HomeMy WebLinkAboutHabitat Management Plan 021321041Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | i
Reed Residential Development
Habitat Management Plan
May 24, 2021
For: Scott and Maren Reed
1405 Griffith Point Road
Nordland, WA 98358
Parcel: 021321041
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | ii
Table of Contents
1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Applicant Information ................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.5 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.6 Construction Details ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.7 Action Area ................................................................................................................................... 6
2 Habitat Conditions Onsite .................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Ordinary High Water Mark Determination ................................................................................... 6
2.2 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Wildlife Observed ......................................................................................................................... 7
3 Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) .................................................................... 8
3.1 State Priority Habitat & Species ................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Forage Fish ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.1.2 Eelgrass and Kelp.................................................................................................................. 9
3.1.3 Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas ...................................................................... 9
3.2 Federal ESA-Listed Species & Critical Habitat ............................................................................ 9
3.2.1 Puget Sound Chinook.......................................................................................................... 10
3.2.2 Hood Canal Summer-run Chum .......................................................................................... 11
3.2.3 Bull Trout ............................................................................................................................ 11
3.2.4 Puget Sound Steelhead ........................................................................................................ 12
3.2.5 Rockfish .............................................................................................................................. 12
3.2.6 Marbled Murrelets............................................................................................................... 13
3.2.7 Humpback whale................................................................................................................. 14
3.2.8 Leatherback Sea Turtle ........................................................................................................ 14
3.2.9 Southern Resident Killer Whale .......................................................................................... 14
4 Effects of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 15
4.2 In-Air Noise ................................................................................................................................ 16
4.3 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 16
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | iii
4.4 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Related Impacts ..................... 16
4.5 Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.6 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects ............................................................................................. 18
5 Conservation Measures to Avoid & Minimize Impacts ..................................................................... 18
6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 21
6.1 Determination of Effect .............................................................................................................. 21
References ................................................................................................................................................... 23
List of Tables
Table 1. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) & U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Designated Critical Habitat ......................................................................................................................... 10
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Proposed site plan .......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Photo of OHWM flag .................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4. WDFW Documented Forage Fish Spawning Map ........................................................................ 9
Figure 5. Close-up of proposed site plan showing SWPPP elements and proposed septic work ............... 16
Figure 6. FEMA Flood Zone Map .............................................................................................................. 17
Appendices
A. Mitigation Planting Plan
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 1
1 Project Overview
1.1 Purpose
Marine Surveys & Assessments (MSA) was authorized by the property owners, Scott and Maren
Reed, to complete a Habitat Management Plan (HMP), including a mitigation planting plan, to
meet Jefferson County code (JCC) and no net loss (NNL) criteria for the permitting of the
construction of a single family residence on a parcel that is on the western shoreline of Mystery
Bay.
This HMP has been prepared in compliance with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, the
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 18.25), and the Jefferson County Critical
Areas Code (Chapter 18.22).
This report serves to describe MSA’s findings, including evaluating potential direct and indirect
effects of the project on sensitive habitat and wildlife species that may occur in the project area,
potential impacts to the water quality of nearby waterways, and a proposed mitigation plan to
meet the criteria of NNL of ecological function. Because this project occurs adjacent to the 100-
year floodplain, FEMA flood zone information is also provided.
1.2 Regulatory Framework
The proposed residence is within a Shoreline Residential designation area according to the
Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (18.25.500(3) Residential Shoreline Environmental
Regulations). Under JCC 18.25.270(4), development projects along marine shorelines must
maintain a standard buffer of 150 ft (minimum) landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark
OHWM), plus a 10-ft-wide building setback for a total of 160 ft. After discussions between the
applicants and Donna Frostholm of Jefferson County DCD, it was determined that this project
meets the criteria for a shoreline exemption and is exempt from SEPA.
This project is also subject to the following standard setbacks:
20 ft from the road to the west
5 ft property line setback on the north and south sides of the parcel
10 ft septic tank setback from the foundation
Under JCC 18.22.640, the applicants have requested a 25% buffer reduction in order to increase
the effective buildable area. The length of the lot is approximately 270 ft and with all of the
standard setbacks applied plus the 150 ft shoreline buffer plus the area of the existing septic
system and its drain field, that would have left approximately 350 ft2 of available buildable area.
A 25% buffer reduction would decrease the shoreline buffer distance from 150 ft to 112.5 ft.
Addition of the 10-ft-wide building setback would make the new buffer 122.5 ft in total (Figure
2).
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 2
As required under JCC 18.22.660, an onsite mitigation planting plan with a 1:1 mitigation ratio
will be implemented to achieve NNL of ecological function criteria and mitigate for the building
footprint within the 25% shoreline buffer reduction area (Appendix A).
1.3 Applicant Information
Name: Scott and Maren Reed
Mailing Address: 811 9th Street, Hood River, OR 97031-1843
Phone Number: (971) 207-4236
Email address: scotty.reed@gmail.com
1.4 Project Location
Section 32, Township 30N, Range 1E
Physical address: 1405 Griffith Point Road, Nordland, WA 98358
Jefferson County Parcel #: 021321041
Latitude: North 48.05357°, Longitude: West -122.69458°
Waterbody: Mystery Bay, Puget Sound
WRIA: 17 - Quilcene - Snow
See Figure 1 for a vicinity map.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 3
The project is located on a 0.64 acre parcel of vacant undeveloped land located in an area zoned
as Rural Residential – One Unit per 5 Acres (RR-5). The parcel is bordered on the north and
south sides by similarly wooded shorefront rural residential properties. Griffith Point Road
borders the west side of the parcel and to the east is Mystery Bay.
1.5 Project Description
It is proposed to build a two-bedroom, single family residence. The proposed house footprint is
approximately 1,581 ft2 with 1,522 ft2 of the proposed footprint inside the buffer reduction area.
The roof area of the house will be 1,928 ft2 (including eaves). There will be a 220 ft2 patio and
deck, 60 ft2 walkway, and 1,160 ft2 driveway. A new septic tank will be installed closer to the
house (112.5 ft from OHWM) and will utilize the existing septic system (permit SEP: 90-00665).
