one of five hydrophytic vegetation indicators. The sample plot that qualified as a wetland (VSH-1) did
so by fulfilling two of the following wetland vegetation indicators: Dominance test (>50% hydric
vegetation) (Appendix A).
Vegetation throughout the wetland was dominated by a layer of herbaceous facultative wet, obligate, and
facultative species, including Coastal saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Woody glasswort (Salicornia depressa),
and Silverweed (Potentilla anserine). The canopy stratum included traces of Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga
menziesii) and Red alder (Alnus rubra). The sapling/shrub stratum included Western red cedar (Thuja
plicata) and traces of Red-flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum) (Table 2 and Appendix A).
Table 2. Wetland A – Sample Plot VSH-1: Vegetation
Stratum Common Name Latin Name Status Absolute %
Cover
Tree Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii FACU 5
Tree Red alder Alnus rubra FAC 3
Sapling/Shrub Western red cedar Thuja plicata FAC 10
Sapling/Shrub Red-flowering currant Ribes sanguineum FAC 3
Herb Coastal saltgrass Distichlis spicata FACW 60
Herb Woody glasswort Salicornia depressa OBL 20
Herb Silverweed Potentilla anserina OBL 5
The upland sampling plot (VSH-2) was located on a slope above the wetland and was equally represented
by tree and sapling/shrub stratum, including Douglas fir, Western red cedar, and Red-flowering currant.
Traces of American purple vetch (Vicia americana) was also present within the herbaceous layer (Table 3
and Appendix A).
Table 3. Upland – Sample Plot VSH-2: Vegetation
Stratum Common Name Latin Name Status Absolute %
Cover
Tree Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii FACU 10
Sapling/Shrub Western red cedar Thuja plicata FAC 15
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 12
Soils
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), hydric soils form under conditions of
saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in
the upper soil horizon. Most hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from repeated
periods of inundation or saturation that last more than a few days. Saturation or inundation, when combined
with microbial activity in the soil, causes a depletion of oxygen. This anaerobic state promotes certain
biogeochemical processes, such as the accumulation of organic matter, the accumulation or reduction of
iron, and other reducible elements. These processes in turn create regionally specific, visible indicators,
which help identify and delineate hydric soils in a field setting. These indicators are not intended to replace
or modify the requirements contained in the definition of a hydric soil; they are dynamic, and open to a
degree of human interpretation. Some hydric soils lack any currently listed and accepted indicators;
therefore, the lack of any listed indicator does not prevent classification of a soil as hydric. However, such
soils and their specific morphologies, are included and specified in the necessary field guides.
In this wetland, hydric soils were identified using the Munsell Soil Color Book, a standard reference manual
prepared by the Munsell Color Company and used by the United States Department of Agriculture. Hydric
soils indicators for wetland sample plot VSH-1 included Histosol (A1) with organic material present
throughout the 18” sample (Table 4 and Appendix A).
Table 4. Wetland A – Sample Plot VSH-1
Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features Texture Color % Color % Type1 Loc2
0-18” 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Clayey loam
1Type: C=Concentration, RM=Reduced Matrix, D=Depletion, CS=Covered or Coated Sand
Grains
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
No hydric soil indicators were present in VSH-2, which was sampled upslope of the delineated wetland.
The sample was characterized by mulch and gravel fill from a previously constructed berm. A rock and
gravel restrictive layer were recorded at a depth of 3 inches (Table 5 and Appendix A).
Table 5. Upland – Sample Plot VSH-2
Depth
(inches)
Matrix Redox Features Texture Color % Color % Type1 Loc2
0-1” 10YR 2/1 100 - - - - Loam
1-3” 10YR 3/4 100 - - - - Sandy gravel
1Type: C=Concentration, RM=Reduced Matrix, D=Depletion, CS=Covered or Coated Sand
Grains
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix
Sapling/Shrub Red-flowering currant Ribes sanguineum FAC 5
Herb American purple vetch Vicia americana FACU 3
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 13
Hydrology
Hydrologic conditions result from the interactions between meteorological, surface and ground water, as
well as physical and biological factors that influence the flow, quality, or timing of water. Therefore, the
determination of the presence of hydrologic conditions focuses on the corresponding presence of factors
that most directly influence the persistence of water in a specific area. Similar to the indicators used in
hydric soils, and because watersheds vary tremendously across the country, regional hydrologic indicators
are used to identify wetlands in the field more easily.
Wetland sample plot VSH-1 demonstrated multiple wetland hydrology indicators, which included a High
Water Table (A2), Saturation (A3), Water Marks (B1), and Sediment Deposits (B2). Surface water was
observed at the beginning of the wetland delineation and is expected to occur within the wetland
consistently during high tide. Upland sample plot VSH-2 did not demonstrate wetland hydrologic indicators
(Appendix A). Hydrology of the project site was very disturbed from past development. Hydrologic
connection between the estuarine wetland and Oak Bay was observed along the north perimeter of the
wetland.
8. Wetland Rating
Wetland A: Estuarine, Category II.
Buffer for “Moderate Land Use Impact” (Single-family residential use on parcels one acre or larger): 110
feet (JCMC 18.22.330(2))
The intent of a rating is to provide a basis for protecting and managing wetlands; this is accomplished
assessing a wetland’s valued functions and resources - ecological, economic, or aesthetic. In the process of
a rating, a wetland is placed in a Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Class, or a classification of wetland type, and a
Category, or a numerically scored quantification of its functions and specific attributes such as rarity,
sensitivity to disturbance, and the functions they provide. Based upon this score, the wetland is placed in
Category I through Category IV; the former is a wetland of greatest value, based upon the rating rubric’s
characterization of its inherent value, while the latter is a wetland of least value. A specific buffer, identified
in accordance with each individual wetland’s rating score, is then recommended, using standardized and
established guidelines. While all wetlands provide some functions and resources that are valued, be they
ecological or aesthetic, they also vary widely; consequently, the recommended buffer, identified in
accordance with each individual wetland’s rating score, reflects that particular wetland and its specific
qualities.
The wetland was scored based on special characteristics. The wetland class is tidal fringe with a salinity of
0.5 ppt or higher. The estuarine wetland was not located within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park,
National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational Environmental, or Scientific
Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151. The wetland is at least 1 acre in size, relatively disturbed with
filling, and has a landward 100 foot buffer with less than ¾ acre of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-mowed
grassland (Appendix B).
According to Chapter 18.22.330(2) of the Jefferson County municipal code, the proposed land use impact is
“moderate” (Single-family residential use on parcels one acre or larger). A Category II wetland with a
moderate level of impact from land use requires a buffer of 110 feet. A building setback line of 10 feet was
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 14
applied from the edge of the buffer area (18.25.270(4)(6)) (Figure 5). According to JCMC 18.22.265,
“When a development proposal is located on lands which may contain a habitat for a protected species
other than bald eagle nesting territories, or when the applicant proposes to alter, decrease or average the
standard buffer, a habitat management plan (HMP) shall be required, consistent with the requirements of
JCC 18.22.440.”
