The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWetland Mitigation 601105001 Wiltermood Associates, Inc. lR E(~ElIVEn January 4, 2007 I .,,-\ I"". .r . t '. JEfffRSU~ I;UUNt~ Iu:n Koko Cronin Seattle District, Regulatory Branch US Army Corps' of- Engineers PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA'98124-3155 Re: Wetland Mitigation Plan As Built for the Horizon Holdings Property at 345 Blueberry Hill Drive, Quilcene, Jefferson County , Washington. (COE Reference No. 200600736) Dear Koko: \ . ) This l~tter' has. been prepared to inform the US Army Corps. o.f' Engineers that the wetland .mitigation plan has been implemented as described 'in the approved mitigation. plan report dated May 19,2006. The mitig~tio~ plan was conducted to IDiti g ate for the impacts of a driveway . across the Category II wetland on Dec'ember 19, 2006. Native plants were installed within historically logged areas the. buffer on both sides 'of the wetland. and within the wetland to enhance the COfl9ition of-the already recovering. native vegeta~ion. . This report discusses th~ impleme.ntation of the mitigation plan, with respect. tq plant iQ.stallation and location as well as to. reiterate monitoring p'rotocol. - It represe'nts the start of the monitoring phase of this project..and includes baseline data and photos taken to. show the are~s planted as part of this overall plan. Mitigation Plan Overview. The mitigation plan dat~d May 19, 2006 specified that 18,000 square feet of'wetland buffer.be enhanced as mitigation for 2,400 square feet of buffer impact and that 9,831 square feet of wetland be enhanced as mitigation for 945' square' feet of wetland impact. The mitigation plan proposed to fall removed trees from the impacted wetland to'.provide large woody debris to the wetland for us!e by local wildlife species. .Buffer impacts were necessary to facilitate driveway construction and will involve removal mostly of a few small conifer trees on the east side and about 6 red alder trees on the west side of the wetland'. Enhancement of the buffer involved installation of conifer trees and shrubs along the future driveway and within the historically cleared buffer in the southeastern portion of the site, which will exceed the 1: 1 ratio typically required for buffer impacts. .Plants to be installed in the south end of the enhanced wetland included red osier dogwood and black twinberry in clumps with scattered western red cedar trees. The mitigation plan 1015 S.W: Harper Road, Port Orchard, Washington 98367 (360) 876-2403 Fax (360) 876-2053 o \R1E(~EIVEf) Cronin/Horizon Holdings As built January 4', 2007 Page 2 ~ '\ (? \..,: 4 l" JHn8SU~ ~UUNn uc~ specified that the buffer be planted with vine maple" pacific ninebark and Scouler's willow with western red cedar scattered throughout. The. plan also specified, that thick patches of overgrown hardhack be removed from the southwest enhanced buffer.area beciluse it has caused a monotypicstand. The removal of hardhack and the insta1latio~ariousshrubs is intended to provide more diversity to the enhanced wetland buffer. Red osier dogwood and black twinberry were to be planted.in:the north end of the wetland adjacent to the driveway and western red cedar 'was' to be installed. in the red'alder forested buffer adjacent. to the driveway in order to provide protection to the main body of the wetland providing a sight and sound barrier to future homesite activities. Mitigation Plan' As Built The mitigation plan was.fully implemented on December 19, 2006 by R1)by Creek Landscaping with initial supervision by the project biologist prior to actualf1l1 of w.etland a,nd construction .of the proposed/permitted driveway . The south . el1d of the 100 foot wetland. buffer on the east side of Wetland A is planted with '24 vine maple, 12.pacific