See Figure 2 for the proposed site plan.
1.6 Construction Details
Construction will be completed exclusively by the applicants. Heavy construction activities (road
access, foundation, and septic changes) will begin in May-June, after the season’s rains have
subsided. At most there will be one truck, one trailer, and a mini excavator working onsite at a
time.
Before any construction work begins, site construction limits for clearing, tree protection, and
runoff will be clearly laid out on site. Prior to any construction activity, a silt fence and straw
wattles will be installed perpendicular to the slope across the entire property at approximately
112.5 ft from the OHWM. Any disturbed earth resulting from construction activity will be
covered with mulch to mitigate sediment runoff. Any removed vegetation will be
chipped/mulched and re-used onsite. Sword ferns and other native perennials in the proposed
building area will be transplanted to other areas onsite, safely away from construction activities.
The road approach and driveway will be constructed of gravel and will follow Department of
Public Works guidelines regarding materials, sight lines, slope, and compaction requirements.
The driveway slope will not exceed 6% at the steepest section. The finished driveway will be
constructed of gravel. Finished pathways to the house will be driveway width and depth and will
be the minimal size necessary to allow two vehicles to access the property.
Finished pathways to and from the house will be constructed of mulch and/or wooden decks. The
finished landscape plan will be comprised of 100% native vegetation. Finished house colors and
siding and roofing surfaces will be neutral, dark tones to allow the residence to blend in with
surrounding environment.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 4
A portable toilet will be used onsite for the duration of the construction process and will be
placed upland of the shoreline buffer. All staged building materials will be confined to the
gravel-driveway area and/or the house footprint itself. Utility trench work will be done as
quickly as work and inspection allow, to minimize potential exposure of loose soils to rain and
wind.
The property already has a two-bedroom septic system installed (permit SEP: 90-00665) which
the applicants propose using for this project. The existing septic tank (52 ft from the OHWM)
would be decommissioned by a professional licensed septic system installer and left in place to
avoid disturbance of the existing cedar trees nearby (Figure 2).
A new septic tank will be installed just north of the northern-most corner of the proposed house,
112.5 ft from the OHWM (Figure 2). The new tank is roughly 10 ft x 10 ft x 10 ft. A hole will be
dug slightly larger than those dimensions and then the tank will be set in place. As per setback
requirements, it needs to be at least 10 ft from the planned foundation. Input and output lines to
and from the tank to the sand filter would also be installed at that time. All septic-related work
would likely occur just before and/or during the foundation work which would be within the
May-June timeframe.
Preserving native vegetation, minimizing disturbance, and minimizing sediment runoff from the
site is a high priority and will be reflected in every element of the build process. All due
diligence will be taken to ensure there are no fuel/oil leaks for any vehicles on-site.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 5
Figure 2. Proposed site plan
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 6
1.7 Action Area
For the purposes of this report, the “project area” is defined as the area within the portion of the
parcel where the construction work will take place. The project area also includes areas that may
be used for staging materials and equipment, as well as accessing the site.
The “action area” is defined as any area that may be ecologically impacted from short-term
construction activities or long-term habitat modifications and covers approximately 0.25 mile
from the project area to account for construction noise. This action area includes a portion of
Mystery Bay.
2 Habitat Conditions Onsite
The parcel gently slopes from the western edge on Griffith Point Road down towards the bluff
which has a steep, nearly vertical face that meets the beach. The Department of Ecology (ECY)
Coastal Atlas Map classifies the slope in this area as “stable” and it is MSA’s understanding that
no geotechnical analysis is required for this project. The Coastal Atlas Map also shows this
stretch of shoreline to be in a “transport zone”. Transport zones are not known to be large sources
of sediment for the littoral system as these bluffs tend to be relatively stable with established
vegetation communities (ECY).
The parcel is forested with a mix of conifer and deciduous trees and overgrown by mostly native
vegetation. The applicants have been removing some of the Himalayan blackberry that occurs in
a few small areas but is not widespread. There is standing water in the area of the existing septic
tank and the applicants would like to plant the area (which measures approximately 15’x20’)
with facultative (FAC) and/or facultative upland (FACU) plant species.
2.1 Ordinary High Water Mark Determination
The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) considers the OHWM as a physical and ecological
feature on the landscape; the OHWM is often a transition zone between the aquatic and
terrestrial environment and not a distinct line.
MSA biologists visited the site on March 29, 2021 to identify and delineate the OHWM and
found it to be approximately 3-4 feet up the relatively short, steep sandstone bluff face (Figure
3). The OHWM was clearly marked using pink flagging tape. Field indicators of the OHWM
included a distinct line of moss along the bluff, exposed roots of upland vegetation, and beach
wrack in the branches of the overhanging vegetation in line with the moss and exposed roots.
The sandstone bluff below the OWHM is exposed while there is an abundance of overhanging
upland vegetation above the OHWM.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 7
Figure 3. Photo of OHWM flag
2.2 Vegetation
Native vegetation is thick adjacent to the shoreline and extends out over the beach below. The
entire property is mostly vegetated with native tree, shrub, and herbaceous species with some
small pockets of invasive Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and an English Holly (Ilex
aquifolium) shrub. Native species include: Grand Fir (Abies grandis), Big Leaf Maple (Acer
macrophyllum), Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata), Red Alder (Alnus rubra), Willow Species
Salix sp.), Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum), Salal (Gaultheria shallon), Ocean Spray
Holodiscus discolor), Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis),
Western Azalea (Rhododendron macrophyllum), Foam Flower (Tiarella trifoliate) and Stinging
Nettle (Urtica dioica).
2.3 Wildlife Observed
During the site visits, MSA biologists heard and/or saw the following species of birds:
hummingbird sp., raven, bald eagle, warbler sp. Biologists also noted evidence of raccoon
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 8
presence (i.e. prints and feces). No nests were seen in any trees along the shoreline although
some large trees have good structure for roosting and the potential for nest building.
3 Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs)
The following are designated FWHCAs (as defined under JCC 18.22.610) that were identified
within the action area and will be discussed in the following sections:
Areas where federally listed species (endangered and threatened) and state-listed species
endangered, threatened, and sensitive species) have a primary association.