9. Habitat and Species Information
Habitat Conditions on Site
According to the Jefferson County Public Land Records – Critical Areas and National Wetlands inventory
map, a wetland was recorded east of the proposed project site, which is consistent with the wetland
delineation (Figure 7). The FEMA Flood Zone AE was mapped adjacent to the project site (Figure 8). A
Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) and seismic hazard area were recorded on parcel #921294006 and
adjacent to the project site (Figure 9).
Department of Ecology’s Water Quality Atlas shows Category 5 – 303(d) listed water (Listing ID 40319)
was recorded approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site in Mats Mats Bay (Figure 10). The listing
parameter included at least one exceedance of bacteria, which was recorded between 2004 to 2014. A
Category 1 was also recorded (Listing ID: 65473) approximately 1.0 mile north of the project site in the
Puget Sound. The listing was previously determined to be a Category 3 assessed water, however, that rating
was reduced to Category 1 in 2012. The listing parameter included temperature, which was considered to be
a natural condition within the water body and not a cause of human sources. Water quality improvement
projects are in development throughout the Puget Sound, which is adjacent to the project site.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) report
mapped estuarine and marine wetlands, freshwater emergent, and other wetlands within the project action
area; the results are summarized in Table 6. The Washington Department of Natural Resources recorded the
presence of continuous eelgrass along the marine shoreline adjacent to the project site in their 1994 - 2000
data but the site is not currently being monitored (WDNR). No Wetlands of High Conservation Value
(WHCV) were mapped within the project action area (Figure 11).
Washington State Priority Habitat and Species
Queries of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
database are summarized in Table 6 below. Surf smelt and Pacific sand lance spawning habitat are
documented along the project site’s shoreline (Figure 12). Bald eagle shoreline nesting sites were recorded
southeast of Olele point approximately 1.25 miles from the project site (Figure 14).
Queries of WDFW’s Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) show no streams in the action area or adjacent to it that
are utilized by any salmonid species. Resident coastal cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) and coho
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) are documented in streams in Mats Mats Bay to the south so these species may
migrate past the shoreline at the project site.
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 15
Table 6. WDFW PHS query results within the action area
Federal ESA-listed Species and Critical Habitat
For each ESA listed species with the potential to be in the project action area, the listing status, distribution
of species, and relevant life history traits are presented in the sections below. Salmon species that utilize
streams adjacent to the project site will also be included as they may migrate past the project site. Species
with critical habitat within the action area are summarized in
below.
Table 7. USFWS/NMFS Critical Habitat within the action area
Species or Habitat Priority Area/Occurrence
Type
Action
Area
Project
Footprint
Estuarine and Marine Wetlands Aquatic Habitat Y N
Freshwater Emergent Wetland Aquatic Habitat Y N
Geoduck Presence Y N
Hardshell Clam Presence Y N
Pacific Sand Lance Breeding Area Y N
Surf Smelt Breeding Area Y N
Wetlands-Region 6 Saltwater Aquatic Habitat Y Y
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 16
9.3.1. Rockfish
Bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish remain in the upper part of the water column as larvae and pelagic
juveniles. Around 3 to 6 months old, bocaccio rockfish settle into intertidal, nearshore habitat; they
prefer to settle in rocky reefs, kelp beds, low rock, and cobble areas (Love et al. 2002). Juvenile
yelloweye rockfish are usually found in the upper extent of the adult depth range instead of in
intertidal habitat (Studebaker et al. 2009). As both species grow larger, they move into deeper
waters. Adults are found around rocky reefs and coarse habitats. Marine habitats high in complexity
are associated with higher numbers of rockfish species (Young et al. 2010). Adult yelloweye and
bocaccio rockfish generally inhabit depths from approximately 90 ft to 1,400 ft (Love et al. 2002).
Both species are opportunistic feeders, with their prey dependent on their life stage. Predators of
adult rockfish include marine mammals, salmon, other rockfish, lingcod, and sharks.
NOAA has listed the distinct population segments (DPSs) of yelloweye (Sebastes ruberrimus) as
threatened species under the ESA and listed the Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio rockfish (Sebastes
paucispinis) as endangered (75 FR 22276; April 28, 2010). The Georgia Basin refers to all of Puget
Sound, including the area around the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia, north to the mouth
of the Campbell River in British Columbia. The western boundary of the Georgia Basin runs from
east of Port Angeles to Victoria in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Critical habitat for both species was
designated in 2014 (79 FR 68042; November 13, 2014).
The action area includes critical habitat for nearshore rockfish, which consists of mainly juvenile
bocaccio rockfish as juvenile yelloweye rockfish are found in deeper water. Since this project is
occurring upland with no in-water work, it is unlikely this species or its critical habitat will be
adversely affected assuming the avoidance and minimization measures outlined in this report are
followed.
9.3.2. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), also called the king salmon, are distinguished
from all other Pacific salmon by their large size. Most Chinook in the Puget Sound are “ocean-
type” and migrate to the marine environment during their first year (Myers et al. 1998). They may
enter estuaries immediately after emergence as fry from March to May at a length of 40 mm or they
may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June of their first year at a length of
60-80 mm (Healey 1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries feed on emergent insects and
epibenthic crustaceans (gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans). As they grow and move
into neritic habitats, they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, drift insects, and
euphausiids (Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean-type Chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and
are the most dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival.
The Puget Sound Chinook is listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened
according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005). In
addition, NMFS has designated critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of
West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU. The portion of the project
footprint and action area below the line of extreme high water is in an area designated as critical
habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (70 FR 52685; September 2, 2005).
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 17
The project site and action area are within Puget Sound Chinook critical habitat; however, there are
no rivers or streams in or near the action area which have documented Chinook presence (WDFW
SaSI). Since this project is occurring upland with no in-water work, it is unlikely this species or its
critical habitat will be adversely affected assuming the avoidance and minimization measures
outlined in this report are followed.
9.3.3. Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon
In Puget Sound, chum spawning grounds are situated near coastal rivers and lowland streams. Puget
Sound chum typically spawn from September to March (WSCC 2003). Chum (along with ocean-
type Chinook) spend more time in the estuarine environment than other species of salmon (Healey
1982). Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days with an average residence of 24
days (Simenstad, Fresh, & Salo 1982). Juvenile chum consume benthic organisms found in and
around eelgrass beds (harpacticoid copepods, gammarid amphipods and isopods), but change their
diet to drift insects and plankton such as calanoid copepods, larvaceans, and hyperiid amphipods as
their size increases to 50 - 60 mm (Simenstad, Fresh, & Salo 1982). Summer chum escapements in
Hood Canal have generally experienced a continuous decline in previous decades. However,
beginning in 2003, escapements began to increase. In 2004, the escapements were the highest
recorded during the period that total spawner numbers have been estimated (1974-2004) (WDFW
2005).