ninebark, 24 cascara buckthorn and 24.western red cedar saplings were found and tagged. Scouler's.willows were not available frolJ1.local nurseries. so Cascara buckthorn was determined to be an appropriate substitutio~ by the project biologist and was installed in place of the willow. Western red cedar was to. be installed but as the thick hardhack was removed many western red cedar saplings were revealed already rooted in the area and that installing more would create overcrowding of western red cedar. The small trees were tagged for future identification-during. the monitoring and maintenance procedures. These trees will be considered part of the mitigation and their survival and increasing percent cover will be noted in future monitoring reports. The mitigation plan proposed installation of western red cedars in the western buffer and 6 black twinberries and 6 red osier dogwoods were proposed in the north end of the wetland to screen driveway activities from the remainder of the critical area. During preliminary construction activities, the trees in the driveway path were pushed into the wetland (per the mitigation plan) and left little room for installation of the dogwoods and twinberries. Water was also too deep within the wetland to facilitate installation of all plants so only the red osier dogwoods were installed in the wetland. The cedars and twinberries were both installed in the western buffer next to the driveway (see as built drawing). RE(~EWVEW) Cronin/Hor}zon Holdings As built January. 4', 2007' Page 3 r. ? J 'C. 1-, . \ -.,\ JEfn8SU~II:U"NIY ocu Wetla~d enhancemen~ took place at. the very. south end of Wetland A with 6.black twinberryand 6 re.d osierdogwQods installed to initiat€.a sc.rub shrub; vegetation class in ahisto~ically cleared p'orti~n of the. wetland. Western red 'cedar' was also to be planted '~ithin this area. of. wetland and 'because. S9 many smallce.dars .were found within the areas of the enhanced wetland and buffer , the J).umber of cedars' was reduced to 12 and olIlitted from this area of. the mitigation. The 12 tree,S were. . installed in the northern buffer as described in the previous paragraph. See atta.ched As Built Drawing. NOTE*Upland areas outside of the 100 foot wetlandlJuffer in the 'southeast corner of the property were cleared. as part'~fthe site development. Some.treesfrom.the cleared area were moved into a row along the 'outside of t~e 1 00 foot buffer. in an . attempt to provide extra prote.ction'to t);1e buffer and the 'wetland. This. area ha~ been photographed and general..survival will be noted during the. monitoring visits bqt it is not ~ncluded' in the percent survival or official monitoring statistics. See p.hoto page showing. transplanted trees. MOQitoringPlan' The main goal of the mitigation plan is.to replace the vegetation lost in the distttrbed wetland and buffer due to past logging activities' and to improve the species diversity by proposing installation of several dif~erent tree and shrub species. The plant success goals will include 90 % survival of installed plants during the five year . . monitoring period, less than 15% cover by non-n~tive/irivasive plant species for each of the five monitoring years and at least 50 %cove~ of installed and' native volunteer plants by. the end of the five year monitoring period. In order to achieve the diversity within the planted areas, it was necessary. to remove some of the' hardhack so that it does'not form a monotypic stand. These goals will apply to all aspects of this enhancement plan. The submittal of this as built report begins the monitoring phase of this project. Monitoring will occur for a period of five years, skipping year four, following installation of the plants to track the. success of the project and to ensure that the performance standards are