Commercial and recreational shellfish areas.
Kelp and eelgrass beds.
Surf smelt, Pacific herring, and Pacific sand lance, and other forage fish spawning areas.
Species and habitats of local importance
3.1 State Priority Habitat & Species
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS)
mapper indicates there is listed occurrence of big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) within the
township and waterfowl concentration (diving duck wintering area) in Mystery Bay and Kilisut
Harbor (WDFW PHS). Southwest of the project site, within the 0.25 mile action area, is a
freshwater forested/shrub wetland system (WDFW PHS).
According to queries of the WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) data, no salmon bearing
streams have been documented in the action area or anywhere on Marrowstone or Indian Island.
3.1.1 Forage Fish
Migrating salmon utilize forage fish such as Pacific Herring (Clupea harengus pallasi), Pacific
Sand Lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), and Surf Smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) as prey resources.
These fish form a very important trophic link between plankton resources and a wide variety of
predatory marine organisms as well as providing food for marbled murrelets and bald eagles.
According to WDFW, there is documented surf smelt spawning along the shoreline and Pacific
herring spawning in Mystery Bay within the 0.25 mile action area (Figure 4).
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 9
Figure 4. WDFW Documented Forage Fish Spawning Map
3.1.2 Eelgrass and Kelp
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has surveyed the shoreline around Kilisut Harbor
including Mystery Bay) as part of their Submerged Vegetation Monitoring Program. Eelgrass
Zostera marina) has been documented in the northern portion of Mystery Bay, to the north of
the project site within the 0.25 mile action area (DNR 2021).
Historically, kelp has not been documented in Mystery Bay but it has been documented on the
outer shore of Marrowstone Island that meets Admiralty Inlet (DNR 2001).
3.1.3 Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Areas
Washington State Department of Health’s Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer shows commercial
harvest sites to either side of the project site, but no recreational shellfish beaches in the southern
portion of Mystery Bay. The nearest recreational shellfish beach is at Mystery Bay State Park
across the bay to the north.
3.2 Federal ESA-Listed Species & Critical Habitat
For each 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 that may migrate past the project site are also included. Critical habitat for federally
listed species within the 0.25 mile action area is listed in Table 1 below.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 10
Table 1. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) & U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Designated
Critical Habitat
NMFS/USFWS Critical Habitat Action
Area
Final Nearshore Rockfish Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2014) Y
Final Deepwater Rockfish Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2014) N
Chum Salmon Freshwater Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005) N
Marine Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
NMFS, 2005) Y
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Freshwater Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005) N
Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Steelhead (NOAA, 2016) N
Marine Critical Habitat Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Salmon (NMFS,
2005) Y
Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2006) N
Steelhead Trout Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2005) N
Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat (USFWS, 2010) N
Marbled Murrelet (USFWS, 2016) N
Leatherback Sea Turtle Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2012) N
Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2009) N
Southern Eulachon (NMFS, 2011) N
Proposed Humpback Whale Critical Habitat (NMFS, 2019) N
3.2.1 Puget Sound Chinook
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 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).
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 11
The waterward portion of the action area is within Puget Sound Chinook marine critical habitat.
According to queries of the SaSI data (WDFW), the closest Chinook riverine presence is over 10
miles to the west, in the Dungeness River (spring and fall Chinook). It is possible this species
may utilize the nearshore habitat of Mystery Bay, but it is unlikely this species will be affected
by the proposed work.
3.2.2 Hood Canal Summer-run Chum
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 et al. 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).
Chum move offshore and switch diets when presented with a lack of food supply (Simenstad et
al. 1982).
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 waterward portion of the action area is within Hood Canal Summer-run chum marine critical
habitat. According to queries of the SaSI data (WDFW), the closest Hood Canal summer-run
chum stream is Chimacum Creek, approximately 3.5 miles directly west. It is possible this
species may utilize the nearshore habitat of Mystery Bay, but it is unlikely this species will be
affected by the proposed work.
3.2.3 Bull Trout
In the United States, Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) used to range from
northern California (now extinct in California) to Alaska. In the salmon family, they are members
of the char subgroup. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and
migration to the open sea (for anadromous populations) takes place in the spring. Very cold water
is required for the survival of eggs and juveniles. Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C
are thought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman & McIntyre, 1993). They live both in fresh
and marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater
anadromous) before returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others (resident bull trout) complete
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 12
all of their life in the streams where they were reared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions,
and predation by non-native fish threaten the Coastal Puget Sound population (64 FR 58910;
November 1,1999).
All populations of bull trout including the Coastal-Puget Sound populations, were listed as
threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 1999 (64 FR 58910;
November 1, 1999). USFWS designated critical habitat for bull trout in 2010 (75 FR 63898;
October 18, 2010).
USFWS has designated critical habitat for bull trout in the Puget Sound watershed but no critical
habitat for bull trout is within Kilisut Harbor or Mystery Bay; the nearest is along the eastern
side of Whidbey Island and within Discovery Bay to the west. There are no streams that connect
to Mystery Bay with documented bull trout presence (SaSI, WDFW). It is unlikely this species
would be found near the project site or affected by the proposed work.
3.2.4 Puget Sound Steelhead
Steelhead is the name given to the anadromous form of the species Oncorhynchus mykiss. The
freshwater residents are called rainbow trout. Steelhead can return to the ocean after spawning
and migrate to freshwater to spawn again, unlike Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to
two years in freshwater before heading to the open ocean, where they may stay for two to four
years before returning to Washington streams. Steelhead migrate quickly through Puget Sound
and into the open sea as individuals or in small groups (PSEMP 2012). Unlike Chinook,
steelhead do not have a long term feeding and growth period in Puget Sound nearshore areas
PSEMP 2012).
NMFS has listed the Puget Sound steelhead (O. mykiss) as a threatened species under the ESA
72 FR 26722; May 11, 2007). Critical habitat has been finalized for the Puget Sound steelhead
distinct population segment (81 FR 9252; February 24, 2016).