NMFS has listed the Hood Canal summer-run chum ESU (Oncorhynchus keta) as threatened under
the ESA (70 FR 37160; June 28, 2005). NMFS designated critical habitat for the Hood Canal
summer-run chum ESU shortly after (70 FR 52739; September 2, 2005) and it includes the entire
Hood Canal and contiguous shoreline north/northwest, ending past Dungeness Bay near Sequim.
The project site and action area are within Hood Canal summer-run chum critical habitat; however,
there are no rivers or streams in or near the action area which have documented chum presence
(WDFW SaSI). Since this project is occurring upland with no in-water work, it is unlikely this
species or its critical habitat will be adversely affected assuming the avoidance and minimization
measures outlined in this report are followed.
9.3.4. Southern Resident Killer Whale
The Southern Resident population consists of three pods: J, K and L. According to Wiles (2004),
“While in inland waters during warmer months, all of the pods concentrate their activity in Haro
Strait, Boundary Passage, the Southern Gulf Islands, the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca
and several localities in the southern Georgia Strait.” During early autumn, these pods, especially J
pod, extend their movements into Puget Sound to take advantage of the chum and Chinook salmon
runs. Resident killer whales spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter water less
than 5 meters deep (Baird 2001).
On November 15, 2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (SRKW) (Orcinus orca) as
endangered under the ESA (70 FR 69903; November 18, 2005). NMFS has designated critical
habitat for killer whales: "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20 ft relative to a contiguous
shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water." (71 FR 69054; November 29, 2006).
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 18
The action area includes critical habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whale, but as this project is
occurring upland with no in-water work, it is unlikely this species or critical habitat will be
adversely affected assuming the avoidance and minimization measures outlined in this report are
followed.
9.3.5. Marbled Murrelet
Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) are small marine birds in the Alcidae family.
They spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical
nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival
and conservation of the species (WDW 1993). Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the
marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific herring, surf smelt, other
small schooling fish and invertebrates.
Marbled murrelets have been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992 (57 FR 45328; October
1, 1992). Critical habitat was designated by USFWS in 1996, revised in 2011, and reviewed again
in 2016 to determine if the ESA definition of critical habitat was being met (81 FR 51348; August
4, 2016).
There is no critical habitat mapped at or near the project site or within the action area. No marbled
murrelet nesting locations were recorded within the action area (Figure 13). Marbled murrelets could
potentially forage in the area when surf smelt and Pacific sand lance are spawning; however, there
should be little, if any, impact to this species from the proposed project as it is occurring upland.
10. Analysis of Effects
Water Quality
Typically, preparation of a site for construction does have the potential for increased run-off and off-site
siltation. Increased siltation does have the potential to impact the quality and storage capacity of a wetland
as well as the quality of the marine shoreline. Any such effects could potentially impact the Category II
estuarine wetland and its protective buffer.
1,600 ft2 of existing impervious driveway was removed in 2018, part of which was between the project site
and the marine shoreline; an additional 200 ft2 of concrete driveway will be removed that is adjacent to the
wetland (Figure 2). However, a concrete driveway remains within the project site which has the potential to
affect water quality.
Vegetation - Wetland and Riparian Areas
Vegetation throughout the wetland was dominated by a layer of herbaceous facultative wet, obligate, and
facultative species, including Coastal saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Woody glasswort (Salicornia depressa),
and Silverweed (Potentilla anserine). The canopy stratum included traces of Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga
menziesii) and Red alder (Alnus rubra). The sapling/shrub stratum included Western red cedar (Thuja
plicata) and traces of Red-flowering currant (Ribes sanguineum).
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 19
The western portion of the existing single-family residence extension will damage some horticultural plants,
but no impact to any native vegetation is expected. A mitigation planting plan is proposed to enhance the
ecological value of the critical area buffers (Appendix C).
Construction Noise
There will be some construction noise associated with the project, which may have temporary impacts on
wildlife, such as disturbance of nesting/perching for songbirds. Timing of construction will minimize
potential affects to nesting wildlife and should occur following spring/early summer. Noise generated
during construction is not expected to impact wildlife or ecosystem function in the long term.
Wildlife
Wildlife barriers or loss of connectivity are not expected to result from the proposed construction. A
mitigation planting plan and the removal of impervious driveway will benefit wildlife by increasing forage
and shelter, reducing sources of pollution flow, and increasing storage/filtration time of run-off before
reaching the marine shoreline.
11. Avoidance and Minimization Measures
MSA recommends the following measures are in place to avoid and minimize impacts to ecological
function at the site:
• Implementation of only hand tools where possible, to reduce impact and noise pollution during
construction processes.
• Buffer Marking along the outer extent of the building setback shall be marked in the field before
construction. Signs shall remain in place prior to and during approved construction activities. The
signs shall contain the following statement: “Buffer — Do Not Remove or Alter Existing Native
Vegetation.”
• Buffers shall be retained in their natural condition (however, minor pruning of vegetation to
enhance views or provide access may be permitted as long as the function and character of the
buffer is not diminished).
Additional avoidance and minimization measures recommended for the applicant as part of this HMP
include:
• A temporary barrier fence placed directly north of immediate construction zone to prevent
machinery and other equipment from disturbing the marine shoreline.
• Any storage of materials resulting from the extension project will be on already impervious surface
(ex: driveway) away from the wetland and marine shoreline
• Any storage of heavy machinery to be used in the extension project will also be on already paved
surface away from the immediate marine shoreline area and the machinery should be checked
frequently for leaks.
12. Mitigation
It is recommended that the 1,600 ft2 section of concrete driveway (which was previously removed in 2018),
and the additional 200 ft2 section of driveway that is to be removed during construction, count toward the
total square footage needed for mitigating the proposed project’s increased footprint area. It is also
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 20
recommended that the existing 19 native Western Red Cedar trees that were previously planted along the
estuarine wetland riparian buffer count towards the total mitigation needed. The total sum of the concrete
driveway removal (1,800 ft2) and 19 previously installed Western Red Cedars (731 ft2) totals 2,531 ft2,
which is greater than the total new project area footprint (2,126 ft2).
Although the concrete removal and addition of native cedars provide a great improvement to the overall
habitat function by reducing runoff and providing vegetation structure, it is important to note that the goal
of the mitigation plan is to enhance the ecological value of the critical area buffers, which will require a
more diverse cast of plant species than just lawn grass and cedar trees. Because of this we recommend that a
115 ft2 area of native plants be interspersed among the cedar trees along the riparian wetland buffer on the
eastern edge of the property to enhance the habitat diversity closest to the critical area wetland riparian
buffer, and to compensate for any deficiencies in counting the driveway removal and lawn installation
towards mitigation.
The full mitigation planting plan can be seen in Appendix C.