met. Monitoring will take place at the end of each summer (August or September, which is considered the end of the growing season) so that the plants have had a chance to grow fully. The monitoring plan in the appr<?ved'mitigation plan specified monitoring in the. entire mitigation area and use of smaller sample plots within the mitigation area' were not proposed. It instead specified determining the performance standards in the entire mitigation area. This monitoring plan is being followed but has broken the monitoring areas into four JRE{~ErVEW)) Cronin/Horizon Holdings As built January 4, 2007 Page 4 r ' " ~,.,. . (' f \.. - JEfff"SU~ ';UUNn OeD Monitoring Sites that.still include all of the installed plants. One site is located in' each of the enhanced buffer areas (Sites land 3) and one-is at each end of the werland (Sites 2 .and 4). Photos will be taken from each of nine established photo' stati~ns in each Mitigation Site at the end of each growing season to provide visual comparison from' year. to year. The performance standards to be monitored ove~ the next five years include: 1. Survival Rate-Every Monitoring Year · 90% survival of planted. s.pecies . withi~ the enhanced wetland and. buffer areas. The main objective of ..this enhancement plan is to improve the plant species diversity by supplementing the. existing native vegetation. It is also proposed tore-establish the forested community that dominated the wetland and' 'eastern buffer prior to clearing activities. · 100% survival of trees and shrubS installed along the future driveway . 2. Percent Cover by Native Plants · Year One-at least 15% cover by installed native plants .. Year Two-at least 25 % -cover by installed native .plants · Year Three-at least 3.5 % cover by installed native plants · Year.Five-at least 50% cover by . installed native plants. 3. Plant Height-End of the Fiv'e Year Monitoring · The conifers shall.. be at least 7 feet tall and the shrubs shall be at least 5 feet tall by. the end of the five .year monitoring period. 4. Non""Native InvasiveCoverage""Every Monitoring Year · Less- than 15 % cover by non-native exotics, including English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, and..Scot's broom Monitoring. will take place at the end of the growing season and. the first monitoring visit will be made in late August or early September of 2007. . A report complete with photos of each mitigation site will be submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers by October 31 st 1 2007. Follow up monitoring visits will be made at the end of the growing seasons in 2008, 2009 and 2011 with reports due to the Corps by October 31 st of each year . The 2011 monitoring report will document whether all of the performance standards have been met and once the monitoring is considered complete by the Corps. If the performance standards are not met by the end of the 2009 growing season, . a contingency plan that might include additional monitoring years or installation of additional plants may be required. Cronin/Horizon Holdings As built January 4, 2007 Page -5 RE(~EIVEn . ~ \.' (' '" -J -." JEfftR~U~ ~UUI'~ uti' Baseline Monitoring Results The attached monitoring data and photo station pages show what the enhanced buffer and 'wetland areas look like ,after planting. Baseline cover standards are provided in the monitoring' data that will be used to determine .whether the performance standards ,are being, met. Each of'the .four mitigation areas- will be monitQred in their entirety because the mitigation. areas are relatively small in, area and there are not a significant number of installed plants. At this time, the plants generally do not 'cover much ,of their respective areas because -they were just installed and are currently dormant. All four of the mitigation areas currently contain highpercentagesofnativ~ vegetation. The areas .in Monitoring Site 1 on the east side of~Wetland A (See attached photo pages showing Photo Stations.:#.. 