There is no designated critical habitat for steelhead in the action area. Chimacum Creek is the
closest area that contains critical habitat for steelhead. No streams on Marrowstone or Indian
Island have documented steelhead presence (SaSI, WDFW). It is unlikely this species would be
found near the project site or affected by the proposed work.
3.2.5 Rockfish
Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) and yelloweye (Sebastes ruberrimus) 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
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 13
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 waterward portion of the action area is within critical habitat for nearshore rockfish. There
will be no in-water work and conservation measures will be implemented to prevent any runoff
from reaching Mystery Bay. It is unlikely this species will be affected by the proposed work.
3.2.6 Marbled Murrelets
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 within close range of the project area, and there are no nests close to
the project site (WDFW, USFWS). Due to the presence of surf smelt and herring in Mystery Bay,
it is possible marbled murrelets may forage near the project site, but other than some behavioral
disturbance from in-air noise from construction activities, it is unlikely this species will be
affected by the proposed project.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 14
3.2.7 Humpback whale
NMFS has listed the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) as an endangered species that
may occur in Puget Sound (81 FR 62260; September 8, 2016). Critical habitat was proposed by
NMFS in 2019, but does not include Flounder Bay (84 FR 54354; October 9, 2019).
According to queries of the Orca Network’s sightings archives, humpback whales have not been
documented in Kilisut Harbor or Mystery Bay in recent history. The shallow nature of the site
makes it unlikely that any humpback whales would be present in the action area. It is unlikely
this species would be affected by the proposed work.
3.2.8 Leatherback Sea Turtle
NMFS has listed the Pacific leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) as an endangered species
that may occur in Puget Sound (35 FR 8491; June 2, 1970). There is no designated critical
habitat for Pacific leatherback turtles in Puget Sound at this time; it is designated along the outer
coast of Washington state (77 FR 4170; January 26, 2012).
Breeding habitat for leatherback sea turtles in Washington does not exist, even though they are
occasionally seen along the coast (Bowlby et al. 1994). Leatherback sea turtles are rarely seen in
Puget Sound. It is highly unlikely leatherback turtles would be found near the project site or
affected by the proposed work.
3.2.9 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. Southern resident killer whales (SRKW) 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 (Orcinus orca) as
endangered under the ESA (70 FR 69903; November 18, 2005). NOAA Fisheries 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).
SRKW critical habitat is in Kilisut Harbor but outside of Mystery Bay, likely due to its shallow
water. The Orca Network’s sightings archives have not documented SRKW in Kilisut Harbor or
Mystery Bay in recent history. The shallow nature of the site makes it unlikely that any SRKW
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 15
would be present in the action area. It is unlikely this species would be affected by the proposed
work.
4 Effects of the Proposed Action
When reviewing all the data, the direct and indirect effects of the project on the listed species and
their critical habitat should be considered. Impacts to ESA-listed species and critical habitats are
based on current baseline conditions versus historic pre-development conditions, where existing
structures are considered an element of the environmental baseline at the time of a proposed
action.
4.1 Water Quality
Increased run-off from the building area or other impervious surfaces could occur with the
development of the property. If this run-off were to enter Mystery Bay, variations in suspended
sediment concentration can negatively impact species composition, biomass, algal growth and
can affect secondary production as well (Newcombe and MacDonald 1991). Filter feeders can
have blockages in feeding structures which affects their feeding efficiency, in turn reducing
growth rates, increasing stress or in some cases can result in death (Newcombe and MacDonald
1991). Suspended sediments can also impact salmonid fishes by increasing mortality rate,
reducing growth rate and/or reducing resistance to disease, modifying natural movements,
interfering with development, reducing prey abundance and fish catch methods (Newcombe and
MacDonald 1991).
Avoidance and minimization measures described in the following section will be implemented to
prevent run-off from entering Mystery Bay during construction. Six trees (6+ inches DBH)
landward of the reduced 112.5 ft shoreline buffer from OHWM will be removed; however, no
vegetation will be removed within the shoreline buffer area so there will not be an increase in
erosion due to vegetation removal. Additionally, new trees and vegetation will be planted for
mitigation, introducing more diverse understory habitat and reducing any potential erosion that
could affect water quality.
The existing septic tank (52 ft from the OHWM) will be decommissioned by a professional
licensed septic system installer and left in place to prevent disturbance of the existing cedar trees
nearby. The new septic tank will be installed further inland, upland of the reduced 112.5 ft
shoreline buffer (Figure 2). This will reduce the risk of possible septic tank leakage from
reaching Mystery Bay.
As part of the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), the applicants are proposing to
install two rain gardens: one on the north side of the house (300 ft2) and one on the southeast
corner of the house (150 ft2) (Figure 5). An infiltration trench will also be installed at the end of
the driveway.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 16
Figure 5. Close-up of proposed site plan showing SWPPP elements and proposed septic work
4.2 In-Air Noise
Some temporary increases in ambient noise will be generated during development of the
property. Noise generated during construction may cause wildlife to temporarily avoid the area
but is not expected to impact wildlife or ecosystem function in the long term.
4.3 Wildlife
Wildlife barriers or loss of connectivity are not expected to occur from the proposed building
which will be in the area of the parcel closest to the road. The area between the reduced 112.5 ft
shoreline buffer and the OHWM will remain undeveloped which will help keep the riparian zone
along the shoreline intact and connected.
4.4 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone Related
Impacts
Much of the property is outside of the FEMA flood zone since it sits on top of a small bluff
Figure 6). All trees proposed for removal are above the FEMA flood zone and landward of the
reduced shoreline buffer. The mitigation planting plan will be implemented to offset the portion
of the residence’s footprint within the shoreline buffer and to help improve habitat function.
Therefore, no significant effects on flooding or erosion are expected to occur due to the
development of the proposed residence.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 17
Any effects to water quality within the FEMA flood zone were discussed in section 4.1 above. To
summarize, a SWPPP will be implemented to reduce any stormwater run-off that may occur
from an increase in impervious surfaces and the new septic tank will be installed behind the
reduced shoreline buffer. Avoidance and minimization measures described in the following
section will be implemented to prevent run-off from entering Mystery Bay during construction.