13. Conclusion
This wetland and habitat management report documents the presence of a wetland on parcel #921294006
(Figure 5). The wetland was delineated, rated, mapped, and given a 110 ft buffer according to specifications
in the Jefferson County Critical Areas municipal code for a Category II estuarine wetland classified as
“Moderate Land Use Impact” (Single-family residential use on parcels one acre or larger) (JCMC
18.22.330(2)). A building setback line of 10 ft was also applied from the edge of the buffer area
(18.25.270(4)(6)) (Figure 5). The proposed project includes a 2,126 ft2 increase in the existing building’s
footprint (Figure 2) which is within the estuarine wetland and marine shoreline critical area buffers and
setback.
Avoidance measures include accessing the proposed project area from outside of the critical aera buffer and
staging materials on impervious surface where surface water runoff is not likely to impact the wetland or
marine shoreline.
In addition to the removal of 1,800 ft2 of impervious driveway and the previous installation of 19 native
western red cedar trees along the wetland buffer, the installation of a new 115 ft2 area of native plants will
be interspersed among the cedar trees along the riparian wetland buffer on the eastern edge of the property.
This additional mitigation aims to enhance the habitat diversity and compensate for any deficiencies in
counting the driveway removal and lawn installation towards mitigation.
Based on our review of the proposed development, the existing conditions on site, the conservation
measures recommended herein, and the proposed mitigation planting plan, MSA concludes that there will be
no net loss to habitat function or value on site.
References
Baird, R.W. 2001. Status of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 115:676-701.
Cowardin, LM., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service document FWS/OBS-79/31. 84pp.
Washington D.C.
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 191 / Thursday, October 1, 1992 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol 79, No. 219 / Friday, November 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol 70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol 70, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 229 / Wednesday, November 29, 2006 / Rules and Regulations.
Healey, M.C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries - the life support system, p. 315-341. In: V.S.
Kennedy (ed.). Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. Publication
#14-06-029. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA.
Jefferson County Municipal Code. Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas [Ord. 3-08 § 1]
Love, M.S., M.M. Yoklavich, and L.K. Thorsteinson. 2002. The rockfishes of the northeast Pacific. University
of California Press, Berkeley.
Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016
wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X
Munsell Soil Color Charts. 1998. Gretag Macbeth. North Windsor, New York.
National Cooperative Soil Survey. Official Established Series Description. 2000.
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). 2019. Wetlands Report. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz,
K. Neeley, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington,
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 22
Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, NOAA Technical Memo, NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443p.
Pocket Guide to Hydric Soil Field Indicators Based on Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States v.
7.0 with Updates, Prepared by Wetland Training Institute, Inc., 2013
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987): Western Mountains,
Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), May 2010.
Simenstad, C. A., K. L. Fresh and E. O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries
in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364. In: V. S. Kennedy, (ed.),
Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Speare-Cooke, S. 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and
Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society.
Studebaker, R.S., K.M. Cox, and T.J. Mulligan. 2009. Recent and historical spatial distributions of juvenile
rockfish, Sebastes spp., in rocky intertidal tidepools with emphasis on Sebastes melanops, Trans., Am.
Fish. Soc., 138:645-651.
US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area, Washington.
December, 2013
US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. 1978
US Fish and Wildlife Service. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 1992.
Washington Department of Ecology (WECY). Coastal Atlas map. Accessed August 2020. Available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) report. Accessed
August 2020. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI). Accessed August
2020. Available at: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html#
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Puget Sound Seagrass Monitoring Data Viewer.
Aquatic Resources Division, Nearshore Habitat Program Submerged Vegetation Monitoring Program
(SVMP). Accessed August 2020.
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus
marmoratus) in Washington. July 1993. Unpubl. Rep. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia,
WA.
Wiles, G.J. 2004. Washington State status report for the killer whale. Washington Department Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia. 106 pp.
Young et al. 2010. Multivariate bathymetry-derived generalized linear model accurately predicts rockfish
distribution on Cordell Bank, California, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 415: 247-261.
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 23
Figure 6. Existing Site Plan
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 24
Figure 7. Jefferson County Wetlands Map
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 25
Figure 8. FEMA Flood Map
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 26
Figure 9. Jefferson County Public Land Records – Critical Areas
Jefferson County Public Land Records – Critical Areas
Project Location
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 27
Figure 10. Department of Ecology Water Quality Atlas
Project Location
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 28
Figure 11. Wetlands of High Conservation Value
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 29
Figure 12. WDFW Documented Forage Fish Spawning
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 30
Figure 13. Marbled Murrelet Nesting Locations
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 31
Figure 14. Bald Eagle Shoreline Nesting Sites
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 32
Attachment 1. National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Soils Map and Legends
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 33
Whipple Habitat Management Plan & Wetland Delineation MS&A ǀ 34
Appendix A. Whipple Wetland Determination Forms
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 2 cm Muck (A10)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2,
High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B)
Saturation (A3) Salt Crust (B11) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Water Marks (B1) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Iron Deposits (B5) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Appendix B. Whipple Wetland Rating Form
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 1
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
Score for each
function based
on three
ratings
(order of ratings
is not
important)
9 = H,H,H
8 = H,H,M
7 = H,H,L
7 = H,M,M
6 = H,M,L
6 = M,M,M
5 = H,L,L
5 = M,M,L
4 = M,L,L
3 = L,L,L
RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington
Name of wetland (or ID #): _________________________________ Date of site visit: _____
Rated by____________________________ Trained by Ecology?__ Yes ___No Date of training______
HGM Class used for rating_________________ Wetland has multiple HGM classes?___Y ____N
NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined).
Source of base aerial photo/map ______________________________________
OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY ____ (based on functions___ or special characteristics___)
1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS
_______Category I – Total score = 23 - 27
_______Category II – Total score = 20 - 22
_______Category III – Total score = 16 - 19
_______Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15
FUNCTION
Improving
Water Quality
Hydrologic
Habitat
Circle the appropriate ratings
Site Potential H M L H M L H M L
Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L
Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL
Score Based on
Ratings
2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
Estuarine I II
Wetland of High Conservation Value I
Bog I
Mature Forest I
Old Growth Forest I
Coastal Lagoon I II
Interdunal I II III IV
None of the above
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 3
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington
1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods?
NO – go to 2 YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1
1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)?
NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe
If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it
is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to
score functions for estuarine wetlands.
2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater
and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit.
NO – go to 3 YES – The wetland class is Flats
If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands.
3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
___The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any
plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size;
___At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m).
NO – go to 4 YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe)
4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual),
____The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from
seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks,
____The water leaves the wetland without being impounded.
NO – go to 5 YES – The wetland class is Slope
NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and
shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft
deep).
5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria?
____The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that
stream or river,
____The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years.
For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated.
If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you
probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in
questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 4
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
NO – go to 6 YES – The wetland class is Riverine
NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not
flooding
6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the
surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior
of the wetland.
NO – go to 7 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank
flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be
maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural
outlet.
NO – go to 8 YES – The wetland class is Depressional
8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM
classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small
stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY
WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT
AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the
appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the
wetland unit being scored.
NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or
more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2
is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the
total area.