3,#4, ,#8 'and, #9) contained high percen~ages . of-hardhack which. was partially 'removed .in the buffer .enhancemeI;ltarea because, it te1;ids. to spread ferociously and create monotypic stands. Hardhack will be removed ~s . part of-the maintenance process over the five year maintenance period. N3:tiv~ ve'getationin,Monitori~g Site 1 also includ.es,salaI,' Douglas fir, western red cedar ,'"hemlock, red, huckleberry and trailing blackberry. Monitorfug Site 3 encompasses. the enhanced buffer on. the west side of Wetland A (See attached photo pages showing ~hoto Stations #5 and #6). This are.a is currently forested with existing native vegetation including a tree layer of young red alder with a sparse shrub layer of evergreen huckleberry and an herbaceous layer heavily dominated by sword fern. The enhanced wetland at Monitoring Site 2 is emergent wetland dominated by slough sedge with small patches of hardhack and salal on hummocks (See attached photo pages showing Ph~to Stations#l and #2). The enhanced wetland at Monitoring Site 4.is forested/emergent/scrub shrub' mosaic wetland.with the forested areas dominated by western red cedar the emergent areas dominated. by slough sedge and the scrub shrub areas..dominated by western crabapple (See attached photo pages showing Photo Station #7). See as built drawin.g for location and species of installed plants in the enhanced buffer and wetland areas. Maintenance Plan The main goal of the maintenance plan is to ensure that the performance standards are met within the ,prescribed period of time. The mitigation plan specifies that the mainte~ance is to take place twice a year for the first three years after the plants have been installed. 'Maintenance of mitigation areas will include watering of the planted species at least one. time per week during the summer months to ensure plant survival. Watering is typically required during the first two or three years by which time the plants should become acclimated and may no longer need manual watering. \RIE~ ~E~VE[) Cronin/Horizon Holdings As built January 4, 2007 Page 6 ~ " i\: ~ " ~ \. ' JEfURSU~ LUUNW OeD A temporary irrigation system can be set up,"within the buffer to 'avoid regular hand watering of all of the installed -pla~ts.Maintenance will also' include removal of , non-natiVe invasive plants and some hardhack twice during each growing season to ensure that the planted species are not shade'd out orout-camp,eted by invasjve plants.. This will include mowing of grass around the planted species but will probably also include hand removal of unwanted :'plants including red ,alder, Himalayan oreverg-reen'bla,ckberry, reedcanary..grass and Scot's broom.. The other existing native shrub and tree species will not.be removed and will be included in" determining' the success of the mitigation'plan. Once the installed sp,ecieshave achieved' the prescribed growth status weed'removal may no longer been needed. This concludes the, Horizon Holdings Wetland and Buffer Mitigation. Plan Implementation As built and represents the start of the'five year monitoring period. If there are any questions concerning the r~storationplan, its implementation:and/or required monitoring/maintenance"please feel free to contact me at (360) 876-2403. Sincerely, =<)eLL~(O--*tlti Joanne Bartlett Professional Wetland Scientist Attachments Cc: Ken Shock, Horizon Holdings David Johnson-Jefferson County Department of Community Development Theresa Powell, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife .. I. il p- I Qln"'U~ O~OP'l QI"'U Z I-Im CII~Ocn NZX% CD 0 In"n QlON~ NON CII~O .. ~ CD 0) '-I o . "'U en ~ " :J: ~ o ~ -t a z f'J .... N .... .... (,J.WN~ * fT1 t:=' n ~ J> c:: fT1 Ci) -4 fT1 jO Z :iO ", t:t n ", t:t J> :iO ~~~'"O< ~~~~~ -4 l>jO fa n 3: c:: ", l> z~jO~~ ~ n t:=' Z 1"'1 ", ^ c ", jO -4 Cl ~ jO :I: c:: J> -< C C jO jO c ^ Z t:=' -4 ~ c '- p "2- n p c+ p b =i b' ~ l> ~ e ' '< ~ n cD :3 en , ~ 5. ~ ~ n P P en ~ ,- 5""tJ C+"C Q. < C 0 C oJ o , 6" en P C ~ 3: n ~ n p " P :3 , :3 IQ "tJ ~ P ~ ;+ P ~ C en 3: .... Z (,J (J\ IIll N N Cl Cl J> J> r r N N N Cl Cl C'l J> J> J> r r r l> Ci) Ci) :I: C c:: Z a a ~ ~ c c n n n n r r c: c: 3: 3: '"0 ." ", 1"'1 t=' t=' a a a ~ ~ ~ c c c n n n n n n r r r c: c: c: 3: 3: 3: ." ." ." 1"'1 ", 1"'1 t=' t:t t::I , I I '" a~",,13~ II I~ tI:J C -4 J> Z .... n J> r Z l> 3: ", ~ ~ CI) 31 ~ :::I ~ C! ~ :::I ~ ~ tj ~ QJ '-( Cl) ~ ~ ~ m :::tJ (I) ~ ~ --t 0 B! ~ ~ Ii 2 ~ (I) :-I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ Ci) '"0 J> n .... Z Cl c....... ,..,..., ....,.., It: ~ c....--: == ~ c:--;. c::: c::: ;;;;e ~ ~ ~ c--':) -=' ~ trJ ~ ~ cr'; ::.. ~ ~ ',-, ~ ----( -- --- ~~~ t::~""" !;:~;:9 ~~~ :a.::o;:t :it ~~G') ~~~ ~~CI) ......0;:0 ~.~ ~~i ;::\j ~~~ ~~~ t:j ~~r- Q{fj;e ~~~ . gg tjii:i ~~ C]QJ '-( oCl) al ~ ...... ;e ~ ~~ I~ ~~ ~i ~ ;:I :'"'I ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ :a.n:t '-( ~a! ~ '-(~ B 52 CI) ~ !.." I ;:0 ~~ ~ iji'" ::0 ... 0 ~~ () ii);;:I ~ ~;ij t:j fq~ :0 (IS~ s: ~ ~ ~o iii ~~ ~ '-( ;x: "1 ~~ 0 i...... ~ ~~ ~ ~:< ;e ~tg ~ Zt:: ~ r:]z ~ (IS$) \:j ~ i 5~ i15~ ~ ~ " ~~ ~ a 0 0 ffi ~:o :b: ~ ~ ~ (IS or-...... ...... ...... ...... i:!I --t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~--t ~ ~ ~ ~ ,..~ ~ ~n:t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (i);d ;t :'"'Ii: ~ ~ ~ ~ t] :~~~~~ ~ r:2 i: ~ ~ b ~~~~~~ ~ ~ (') ); ~ Z ~ 0 --t :c: (') ~ ~~ II ~.... nl r-~~~i~ ~ II t --t '-( :::I l <:) II ~ ~ ~~~~~~ <:) .." a. ~ ;d ~g~~"'<~ F$I~ 1II. 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ :-I&~ ~ en 8 ~ 0 )i; ~ ~ to '-( ~ ~ ~ ~ ::0 :< f\l <:) Si ~ f:A ;1! b ~ I'll ~~ ~ ~ ~~ G') ;::I ~ G') ~ ~ ......iii tg ~ gb tj ~ ~~ i ~ ~~ ~ CI)~ ~ ~ .~~ tit ;;0 ", (') '-( r:a t:J ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ --t ;;tj {l) ~ ~ ~5 ~ ~ l:9~ ~ ~ QJ~ ~ r:: '-( ~ ~ CI) ~ :!: :e :z: rrj .:-t ~ 0 ..... · -t;go ~ ~~ o 0...... I --to ~ se~ 5! 2~ (i) CI)~ ~ :-I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s;') <: () rii ~ HORIZON HOLDINGS/SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT MONITORING PHOTO STATIONS-AS BUILT/BASELINE December 29, 2006 PHOTO STATION 1 Photo Station #1 is located on the south property line and looks north through the enhanced Wetland A (Monitoring Site 2). The installed vegetation is not very clear in this photo because it is shorter than the existing vegetation but some can be seen with orange flags attached. This photo shows an area planted with 6 black twinberry and 6 red osier dogwood. RE('ElVRW) , ~ ~1 '" ~ ~~ ~ .,...~......~ JffHRS". ,:"",. fl HORIZON HOLDINGS/SHOCK WETLAND .AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT MONITORING PHOTO STATIONS-AS BUILT/BASELINE December 29, 2006 PHOTO STATION 2 Photo Station #2 is located on the south property line about ten feet east of Photo Station #1 and looks northeast toward a portion of the buffer that is dominated mostly by existing native plants that will be left to grow as part of the mitigation plan. \REf'EIVE1)) ," r' Jt\,\ ~..