HomeMy WebLinkAboutWetland Mitigation 601105001 (3)
December 12, 2007
~/JCb
~11V:
bEe! i' 7Ei:lJ
Jt1ff_1 <tIo;
tlJlJllr 1Jt/}
Koko Cronin
Seattle District, Regulatory Branch
US Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124-3755
Re: Wetland Mitigation Plan, Year One Monitoring Report for the Horizon
Holdings Property at 345 Blueberry Hill Drive, Quilcene, Jefferson County,
Washington. (COE Reference No. 200600736)
Dear Koko:
This letter has been prepared to documenterid of Year One growing season plant
conditions at the above referenced site as required by the Nationwide Permit
obtained for the driveway across the wetland. The wetland mitigation plan was
implemented on December 19, 2006 per the approved mitigation plan report dated
May 19, 2006. Native plants were installed within historically logged areas of
buffer on the east side and existing deciduous forest on the west side of the Category
II wetland to enhance the condition and improve diversity of the already recovering
native vegetation. This report discusses the condition of the plants after one growing
season with regard to survival rate and early percent cover . It includes a discussion
of the mitigation plan and the as built report. submitted in De~ember 2006. Photos
were taken from the same locations as the photos included with the as built report
and those locations are shown in the Year One Monitoring Results drawing.
Mitigation Plan Overview
The mitigation plan dated May 19, 2006 specified that 18,000 square feet of wetlaJ).d
buffer be enhanced as mitigation for2,400square 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 toprovide large woody debris to the wetland for use 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
about6 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 exceeds
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
1015 S:W: Harper Road, Port Orchard, Washington 98367 (360) 876-2403 Fax (360) 876-2053
o
l~ECEIVED
Cronin/Horizon Holdings-Year One Monitoring
December 12, 2007
Page 2
Ocr' ~ '1
.......e,).!;,..)
,JEFfERSON COUNTY DCD
clumps with scattered western red, cedar trees. The mitigation plan 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 because it
has creates monotypic stands in some areas. The hardhack removal and the
installation various shrubs' are intended to increase diversity within the buffer. Red
osier dogwood and black twinberry are proposed at the north end of the wetland
adjacent to the driveway and western red cedar will 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 Ruby Creek
Landscaping with initial supervision by the project biologist prior to actual fill of
wetland and construction of the proposed/permitted driveway. The south end 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 from local nurseries so
CaSCara buckthorn was determined to be an appropriate substitution by the ,project
biologist and was installed in place of the willow.W estern 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 twinberrieswere both installed in'the western buffer
next to the driveway (see as built drawing).
Cronin/Horizon Holdings-Year One Monitoring
December 12, 2007
Page 3
Wetland enhancement took place at the very south end of Wetland A with 6 black
twinberry and 6 red osier dogwoods installed to initiate a scrub shrub vegetation
class in a historically cleared portion of the wetland. Western red cedar was also to
be planted within this area of wetland and because so many small cedars were found
within the areas of the enhanced wetland and buffer, the number of cedars was
reduced to 12 and omitted from this area of the mitigation. The 12 trees were
installed in the northern buffer as described in the previous paragraph. See attached
As Built Drawing.
NOTE*Upland areas outside of the 100 foot wetland buffer in the southeast comer
of the property were cleared as part of the site development. Some trees from the
cleared area were moved into a row along the outside of the 100 foot buffer in an
attempt to provide extra protection to the buffer and the wetland.. This area has been
photographed and general survival will be noted during the monitoring visits but it is
not included in the percent survival or official monitoring statistics. See photo page
showing transplanted trees.