HGM classes within the wetland unit
being rated
HGM class to
use in rating
Slope + Riverine Riverine
Slope + Depressional Depressional
Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe
Depressional + Riverine along stream
within boundary of depression
Depressional
Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional
Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine
Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other
class of freshwater wetland
Treat as
ESTUARINE
If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have
more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the
rating.
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 16
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Wetland Type
Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met.
Category
SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands
Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands?
The dominant water regime is tidal,
Vegetated, and
With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt Yes –Go to SC 1.1 No= Not an estuarine wetland
SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area
Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30-151?
Yes = Category I No - Go to SC 1.2
Cat. I
SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less
than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25)
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or
contiguous freshwater wetlands. Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV)
SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High
Conservation Value? Yes – Go to SC 2.2 No – Go to SC 2.3
SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value?
Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland?
http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/datasearch/wnhpwetlands.pdf
Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 No = Not a WHCV
SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on
their website? Yes = Category I No = Not a WHCV
Cat. I
SC 3.0. Bogs
Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key
below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions.
SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or
more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No – Go to SC 3.2
SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep
over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or
pond? Yes – Go to SC 3.3 No = Is not a bog
SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30%
cover of plant species listed in Table 4? Yes = Is a Category I bog No – Go to SC 3.4
NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory , you may substitute that criterion by
measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the
plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog.
SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the
species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy?
Yes = Is a Category I bog No = Is not a bog
Cat. I
Wetland name or number ______
Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update 17
Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015
SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands
Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate
the wetland based on its functions.
Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered
canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of
age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more.
Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the
species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm).
Yes = Category I No = Not a forested wetland for this section
Cat. I
SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons
Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon?
The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from
marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks
The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt)
during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom)
Yes – Go to SC 5.1 No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon
SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions?
The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less
than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100).
At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un -grazed or un-
mowed grassland.
The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2)
Yes = Category I No = Category II
Cat. I
Cat. II
SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands
Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If
you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions.
In practical terms that means the following geographic areas:
Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103
Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105
Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109
Yes – Go to SC 6.1 No = not an interdunal wetland for rating
SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M
for the three aspects of function)? Yes = Category I No – Go to SC 6.2
SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger?
Yes = Category II No – Go to SC 6.3
SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac?
Yes = Category III No = Category IV
Cat I
Cat. II
Cat. III
Cat. IV
Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics
If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form
Appendix C. Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan
September 20, 2020
Prepared for:
NewLeaf Design Construction
Marie Peterson
46 Village Way
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Regarding:
Larry and Mandy Whipple
Parcel #921294006
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Applicant Information .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................... 2
2. Summary of Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 4
3. Mitigation .................................................................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Proposed Mitigation ............................................................................................................................. 4
3.2 Mitigation Goals ................................................................................................................................... 5
Goal (1) Buffer Enhancement ................................................................................................................ 5
Goal (2) Emergent Cover ....................................................................................................................... 5
Goal (3) Survival .................................................................................................................................... 5
Goal (4) Soil ........................................................................................................................................... 5
4. Performance Standards ............................................................................................................................ 5
Performance Standard (1) Buffer Enhancement .................................................................................... 5
Performance Standard (2) Emergent Cover ........................................................................................... 5
Performance Standard (3) Survival ........................................................................................................ 6
Performance Standard (4) Soil ............................................................................................................... 6
5. Approach ................................................................................................................................................... 6
5.1 Site Preparation .................................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Plant Procurement ................................................................................................................................ 6
5.3 Planting Methods .................................................................................................................................. 6
On Center Dimensions and Area Coverage ........................................................................................... 6
Planting Instructions ............................................................................................................................... 6
5.4 Inspection and Maintenance Criteria .................................................................................................... 8
6. Planting Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 8
7. Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................... 10
7.1 As-Built Report .................................................................................................................................. 10
7.2 Monitoring Schedule .......................................................................................................................... 10
7.3 Monitoring Methods ........................................................................................................................... 10
8. Maintenance and Contingency .............................................................................................................. 11
8.1 Maintenance ....................................................................................................................................... 11
8.2 Contingency ........................................................................................................................................ 11
9. Site Photos ............................................................................................................................................... 12
Figures & Tables
Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................. 1
Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan ........................................................................................................................ 3
Figure 4. Planting Instructions .................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5. Planting Plan Design Map ........................................................................................................... 9
Table 1. Plant List ......................................................................................................................................... 8
Attachments
Attachment 1. Native Plant Sources for the Pacific NW
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 1
1. Introduction
This mitigation planting plan has been prepared by Marine Surveys & Assessments (MS&A) for a
proposed remodel of Larry and Mandy Whipple’s single-family residence. This plan is in
compliance with the Jefferson County Code Critical Areas requirements (JCC 18.22) and the
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. A Wetland Delineation, Habitat Management Plan,
and FEMA assessment report have also been prepared as a separate document.
1.1 Applicant Information
Larry and Mandy Whipple
Parcel # 921294006
Single Family Residence
Section 19, Township 29N, Range 1E
591 South Bay Way,
Port Ludlow, WA 98365
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Property Location
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 2
1.2 Project Description
The Whipple residential single family home remodel will tie together the existing mobile home
and studio, as well as add a new garage structure. In 2018, a 1,600 square foot section of paved
driveway was removed on the eastern side of the property, and an additional 200 square foot area
of driveway is planned to be removed on the northern part of the property as part of the proposed
construction. The project is within the estuarine wetland critical area buffer, as well as the marine
shoreline buffer, and so requires a mitigation planting plan with a 1:1 ratio of mitigation to new
project footprint square footage. The driveway removal, in addition to native plants installed
along the wetland buffer between 2018 and 2020 (described in section 3), will count towards the
total mitigation area, but a native planting plan to enhance the riparian buffer will still be required.
The proposed development includes a 922 square foot increase in living area, a 504 square foot
increase of deck area, and a new 700 square foot garage (Figure 2), thus the mitigation required is
2,126 square feet, equal to the total project increase in footprint area. This plan outlines MS&A’s
recommendations to mitigate the proposed construction.
The proposed site plan can be seen in Figure 2.
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 3
Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 4
2. Summary of Existing Conditions
The property is a total of 3.04 acres, most of which includes a naturally wooded slope with a long
concrete driveway which leads down to the residence located near the shoreline. The project area
lies within an estuarine wetland critical area buffer, as well as a marine shoreline buffer. It is
zoned for Rural Residential (RR-5) and is occupied by a single family residence built in 1979.