~ I~ j~ff~"~"~ L""~n U\:u HORIZON HOLDINGS/SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT MONITORING PHOTO STATIONS-AS BUILT/BASELINE December 29, 2006 PHOTO STATIONS 3 & 4 Photo Stations # 3 and #4 look north and northeast across the enhanced wetland buffer (Monitoring Site 1) in areas that are planted with cascara buckthorn, vine maple and pacific ninebark with scattered western red cedar within the existing native vegetation. The photos were both taken from a fencepost that is located along the south property line. Photo Station #3 , ;A(~EIVEn Photo Station #4 , 1 l ',: ~! (' :;- -; ~ 4-- JEffHlSU~ ~UUlt\ ~rp SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT MONITORING PHOTO STATIONS-AS BUILT/BASELINE December 29, 2006 PHOTO STATION 5 Photo Station #5 is located on the north property line and looks southwest through the enhanced western buffer along the south side of the proposed driveway (Monitoring Site 3). The installed vegetation is not very clear in this photo because it is shorter than the existing vegetation but 12 western red cedar were installed. \R1Et"EIVE[) ~ l~f \. ' l~ .-; I \. ' JEff~R~U~~UUNn U~U J . SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT MONITORING PHOTO STATIONS-AS BUILT/BASELINE December 29, 2006 PHOTO STATION 6 Photo Station #6 is located on the north property line as well but looks south into an enhanced portion of the northwest wetland buffer that planted with 7 black twinberry. (Photo stations #5 and #6 encompass Monitoring Site 3). \REt~EIVRW)) 1 l '.1 ..: l.'. & ,?) ~ to\. ., Zl. JEfnRS"~~"UNn \jr.ll , i " SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT MONITORING PHOTO STATIONS-AS BUILT/BASELINE December 29, 2006 PHOTO STATION 7 Photo Station #7 shows the enhanced wetland just to the south of the road crossing the wetland and is planted with 7 red osier dogwood amongst the existing native vegetation. (Monitoring Site 4). The western red cedar branches on the right side of the photo are part of the downed woody debris that were pushed into the driveway as part of the mitigation. (RE(~E~VEW) r ,\ ~~: (' ':~ ...... \.1. ,-. JEfff"~U~ I;UUNH III:li ~ 'I' SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT MONITORING PHOTO STATIONS-AS BUILT/BASELINE December 29, 2006 PHOTO STATION 8 Photo Station #8 is located on the outer edge of the 100 foot enhanced buffer (Monitoring Site 1) on the southeast side of the wetland. It looks directly west over the enhanced buffer area that is the planted with vine maple, cascara buckthorn, and pacific ninebark with scattered existing western red cedar. The installed vegetation is not very clear in this photo because it is shorter than the existing vegetation but all installed plants have been marked with orange flagging so that they can be located for future maintenance and monitoring purposes. IREt ~EIVE[)) .. \,. l'"'l" c, - JEfnH~UN'UUN" ":,, SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT MONITORING PHOTO STATIONS-AS BUILT/BASELINE December 29, 2006 PHOTO STATION 9 Photo Station #9 shows another view looking to the northwest on the outer edge of the 100 foot enhanced buffer (Monitoring Site 1). It show the areas that were the most densely planted with vine maple, cascara buckthorn and pacific ninebark with scattered existing western red cedar. The installed vegetation is not very clear in this photo because it is shorter than the existing vegetation but all installed plants have been marked with orange flagging so that they can be located for future maintenance and monitoring purposes. \R Et , EIVE [ )) I . .1 'LJ (', ~ "] 1 ..I ~ .. ~ JEfffR~U~ I;UUN'~ lJI:II SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT MONITORING PHOTO STATIONS-AS BUILT/BASELINE December 29, 2006 TRANSPLANTED ROW OF TREES OUTSIDE WETLAND BUFFER This photo is taken from the north end of the cul-de-sac looking over the southeast comer of the property. It shows the row of trees that were transplanted just outside of the 100 foot wetland buffer. This area will be photographed during the monitoring period to see if the transplanted trees survive but they are not within a regulated wetland buffer and so they are not part of the original mitigation plan and will not be included in the monitoring data or statistics. IR E~ ~EIVED '" I-d't ~ ~'; :r~' ~7 JEn~"SU~ ~:UUNlY OeD