Figure 6. FEMA Flood Zone Map
4.5 Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects, which take into account this project as well as future development in the
area, are reasonably certain to occur in the action area. The project area includes shoreline
properties within 0.25 mile to the north and south. These cumulative habitat alterations could
impact ESA-listed species and/or their critical habitat areas, as well as human water-dependent
activities, such as shellfish harvesting. These potential cumulative effects could be caused by
physical obstructions from development, changes in stormwater flow on the landscape, changes
in turbidity and pollution levels, and other such factors.
The full scope of cumulative impacts cannot be quantified in this assessment, but with
appropriate regulations in place, it is unlikely that ESA-listed species, critical habitat areas, or
human activities will be greatly affected by the construction of this single family residence. In
addition, it is the opinion of MSA that the proposed mitigation planting plan will result in no net
loss of ecological function at the site, and in some cases may improve the understory habitat by
introducing more diverse native plant species.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 18
4.6 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects
Completion of this project is not anticipated to promote future construction or other activities
that would not otherwise occur without its completion. Therefore, no additional interrelated or
interdependent actions that could affect sensitive species are anticipated to occur because of this
project.
5 Conservation Measures to Avoid & Minimize Impacts
Conservation measures presented here include avoidance and minimization measures that are
intended to address both Jefferson County SMP criteria and FEMA requirements. The FEMA
requirements pertain to marine critical habitat and ESA-listed species within the adjoining
floodplain.
All shoreline development must be located, designed, constructed, and maintained in a manner
that protects ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. This section describes the steps
taken during project planning and implementation to find the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative to achieve the project goal.
The following mitigation sequencing steps, as described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) and JCC
18.22.660(2), were considered during project development and site selection:
No action: To avoid the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action.
o The project purpose and need are described in more detail in the Project
Description section. “No Action” would not achieve the project goal.
Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid
or reduce impacts.
o The proposal includes the minimum footprint necessary to achieve the goal. The
residence and new septic tank will be installed landward of the reduced 112.5 ft
shoreline buffer. Best Management Practices (BMPs) discussed below will be
implemented during construction to minimize impacts.
Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
o Any disturbed earth outside of the building footprint resulting from construction
activity will be covered with mulch to mitigate sediment runoff. Any removed
vegetation will be chipped/mulched and re-used onsite. Sword ferns and other
native perennials in the proposed building area will be transplanted to other areas
onsite, safely away from construction activities.
Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 19
o Opportunities to reduce or eliminate the permanent direct and indirect negative
impacts from the project over time are described below.
Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments.
o The proposed mitigation planting plan (Appendix A) will be installed to offset the
portion of the residence’s footprint that is within the shoreline buffer in order to
meet NNL criteria.
Monitoring the impact and the compensation project and taking appropriate corrective
measures.
o Up to 5 years of monitoring will be completed to ensure the success of native
plantings and to make recommendations on any corrective measure that need to
be taken.
The applicants propose the following BMPs during construction to reduce adverse effects:
Before any construction work begins, site construction limits for clearing, tree protection,
and runoff will be clearly laid out on site.
Prior to any construction activity, a silt fence and straw wattles will be installed
perpendicular to the slope across the entire property at approximately 112.5 ft from the
OHWM.
Any disturbed earth resulting from construction activity will be covered with mulch to
mitigate sediment runoff.
Any removed vegetation will be chipped/mulched and re-used onsite.
Sword ferns and other native perennials in the proposed building area will be transplanted
to other areas onsite, safely away from construction activities.
All staged building materials will be confined to the gravel-driveway area and/or the
house footprint itself.
Utility trench work will be done as quickly as work and inspection allow, to minimize
potential exposure of loose soils to rain and wind.
In order to minimize potential impacts to ESA-listed and priority species and habitat associated
with this project, the following BMPS are recommended by MSA for implementation at the site:
General Best Management Practices for Small Construction Sites
Whenever possible, use hand-tools during construction.
Whenever possible, work should be performed from upland area to avoid impacts to
bluff/beach.
Marking the critical root zone (CRZ) of trees with paint, flagging, or other to avoid
running equipment and stockpiling materials in CRZ and therefore limit soil disturbance
and compaction. Additionally, it is recommended that any necessary heavy equipment
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 20
and/or truck access should entail a layer of mulch, or sufficiently wide and thick steel
plates in the vehicle wheel path to avoid rutting and damaging the vegetation.
Construction should not be conducted during heavy precipitation events, regardless of the
protection of vegetation. If vegetation is damaged, or rutting occurs, it is recommended
that those areas be re-planted with native vegetation and a layer of mulch at a minimum
depth of 3 inches.
Limit the extent of clearing operations and phase construction operations.
All work should be performed during approved work windows, when applicable, and/or
following any permitting agency seasonal restrictions.
The duff layer, native topsoil, and natural vegetation should be retained in an undisturbed
state to the maximum extent practicable. The single most effective means of limiting
stormwater impacts during and after construction and minimizing costs of implementing
BMPs is to retain existing soil and vegetation to the maximum practical extent.
Daily check list of potential safety areas.
All oil containing equipment will be staged in secondary containment capable of handling
3x the volume of oil contained in said equipment.
Stacking soils adjacent to areas of excavation to facilitate replacement.
Utilizing ball valves on all concrete and grout ports to ensure no grout enters the water
column.
Daily housekeeping to ensure debris does not enter the water/area adjacent to the work
site.
Prevent pollutant release through the proposed SWPPP.
Divert runoff away from exposed areas wherever possible. Keep clean water clean.
Reduce runoff velocities to prevent channel erosion.
Schedule installation of BMPs. Some temporary BMPs should be installed before
earthmoving activities begin.
Schedule regular inspections of the site and the stormwater BMPs throughout the
construction process. Repair or replace BMP equipment or materials as needed. Maintain
the BMP equipment or materials as necessary. Without proper maintenance of equipment
and materials, BMPs may fail.
Before reseeding a disturbed soil area, amend all soils with compost wherever topsoil has
been removed.
Minimize slope length and steepness.