Monitoring Plan
The main goal of the mitigation plan is to replace the vegetation lost in the disturbed
wetland and.buffer due to past logging activities and to improve the species diversity
by proposing installation of several different 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-native/invasive plant species for each
of the fivemonitor4ng years and at least 50% cover 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 the as built report initiated the monitoring phase of this project and
monitoring was required to begin the first growing season after plant installation
and/or acceptance of the as built by the Corps of Engineers. 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 approved mitigation plan specified
monitoring in the entire mitigation area and use of smaller sample plots within the
mitigation area were not proposed. It illSteadspecified determining the performance
Cronin/Horizon Holdings-Year One Monitoring
December 12, 2007
Page 4
RECEIVE.D
DEe 1 72007
JEffERSON COUNlY OeD
standards in the entire mitigation area. This monitoring plan is being followed but
has broken the monitoring areas into four Monitoring Areas (MA) that include all of
the installed plants. One site is located in each of the enhanced buffer areas (MA 1
and 3) and one is at each .end of the wetland (MA 2 and 4). The location of the
Monitoring Areas is indicated on the attached drawing that also provides the Year
one results of monitoring. Photos will be taken from each of nine established photo
stations 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 over the
next five years include:
1. Survival Rate-Every Monitoring Year
. 90 % survival of planted species within 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 to re-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 35% .cover by installed. native plants
. Year Five-at least 50% cover by installed native plants.
3. Plant Height-End of the Five 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 Invasive Coverage-Every Monitoring Year -
. Less than 15% cover by non-native exotics, including English ivy ,
Himalayan blackberry, and Scot's broom
Monitoring wiUtake place at the end of the growing season and the first monitoring
visit was made on September 13, 2007. A report complete with photos of each
mitigation site will be submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers by October
31 st, 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 con.sidered
rrlr~C]E] VEl])
Cronin/Horizon Holdings- Year One Monitoring
December 12, 2007
Page 5
''1j'''1
J!o j
JEffERSON COUNTY DeD
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.
Year One Monitoring Results
The attached photo station pages show what the enhanced buffer and wetland areas
look like after planting and at the end of the frrst growing season. 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
monitored in their entirety because the mitigation areas are relatively small in area
and do not contain a significant number of installed plants. The results of
monitoring in each area is provided in a table that appears on the attached as
. built/year one monitoring results drawing and includes the number of live
individuals compared with installed numbers to determine survival rate and the
current coverage provided by the installed plants in each area.
All four of the mitigation areas currently contain high percentages.of native
vegetation. Monitoring Area 1 is the largest of the monitoring areas and is
composed of buffer on the east side of Wetland A. Photo Stations 3, 4, Sand 9
provide views of this area and as the photos indicate, the installed plants have not
grown significantly so are not visible amongst the. existing native vegetation cover.
Ha.rdhack was removed as part of the maintenance process during the first growing
season. Native vegetation in Monitoring Site 1 also includes salal, Douglas fir,
western red cedar, hemlock, red huckleberry and trailing blackberry . This area was
planted with 60 deciduous plants that included 12 Pacific ninebarks, 24 vine maples
and 24 cascaras (installed for Scotiler's willow). .No western red cedars were
installed because removal of hardhack revealed at least 2 dozen.young westetn red
cedar .and Douglas fir trees. The volunteer cedars that were found are being
monitored to ensure their growth and survival since no cedars were actually installed
in this area.
At the end of the first growing season, all 12 ninebarks were found, 17 of the 24
vine maples were found, 22 of the 24 cascaras and all 24 of the volunteer cedars
were found alive and well for a survival rate of 89 % in Monitoring Area 1. For the
most part the live individuals were counted and the count revealed that some were
missing so were not observed either dead or alive. The missing individuals were
counted as dead and the count revealed a total of 4 dead and 5 missing vine maples
and 2 dead and no missing cascaras. These missing individuals were figured into the
survival rate. calculation so it is possible that during the 2008 monitoring visit,
Cronin/Horizon Holdings-Year One Monitoring
December 12, 2007
Page 6
additional live individuals will be observed, which will increase the survival rate.
The installed plants appear to cover about 15 % of the plot just because there are 51
individuals are currently alive in this area. All 24 young cedars/Douglas firs were
observed alive and well in this area.