Other existing appurtenances include a detached studio and a barbeque patio area. The estuarine
wetland is located along the eastern boundary of the property, and the Puget Sound shoreline is
located along the northern boundary (see Figure 2). The previously removed concrete driveway
once encircled the entire residence, but in 2018 a large section of the driveway on the eastern side
of the property was removed and planted with lawn grass. The Whipples have also done a
significant amount of landscaping around the house, including installing many native plants
(described in section 3), mulch, and an irrigation system. The western side of the property slopes
up into dense native woods, including Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Western Red Cedar
(Thuja plicata), Scouler’s Willow (Salix scouleriana), Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), Red
Alder (Alnus rubra), and Thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus), and is interspersed with invasive
Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus),
3. Mitigation
3.1 Proposed Mitigation
This mitigation plan aims to minimize any potential resource impacts for the proposed
construction project by enhancing ecological value and function of the existing site, particularly
along the estuarine wetland riparian buffer. This will be done by adding a variety of native plant
species to be interspersed among the already existing native Western Red Cedar trees (Thuja
plicata) and non-native tufted ornamental grasses which were installed by the Whipples between
2018 and 2020 along the eastern edge of their property. These newly installed native plants will
help to reduce runoff and erosion, improve nutrient input, and create additional wildlife habitat
along the wetland buffer.
It is recommended that the 1,600 square foot section of concrete driveway which was previously
removed in 2018, and the additional 200 square foot section of driveway that is to be removed
during construction, count towards the total square footage needed for mitigating the proposed
project’s new footprint area. It is also recommended that the existing 19 native Western Red
Cedar trees planted along the wetland buffer count towards the total mitigation needed. Although
the concrete removal and addition of native cedars provide a great improvement to the overall
habitat function by reducing runoff and providing vegetation structure, it is important to note that
the goal of this mitigation plan is to enhance the ecological value of the critical area buffers,
which will require a more diverse cast of plant species than just lawn grass and cedar trees.
Because of this we recommend that a 115 square foot area of native plants be interspersed among
the cedar trees along the riparian wetland buffer on the eastern edge of the property.
Along with the 19 new Western Red Cedar trees installed on the eastern side of the parcel, the
Whipple’s have improved the overall habitat on their parcel by planting native Pacific
Rhododendron bushes (Rhododendron macrophyllum) and Sword Ferns (Polystichum munitum)
on the south side of their house by the driveway loop entrance, and many large ornamental tufted
grasses along the shoreline buffer to the south. Because the grasses are non-native, and the
rhododendrons and ferns are located away from the critical areas, these plantings will not be
counted towards the 1:1 mitigation area.
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 5
The total sum of the concrete driveway removal (1,800 sf) and 19 previously installed Western
Red Cedars located along the estuarine wetland riparian buffer (731 sf) equals 2,531 square feet,
which is greater than the total new project area footprint (2,126 sf). However, as stated above, it is
recommended that an additional 115 square feet of native plant species be interspersed among the
cedars to enhance the habitat diversity closest to the critical area wetland riparian buffer, and to
compensate for any deficiencies in counting the driveway removal and lawn installation towards
mitigation. It should also be noted that the lawn area where the driveway was removed should be
monitored closely for the encroachment of invasive species, and if noxious weeds are found they
should be removed.
3.2 Mitigation Goals
Goal (1) Buffer Enhancement: Create a newly vegetated area, interspersed among the existing
Western Red Cedar trees, of approximately 115 square feet O.C. mature plant coverage of diverse
native plant species. This will enhance the ecological value and function of the habitat within the
critical area buffer by reducing erosion, improved nutrient input, and creating wildlife habitat.
Goal (2) Emergent Cover: 60% by year one, 80% by year three, 90% by year five.
Goal (3) Survival: 100% by year one, 85% survival by year three.
Goal (4) Soil: For newly planted plants, deconsolidate and amend soil where holes are dug before
plants are installed and add a minimum of 3” mulch.
These standards apply to both previously installed cedar trees and newly installed native plants
within the plot area.
4. Performance Standards
Performance standards are measurable criteria for determining if the goals and objectives of the
mitigation project are being achieved. If the proposed benchmarks are not achieved by comparing
the surveys to the mitigation goals, then contingency plans will need to be implemented, which
are outlined in section 8.2 below. All previously installed native plants will be measured,
photographed, and monitored by the same performance standards as newly installed native plants.
Performance Standard (1) Buffer Enhancement: Native plants will be installed in year one.
Photographs will be taken during monitoring years. A comparison of photographs from previous
years along with the percent cover and survivorship standards outlined below will help in
assessing the quality of the buffer. The planting area is clearly outlined in this report, and
described in Goal (1) and Table 1.
Photo stations for the planting site will be determined, and a photograph the restoration location
will be taken on an annual basis. To meet survival performance standards, individual plants that
die must be replaced with the same species unless a different species is suggested by the project
biologist due to site conditions.
Performance Standard (2) Emergent Cover:
The percent cover standard will be monitored by using the Point Intercept Method of surveying
the planting plots. One or more transect lines will be established by stretching a measuring tape
between two points. The location of the transect will be staked and flagged at each end so that the
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 6
same transect can be surveyed each monitoring year. A data form will be used to collect
information at a minimum of five-foot intervals, stopping along the tape to record what is located
directly beneath it at each interval point. If no plants are present, bare ground will be noted. Once
data is recorded, the following formula will be used to calculate the percent of bare ground:
(Number of points with bare ground divided by total number of points evaluated) X 100 =
percent of bare ground
Performance Standard (3) Survival:
Immediately after planting, all plants will be counted and documented. At the end of each
growing season (late Aug- early Sept) plots will be visited and a count of surviving plants will be
documented. The percent survival for the plots will be calculated by dividing the total number of
plants after planting by the total number of surviving plants at the end of the season.
Performance Standard (4) Soil: A minimum of 20% organic matter by bulk density in the soil will
be verified by invoices.
5. Approach
5.1 Site Preparation
Topsoil around and beneath newly installed native plants will be comprised of a minimum of 20%
organic matter. MS&A recommends that the amended soil consist of 6" of coarse sand and 6" of
vegetative compost which should be worked into the soil before planting. After plant installation,
a layer of mulch at least 3” thick will be placed as a groundcover around the plants.
5.2 Plant Procurement
Plants will be selected from a regional native plant nursery. Invoices will be provided after
purchase. See Attachment 1 for a list of local native plant nurseries and resources. Substitutions
may be necessary for species or individuals outlined in this planting plan which cannot be found
at local nurseries. All plant substitutions will be approved by the project biologist prior to
installation to ensure their suitability for the site.
5.3 Planting Methods
On Center Dimensions and Area Coverage
The total square footage of native plant coverage was calculated using “on center” dimensions
(i.e. the distance between the center of one plant to the center of the next plant, when mature). The
average on center (O.C.) dimensions of each plant species was sourced from Sound Native Plant’s
“Calculating Plant Quantities” guidelines, and a conservative estimate of coverage was calculated
using a typical plant quantity/coverage calculator.
Planting Instructions
Whenever possible, planting should be done between mid-October and mid-December as plants
grow roots during the cool weather, even when the tops of the plants are dormant. Planting
between mid-December and mid-April is also acceptable but more attention to supplemental
watering may be required due to drier seasonal weather conditions. Any nursery instructions that
come with the plants should be read and followed.