Prevent the tracking of sediment off-site.
Be realistic about the limitations of controls that are specified and the operation and
maintenance of those controls. Anticipate what can go wrong, how to prevent it from
happening, and what will need to be done to fix it.
Make sure that bids and estimates include costs of purchase of materials and manpower
for installation, maintenance, and removal of BMPs.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 21
Schedule removal of the temporary BMPs (or retrofit them for permanent use) at the end
of the construction project.
6 Conclusion
While the proposed project may result in some short-term adverse impacts, mainly in the form of
noise, it is the opinion of MSA that the overall outcome is unlikely to cause long-term adverse
impacts to ecological function of the nearshore marine environment. Short-term impacts will
likely be temporary and minor. The native planting plan (Appendix A) should be sufficient to
mitigate any long-term potential adverse effects from the project and to achieve no net loss of
ecological function.
Final jurisdictional authority and permitting on this project will be the responsibility of the
appropriate local, state, and/or federal government agencies involved. All information contained
in this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to approval or
issuance of permits.
6.1 Determination of Effect
ESA-listed species and critical habitat in the action area and FEMA Flood Hazard Area are
evaluated below based on the following assessments:
No effect (absolutely no effect whatsoever, either positive or negative);
May affect, not likely to adversely affect (insignificant effects that never reach the
level where take occurs, or effects are discountable and extremely unlikely to occur;
or there would be an entirely beneficial effect); or,
May affect, likely to adversely affect (measurable or significant effects are likely, and
the project will require formal consultation).
This determination of effect for protected species is contingent upon implementation of the
conservation and minimization measures in section 5. In general, direct adverse effects to ESA-
listed species (avoidance, behavior modification) will be short-term and would not contribute to
an increased risk of extinction.
After reviewing the appropriate data, the determination of effect to each ESA-listed species and
designated critical habitat within the action area is:
Puget Sound Chinook – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
Rockfish – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
Bull trout – “No effect”
Hood Canal Summer-run chum – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
Puget Sound Steelhead – “No effect”
Marbled Murrelet – “No effect”
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 22
Humpback whale – “No effect”
Leatherback sea turtle – “No effect”
Southern Resident Killer Whale – “No effect”
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 23
References
Baird, R.W. 2001. Status of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist
115:676-701.
Federal Register / Vol. 35, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 2, 1970 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 191 / Thursday, October 1, 1992 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 210 / Monday, November 1, 1999 / 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 91 / Friday, May 11, 2007 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 52 / Thursday, March 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 200 / Monday, October 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 203 / Thursday, October 20, 2011 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 219 / Friday, November 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 9, 2019 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Resister / Vol 81, No 36 / Wednesday, February 24, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
Love, M.S., M.M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Rockfishes of the Northeast
Pacific. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grand,
F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook
salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443 pp.
Newcombe, C.P. and MacDonald, D.D., 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic
ecosystems. North American journal of fisheries management, 11(1), pp.72-82.
Orca Network. Web. Available at: http://www.orcanetwork.org/sightings/ Accessed May 2021.
Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation
of Bull Trout. Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,
Ogden, UT. 38 pp.
Simenstad C.A., Fresh K.L., and Salo E.O. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington
coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function
Oncorhynchus spp.). National Inland Fisheries Inst., Bangkok (Thailand).
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.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Habitat Management Plan MSA | 24
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1993. Status of the Marbled Murrelet
Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia,
WA.
Washington Department of Ecology (ECY). Coastal Atlas Map. Accessed April 2021. 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 May 2021. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI).
Accessed May 2021. Available at: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html#
Washington State Department of Health. Office of Environmental Health and Safety.
Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer. Accessed May 2021.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/oswpviewer/index.html
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2001. Washington State ShoreZone
Inventory User’s Manual. Nearshore Habitat Program. Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2021. Puget Sound Seagrass Monitoring
Data Viewer. Aquatic Resources Division, Nearshore Habitat Program Submerged
Vegetation Monitoring Program (SVMP). Accessed May 2021.
Washington State Department of Health. Office of Environmental Health and Safety.
Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer. Accessed May 2021.
Available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/oswpviewer/index.html
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.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Appendix A.
Mitigation Planting Plan
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | i
Reed Residential Development
Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan
May 24, 2021
For: Scott and Maren Reed
1405 Griffith Point Road
Nordland, WA 98358
Jefferson County Parcel: 021321041
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | ii
Table of Contents
1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Applicant Information ................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Project Location ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Project Description ...................................................................................................................... 2
2 Summary of Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 3
3 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................. 4
3.1 Proposed Mitigation .................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Mitigation Goals .......................................................................................................................... 4
4 Performance Standards ......................................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Buffer Enhancement .................................................................................................................... 4
4.2 Emergent Cover ........................................................................................................................... 5
4.3 Survival........................................................................................................................................ 5
4.4 Invasive Species .......................................................................................................................... 5
4.5 Soil ............................................................................................................................................... 5
5 Approach .............................................................................................................................................. 5
5.1 Site Preparation ........................................................................................................................... 5
5.2 Plant Procurement ....................................................................................................................... 6
5.3 Planting Methods ......................................................................................................................... 6
5.4 Planting Instructions .................................................................................................................... 6
5.5 Inspection and Maintenance Criteria ........................................................................................... 7
6 Planting Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 8
7 Monitoring .......................................................................................................................................... 11
7.1 As-Built Report ......................................................................................................................... 11
7.2 Monitoring Schedule ................................................................................................................. 11
7.3 Monitoring Methods .................................................................................................................. 12
8 Maintenance and Contingency ........................................................................................................... 12
8.1 Maintenance .............................................................................................................................. 12
8.2 Contingency ............................................................................................................................... 13
Attachment 1. Site Photos ........................................................................................................................... 14
Attachment 2. List of native plant nurseries ............................................................................................... 18
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | iii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................. 1
Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Planting Instructions ...................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4. Planting Areas ............................................................................................................................... 8
List of Tables
Table 1. Area A: 18 plants (~300 ft2) with at least one tree and a mix of at least four shrub-small tree
species from the list. ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Table 2. Area B: 65 plants (~1,075 ft2) with at least two trees and a mix of at least four shrub-small tree
species from the list. ................................................................................................................................... 10
Table 3. Area C: 15 plants (~258 ft2) with a mix of at least two shrub species from the list...................... 11
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 1
1 Project Overview
1.1 Introduction
A mitigation planting and monitoring plan has been prepared by Marine Surveys & Assessments
MSA) to compensate for the development of a new single-family residence within a critical area
buffer. The plan developed for Scott and Maren Reed is in compliance with the Jefferson County
Shoreline Master Program (JCSMP) 18.22.640(1) for buffer reductions and with 18.25.270(2)
for no net loss mitigation.