Plants should be laid out by hand generally following the spacing specified on the planting plan
map (Figure 4). Before planting, set the potted plants out on the landscape according to the
planting plan design and make sure the arrangement works before digging any holes. Next, dig a
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 7
bowl-shaped hole for each plant at least twice the width, and slightly deeper, than the potted
plant’s container. Roughen the sides and the bottom of the hole with a pick or shovel. If the soil is
especially dry, fill the hole with water and let it soak in before continuing.
Remove the plant from its container gently without pulling on the stem of the plant. Loosen bound
roots on the outer inch of soil and cut any roots that encircle the root ball to ensure that the plant
will not continue to grow within its “memory” of the pot wall confines. Set the plant in the hole so
that the top of the soil remains level with the surrounding soil. Fill the surrounding space with
loose topsoil comprised of at least 20% organic matter. Native top-soils are preferred, whenever
possible. Cover any exposed roots but do not pile dirt onto the stem or root collar, as this can kill
some plants. To discourage root rot, gently tamp down the filled soil to remove any air pockets
that may exist below ground, while allowing the soil to remain somewhat loose. Form a
temporary basin or trench around each plant to encourage water collection, and then water
thoroughly.
Immediately after watering, mulch such as wood chips, leaves, or brown carbon rich compost
should be added to a 3-inch thickness over the entire planting area without covering the stems of
the plants. The mulch will aid in slope stability, moisture and nutrient retention, and weed control.
Heavy duty woodchips are preferable in areas where noxious or invasive species may become a
problem. Staking of trees or shrubs should not be necessary unless high winds exist or the tree is
tall and has little roots. If staking is deemed necessary, use a thick rope or padding around the
trunk of the tree to prevent damage to the bark, and use the minimum amount of tension necessary
to achieve balance.
Figure 3. Planting Instructions
(sourced from City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development Environmentally Critical
Areas Standard Mitigation Plan)
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 8
5.4 Inspection and Maintenance Criteria
Maintenance must be done twice yearly. No herbicides or pesticides are to be used, and all work
should be performed by hand whenever possible, with the lightest possible equipment where such
use is necessary.
During year one, every failed plant must be replaced, including the previously planted Western
Red Cedar trees within the plot. During year one, and during the first year after any replacement
planting, plantings must receive 1 inch of water at least once weekly between June 15 and
September 15. Trees and shrubs must be weeded to the dripline, and mulch must be maintained at
a depth of 3 inches. Weed herbaceous plantings as necessary (flowers, ferns, etc.). All litter and
non-native vegetation must be removed, such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), reed
canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), Scots broom
(Cytisus scoparius), English ivy (Hedera helix), morning glory (Convolvulus arvensis), Japanese
knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), etc., and properly disposed of off-site. Any damaged or missing
fences, posts, signs, habitat or hydrology structures must be repaired or replaced. Any receipts
obtained from work done on the site should be filed with the Department of Permitting through
the project biologist monitoring report.
6. Planting Plan
To cover a minimum of 115 square feet, it has been determined that 6 shrubs and 35 herbaceous
plants will be required for this planting plan. Following is a table showing the plant species,
numbers, and O.C. dimensions for the planting areas. Plants will be selected from a regional
native plant nursery. The species in the table below were chosen to create bird and insect habitat,
while taking into account hardiness, ecology, and aesthetics. Site photos of the planting areas can
be seen in section 9.
Table 1. Plant List
Quantity Botanical Name Common Name Spacing Sun/Shade
1 Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray Spacing: 4’ O.C. Sun or shade
1 Vaccinium ovatum Evergreen Huckleberry Spacing: 4’ O.C. Shade or partial sun
1 Rosa nutkana Nootka Rose Spacing: 4’ O.C. Sun or partial shade
1 Cornus stolonifera Red Osier Dogwood Spacing: 4’ O.C. Sun or partial shade
1 Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry Spacing: 4’ O.C. Sun or partial shade
1 Mahonia aquifolium Tall Oregon Grape Spacing: 4’ O.C. Sun or shade
5 Blechnum spicant Deer Fern Spacing: 1’ O.C. Shade or partial sun
6 Oxalis oregana Wood Sorrel Spacing: 8” O.C. Full or partial shade
6 Achlys triphylla Vanilla Leaf Spacing: 8” O.C. Full or partial shade
6 Fragaria chiloensis Coastal Strawberry Spacing: 8” O.C. Sun or partial shade
6 Linnaea borealis Twinflower Spacing: 8” O.C. Sun to partial shade
6 Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick Spacing: 8” O.C. Sun to partial shade
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 9
Figure 4. Planting Plan Design Map
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 10
7. Monitoring
7.1 As-Built Report
An as-built drawing and report will be submitted as documentation of the implementation of the
approved planting plan within one month of installation. The plan will include a
quantitative final list of species, vegetation descriptions, and photo documentation from
established photo stations. A panoramic photo of the entire mitigation site will also be provided.
Photos should be taken between June and August, during the growing season.
7.2 Monitoring Schedule
Monitoring will take place over a period of five years at the end of the growing season (late
August or early September) of each monitoring year. The performance standards will be
monitored by measuring plots within the planting area, which will be established and mapped after
the planting occurs. Collected data and photos will be compiled into an annual Riparian Planting
Report, which will be submitted by October 31 each monitoring year for five years.
7.3 Monitoring Methods
Each annual monitoring report shall include written and photographic documentation on plant
mortality and any replanting efforts. There will be specific locations where photos will be taken
from for each plot, and these photo points will be referenced on the as-built plan. The site will
have at least four photo points per project, or ¼ acre (whichever is greater). Each year, photos
will be taken at the established photo points for each site, and these successive photos will be used
for comparison over the 5 years. Photos will be taken at all established photo points for all
monitoring years to provide visual documentation of the performance standards progress, or lack
thereof. In addition to photos at designated locations, photo documentation must include a
panoramic view of the entire planting area. Submitted photos must be formatted on standard 8 1/2"
by 11" paper, and must include the date the photo was taken, as well as the direction from which
the photo was taken. The established photo location points must be identified on a site drawing.
Percent cover will be measured using the point intercept method as described above in the
Performance Standards, section 4. There will be at least one transect per plant community, and
transect locations will be shown on the site plan. Up to 20% of any stratum can be composed of
desirable native volunteers when measuring cover. No more than 10% cover of non-native or
other invasives, e.g., Himalayan Blackberry, Japanese Knotweed, Evergreen Blackberry, Reed
Canary Grass, Scots Broom, English Ivy, Morning Glory, etc. is permissible in any monitoring
year. Bond holders are encouraged to maintain mitigation sites within these standards throughout
the monitoring period, to avoid corrective measures. Measurement criteria will follow the goals
outlined in section 3.2.
A qualitative review of the condition of the site’s hydrology (e.g. erosion, slope stability, etc.),
soil health, buffer condition, and wildlife use will be included in the monitoring report. The
Monitoring Report will also document whether the performance standards are being met.