1.2 Applicant Information
Name: Scott and Maren Reed
Mailing Address: 811 9th Street, Hood River, OR 97031-1843
Phone Number: (917) 207-4236
Email Address: scotty.reed@gmail.com
1.3 Project Location
SE ¼ of Section 32, Township 30N, Range 1E
Address: 1405 Griffith Point Road, Nordland, WA 98358
Jefferson County Parcel: #021321041
Latitude: North 48.05357º; Longitude: West -122.69458º
WRIA: 17 - Quilcene/Snow
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 2
1.4 Project Description
The proposed work is the construction of a new single-family residence adjacent to Mystery Bay
Figure 2). Mystery Bay is protected under the JCSMP by a 150-foot buffer. A buffer reduction
is necessary to accommodate this proposal as per the Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.22.640(1):
The administrator shall have the authority to reduce buffer widths on a case-by-case basis;
provided, the specific standards for avoidance and minimization in JCC 18.22.660 shall
apply, and when the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the administrator that all of
the following criteria are met:
a) The buffer reduction shall not adversely affect the habitat functions and values of the
adjacent FWHCA or other critical area.
b) The buffer shall not be reduced to less than 75% of the standard buffer, unless it can
be demonstrated through a special report prepared by a qualified professional that there
will be no net loss of FWHCA functions or values.
c) The slopes adjacent to the FWHCA within the buffer area are stable and the gradient
does not exceed 30 percent.
The 150-foot shoreline buffer will be reduced by 25% to 112.5 ft and the required 10-foot
building setback will be applied so the new buffer will be 122.5 ft. Approximately 1,522 ft2 of
the new residence will be inside of the buffer reduction area. This plan outlines MSA’s
recommendations to mitigate for the building area within the buffer.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 3
Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan
2 Summary of Existing Conditions
The project is located on a 0.64 acre parcel of vacant undeveloped land located in an area zoned
as Rural Residential – One Unit per 5 Acres (RR-5). The parcel is bordered on the north and
south sides by similarly wooded shorefront rural residential properties. Griffith Point Road
borders the west side of the parcel and to the east is Mystery Bay.
The parcel slopes gently to the east where it drops sharply to the water’s edge over a 8 to 13
foot-tall bluff. Native vegetation is thick adjacent to the shoreline and extends
out over the beach below. The entire property is mostly vegetated with native tree, shrub, and
herbaceous species with some small pockets of invasive Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus
armeniacus) and an English Holly (Ilex aquifolium) shrub. Native species include: Grand Fir
Abies grandis), Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum), Western Red Cedar (Thuja plicata), Red
Alder (Alnus rubra), Willow Species (Salix sp.), Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum), Salal
Gaultheria shallon), Ocean Spray (Holodiscus discolor), Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa),
Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), Western Azalea (Rhododendron macrophyllum), Foam Flower
Tiarella trifoliate) and Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica).
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 4
3 Mitigation
3.1 Proposed Mitigation
The intent of this mitigation plan is to minimize potential impacts caused by the construction
project by enhancing ecological value and function on the site. The applicant has expressed a
desire to protect existing native vegetation as much as possible. The footprint is located such that
minimal vegetation will be disturbed. Native Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum) from the
proposed driveway area has been transplanted to other locations on the property, and 50-60 ferns
within the proposed building footprint have been marked and will also be transplanted. Invasive
species have been removed and documented as well (see Attachment 1 below for site photos).
There are several areas on the property that will be planted with native species (Figure 4).
Approximately 1,522 ft2 will be monitored for success as per the performance standards listed
later on. Those areas are labeled A - C and can be seen in section 6 below.
3.2 Mitigation Goals
Goal (1) Buffer Enhancement: Add native species in planting areas within the buffer. The new
planting areas will total at least 1,522 ft2 (1:1 mitigation for new footprint within the buffer) and
will be located in three areas on the property. The planting plan will enhance the ecological value
and function of the habitat within the critical area buffer by reducing erosion, improving 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 five.
Goal (4) Invasive Species: No more than 10% cover by invasive species in any monitoring year.
Goal (5) Soil: For newly planted plants, deconsolidate and amend soil where holes are dug
before plants are installed and add a minimum of 3” mulch.
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 installed plants will be measured,
photographed, and monitored using the following performance standards:
4.1 Buffer Enhancement
Native plants will be installed in year one and photographs will be taken during subsequent
monitoring years. A comparison of photographs from previous years along with the percent
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 5
cover and survivorship standards outlined below will help in assessing the quality of the buffer.
The planting areas are outlined in Figure 4, and a plant list for each planting area can be found in
Tables 1-3 in section 6.
Photo stations for the planting sites will be determined once the plants are installed and an as-
built report will be the baseline for future monitoring years. To meet survival performance
standards, individual plants that die must be replaced with the same species unless otherwise
suggested by the project biologist due to site conditions.
4.2 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 same transect can be surveyed each monitoring year. A data form will be used to collect
information at a minimum of 5-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:
of points with bare ground / total # of points evaluated) x 100 = % of bare ground
4.3 Survival
Immediately after planting, all plants will be counted and documented. At the end of each
growing season (late August - early September), 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.
4.4 Invasive Species
Invasive species will be kept below 10% during all monitoring years. No chemicals shall be used
for invasive species control, only mechanical methods.
4.5 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. MSA recommends that the amended soil consist of 6” of coarse sand and 6”
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 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 2 for a list of 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
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.