The results of the Monitoring Report will determine whether or not contingency measures will be
needed. If deficiencies are found, they will be corrected within 60 days. Monitoring may be
extended if mitigation plan goals have not been met. Receipts for any maintenance activities such
as re-planting, dump runs for weed removal, structural replacement, etc. will be provided to the
project biologist to include in the monitoring report. The applicants will be responsible for the
maintenance of their site, and will hire a biologist of their choosing to conduct the as-built and
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 11
monitoring surveys and to prepare the required reports to document the progress. Contact
information MS&A can be found in the title page of this report, and the applicant information is
located in section 1.
8. Maintenance and Contingency
8.1 Maintenance
Maintenance shall occur at least twice during the growing season to ensure the survival of all
native species within the mitigation area, including volunteer natives. Watering by hand or
sprinkler may be necessary during year number one until the plants are established (see section
5.5). Water requirements will depend on the timing of planting with the seasons and weather
conditions. Once plants are established, extra watering may not be necessary. Hand weeding may
be necessary around all plants that are being monitored for survival and coverage.
If the required survival rate is not met by the end of any monitoring year, plants lost to mortality
will be replaced to achieve the percentage cover performance standard described above. Prior to
replacement, observations will be made on plants that did not survive in order to attempt to
determine whether their survival was affected by species/site selection, damage caused by
wildlife, or other factors. Subsequent contingency actions must be designed to respond directly to
any stressor(s) that are determined to have increased the mortality of planted native species. If it is
found that a particular species is not surviving well at the site, a more appropriate species will be
selected for its replacement. If excessive damage by wildlife, exposure, or other elements is
observed, protective measures may need to be introduced. Monitoring years may be added if
significant re-planting becomes necessary.
Monitoring on an annual basis for five years will occur with photographs to determine the
survival rate of the transplanted area. If 100% success is achieved before reaching the five-year
mark, monitoring will continue without extra replanting efforts.
8.2 Contingency
Contingency actions must be designed to respond directly to any stressor(s) that are determined to
have increased the mortality of planted native species. If it is found that a particular plant species
is not surviving well at the site, a more appropriate species will be selected for its replacement. If
excessive damage by wildlife, exposure, or other elements is observed, protective measures may
need to be introduced. Monitoring years may be added if significant re-planting becomes
necessary. Monitoring on an annual basis for five years will occur with photographs and
measurements outlined in section 7.3 to determine the survival rate of the transplanted area.
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 12
9. Site Photos
Facing north. 1,600 sf section of driveway removed and planted with grass is behind car
Photo taken from southern edge of removed driveway (standing behind car). Planting plot with
existing cedars on right
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 13
Facing east. Approximately 10’ x 100’ Planting plot with existing cedars and a few tufted non-
native ornamental grasses. Estuarine wetland in background
Facing north. Planting plot with existing cedars and tufted grass. Lawn where driveway was
removed. Puget Sound in background.
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 14
Facing northeast. Wetland in background to right. Shoreline to left. Grass where driveway was
removed. Planting plot with cedars and tufted grass interspersed
200 square foot section of driveway to be narrowed/partially removed. Grass where driveway was
previously removed in foregroud
Whipple Mitigation Planting Plan MS&A | 15
Sword ferns and rhododendrons planted on south side of house
ATTACHMENT 1
Native Plant Sources for the Pacific Northwest
This list contains those nurseries known to Permitting staff that grow plants native to the Puget lowlands of
Western Washington in quantities suitable for most mitigation sites. It was extracted from a longer list
compiled by the Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) of King County for your convenience, drawing
in part on the Hortus West native plant directory and journal: Hortus West, P.O. Box 2870, Wilsonville, OR
97070. 800-704-7927. Fax: 503-570-0855. E-mail: editor@hortuswest.com. It is not an endorsement of these
businesses. The full list is available from WLRD at 206-296-6519.
Nurseries that specialize in seeds are marked (SEEDS).
Abundant Life Seed Foundation (SEEDS) Davenport Seed Corporation (SEEDS)
P.O. Box 772 P.O. Box 187
Port Townsend, WA 98368 Davenport, WA 99122-0187
360-385-5660 800-828-8873
Barford's Hardy Ferns Emmery's Gardens
23622 Bothell Way 2829 - 164th Avenue SW
Bothell, WA 98248 Lynnwood, WA 98037
Phone: 425-438-0205 Phone: 425-743-4555
Fax: 206-483-0205 Fax: 425-743-0609
Botanica Firetrail Nursery
P.O. Box 19544 3107 - 140th Street NW
Seattle, WA 98109 Marysville, WA 98271
206-634-1370 360-652-9021
Clark's Native Trees and Shrubs Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration (SEED)
1215 - 126th Avenue SE P.O. Box 53
Everett, WA 98208 Langley, WA 98260
206-337-3976 360-579-2332
Cold Creek Nursery Heathwood Cottage Nursery
18602 NE 165th Street 18540 - 26th Avenue NE
Woodinville, WA 98072 Lake Forest Park, WA 98072
425-788-0201 206-363-3189
Colvos Creek Farm IFA Nurseries, Inc.
P.O. Box 1512 463 Eadon Road
Vashon, WA 98070 Toledo, WA 98591
206-441-1509 425-864-2803
Inside Passage (SEEDS) Sound Native Plants
P.O. Box 639 P.O. Box 10155
Port Townsend, WA 98368 Olympia, WA 98502
206-781-3575 Phone: 360-352-4122
Fax: 360-943-7026
Sourced from the King County Critical Areas Restoration and Enhancement document, Appendix A 2020
J & J Landscape Co. Storm Lake Growers
19538 - 75th NE 21809 - 89th SE
Bothell, WA 98011 Snohomish, WA 98290
360-794-4842
Judd Creek Wetland and Native Plant Nursery Sweet Briar
20929 - 111th Avenue SE P.O. Box 25
Vashon, WA 98070 Woodinville, WA 98072
206-463-2812 425-821-2222
MSK Nursery Thorsett Landscaping Nursery
20066 - 15th Avenue NW 13503 Southeast 226th Place
Seattle, WA 98177 Kent, WA 98042
206-546-1281 253-361-5838
Northfork Nursery Wabash Farms Native Plants
15751 Polson Road Ornamental and Reclamation
Mt. Vernon, WA 98273-7142 19390 SE 400th
360-445-4741 Enumclaw, WA 98022
Phone: 360-825-7051
Fax: 360-825-1949
Pacific Natives & Ornamentals Weyerhauser-Western Revegetation Greenhouse
P.O. Box 23 33405 - 8th Avenue South
Bothell, WA 98041 Federal Way, WA 98003
Phone: 425-483-8108 800-732-4769
Fax: 425-487-6198
Revegetate & Resource Plants Woodbrook Native Plant Nursery
17836 Cedar Grove Road 5919 78th Ave NW
Maple Valley, WA 98038 Gig Harbor, WA 98335
425-432-9018 253-857-6808, woodbrk@harbornet.com
Sourced from the King County Critical Areas Restoration and Enhancement document, Appendix A 2020
Appendix D. Whipple Photo Documentation