5.4 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. Dig a 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 topsoils 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 (Figure 3).
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 7
Figure 3. Planting Instructions
sourced from City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development Environmentally Critical Areas
Standard Mitigation Plan)
Immediately after watering, mulch such as wood chips, leaves, or brown carbon rich compost
should be added to a 3” thickness over the entire planting area without covering the stems of the
plants. The mulch will aid in moisture, 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 in an area of high winds 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.
5.5 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. During year one, and during the first year
after any replacement planting, plantings must receive one 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 three inches. Weed herbaceous plantings as necessary (flowers,
ferns, etc.). All litter and non-native vegetation must be removed (e.g., 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
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 8
off-site. Any receipts obtained from work done on the site should be included in the annual
monitoring report.
6 Planting Plan
To cover a minimum of 1,522 ft2 with native plants, it has been determined that 98 plants will be
required in three planting areas (Figure 4) spaced on 4-foot centers. Plant species appropriate for
this site are listed in the tables below. Quantity for each species will be recorded during the as-
built visit. This will allow the applicant more freedom to design an aesthetically pleasing
landscape. Plants will be selected from a regional native plant nursery. The species in the
following tables were chosen to create bird and insect habitat, while taking into account
hardiness, ecology, and aesthetics. Site photos of the proposed planting areas can be seen in
Attachment 1.
Figure 4. Planting Areas
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 9
Table 1. Area A: 18 plants (~300 ft2) with at least one tree and a mix of at least four shrub-small
tree species from the list.
Quantity Botanical Name Common Name Spacing Sun/Shade
TBD Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub
Sun or shade
TBD Vaccinium ovatum
Evergreen
Huckleberry
Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub
Shade or partial sun
TBD Rosa nutkana Nootka Rose Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Sun or partial shade
TBD Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Sun or partial shade
TBD Mahonia aquifolium Tall Oregon Grape
Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub
Sun or shade
TBD Polystichum munitum Sword Fern Spacing: 2’
O.C. - shrub Shade or partial sun
TBD Ribes sanguineum Red Flowering
Currant
Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Sun or partial shade
TBD Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry
Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub
Sun or shade
TBD Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Sun or shade
TBD Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Sun to shade
TBD
Pinus contorta var.
contorta
Shore Pine
Spacing: 8’
O.C. - Tree
Sun to partial shade
TBD Salix hookeriana Hookers Willow
Spacing: 8’
O.C. - Tree
Sun to partial shade
TBD Rhamnus purshiana Cascara Spacing: 8’
O.C. - Tree Sun to shade
TBD Cornus nuttallii Pacific Dogwood
Spacing: 8’
O.C. - Tree
Part shade
TBD Thuja plicata Western Redcedar
Spacing: 8’
O.C. - Tree Part shade to shade
TBD Pseudotsuga
menziesii Douglas-fir Spacing: 8’
O.C. - Tree Sun to part shade
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 10
Table 2. Area B: 65 plants (~1,075 ft2) with at least two trees and a mix of at least four shrub-small
tree species from the list.
Quantity Botanical Name Common Name Spacing Sun/Shade
TBD Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub
Sun or shade
TBD Vaccinium ovatum
Evergreen
Huckleberry
Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub
Shade or partial sun
TBD Rosa nutkana Nootka Rose Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Sun or partial shade
TBD Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Sun or partial shade
TBD Mahonia aquifolium Tall Oregon Grape
Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub
Sun or shade
TBD Polystichum munitum Sword Fern Spacing: 2’
O.C. - shrub Shade or partial sun
TBD Ribes sanguineum Red Flowering
Currant
Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Sun or partial shade
TBD Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry
Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub
Sun or shade
TBD Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Sun or shade
TBD Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Sun to shade
TBD
Pinus contorta var.
contorta
Shore Pine
Spacing: 8’
O.C. - Tree
Sun to partial shade
TBD Salix hookeriana Hookers Willow
Spacing: 8’
O.C. - Tree
Sun to partial shade
TBD Rhamnus purshiana Cascara Spacing: 8’
O.C. - Tree Sun to shade
TBD Cornus nuttallii Pacific Dogwood
Spacing: 8’
O.C. - Tree
Part shade
TBD Thuja plicata Western Redcedar
Spacing: 8’
O.C. - Tree Part shade to shade
TBD Pseudotsuga
menziesii Douglas-fir Spacing: 8’
O.C. - Tree Sun to part shade
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 11
Table 3. Area C: 15 plants (~258 ft2) with a mix of at least two shrub species from the list.
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 for each planting area, 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 September, 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.
Quantity Botanical Name Common Name Spacing Sun/Shade
TBD Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray
Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub
Sun or shade
TBD Vaccinium ovatum Evergreen
Huckleberry
Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Shade or partial sun
TBD Rosa nutkana Nootka Rose Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub
Sun or partial shade
TBD Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry
Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub
Sun or partial shade
TBD Mahonia aquifolium Tall Oregon Grape Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Sun or shade
TBD Polystichum munitum Sword Fern Spacing: 2’
O.C. - shrub
Shade or partial sun
TBD Ribes sanguineum
Red Flowering
Currant
Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub
Sun or partial shade
TBD Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Sun or shade
TBD Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub Sun or shade
TBD Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut
Spacing: 4’
O.C. - shrub
Sun to shade
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 12
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 two photo points per planting area. Each year, photos will be taken at the established
photo points for each area, and these successive photos will be used for comparison over the five
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 each planting
area. Submitted photos must be formatted on standard 8.5" 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 planting area 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.
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, if required, to conduct
the as-built and monitoring surveys and to prepare the required reports to document the progress.
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
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 13
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.
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 14
Attachment 1. Site Photos
Area A around old septic tank (~300 ft2)
Area B east of home site (~1,075 ft2)
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 15
Area C to the south of proposed home footprint (~258 ft2)
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 16
Example of blackberry removal area
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 17
Example of blackberry removal area
Example of fern transplanting
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 18
Attachment 2. List of native plant nurseries
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
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022
Reed Mitigation Planting & Monitoring Plan MSA | 19
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
RECEIVED BY DCD 2/11/2022