Monitoring Area 2 is at the south end of the on-site wetland, which is dominated by
slough sedge with small patches of hardhack and salal on hummocks at the south end
of the wetland. Photos are taken of this area from Photo Stations I and 2, which as
of September 2007, still show mostly volunteer vegetation cover. This area was
planted with 7 black twinberries and 6 red osier dogwoods and during the September
2007 monitoring visit, all 6 dogwoods were found but only 5 of the 7 twinberries
were found. for a survival rate in this area of 83 % . It is assumed that some of the
existing native vegetation was making it difficult to find the two missing twiqberries
and they. could be alive and well because twinberries are a very hardy species,
Individuals of both species range .in size from 2 to 3 feet and appeared to. be in.good
health. They appear to cover 5 to 7% of the emergent. wetland.
Monitoring Area 3 is located at the north end of the site and encompasses the
enhanced buffer west of Wetland A. Plant conditions are documented at Photo
Stations 5 and 6 of this area, which in the September 2007 photos show mostly
native vegetation (red alder and sword fern) although some orange flags representing
live plants are visible. A total of 12 western red cedars were scattered throughout
this area. During the 2007 monitoring visit, all cedars installed in this area were
observed alive and well for a survival rate of 100%. The plants. remain fairly small
and took some real. diligence to locate them that included removing some overgrowth
of sword fern and other species occurring in this area. They appear to cover about ..
10 % of this area because they have not grown significantly and remain about 1 to 2
~~. ....
Monitoring Area 4 is located at the. north end of the on.:site wetland and just south
of the new driveway. This area is a forested/emergent/scrub shrub mosaic wetland
area with the forested canopy dominated by western red cedar, the shrub . layer
contains. western crabapple and the emergent areas are dominated by slough sedge as
documented in Photo Station7photos. This area includes a portion of buffer
because the twinberries. that were to be installed. in the wetland area were moved. due
to excessive standing water conditions and the placement of woody debris in the
proposed planting area. All 6 reo.osier dogwoods and all 6. black twinberries were
found alive and well with Ulost between 3 and 4 feet tall and had good new growth.
There is 100 % survival and about 7 % cover by the . installed plants. This area
remains dominated by western red cedar, western crabapple and slough sedge.
Cronin/Horizon Holdings- Year One Monitoring
December 12, 2007
Page 7
RECEIVED
DEe 1 7 2t1117
JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD
Monitoring Peiformance Standards
In general, the September 2007 monitoring visit revealed that most of the plants
survived the first growing season and in some instances, missing individuals were
thought to perhaps be alive (south end of the wetland) but concealed by existing
native vegetation. The sUl"vival rate ranges from 83 % in Monitoring Area 1 to
100% in Monitoring Areas 3 and 4. The average. survival rate is 92 % and meets the
required survival rate performance standard of at least 90 % plant survival. The
survival rate is not met. in Monitoring Areas 1 and 2 but because some individuals
are missing and assumed alive, the survival rate could rise provided the live
individuals observed in 2007 survive the 2008 growing season. The condition of
individual plants in these areas is shown in photos at the back of the photo station
pages section of the report. The cover by installed plants ranges from 5 to 15 %
throughout the mitigation areas with .15 % covet recorded in Monitoring Area 1
where 60 individuals were.installed and 51 were observed alive in September 2007.'
The year one percent cover performance standard is met in Monitoring Area 1
because there is at least 15% cover but there is only 5-10% in the other monitoring
areas so the year.one standard is not met in these areas. All mitigation areas have at
least 50 % cover by native volunteers and existing vegetation. the average cover for
the installed plants is. about 10%, which is still under the year one standard.
Maintenance Plan
The main goal of the maintenance plan is to ensure that the performance standards
are met within the 5 year monitoring period. The mitigation plan specifies
maintenance at least twice a year for the first three years after the plants have been
installed. Maintenance of mitigation areas will include removal of non-native
invasive plants and hardhack twice during each growing season to ensure that the
planted species are not shaded out or out-competed by invasive 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 or evergreen
blackberry, reed canary grass and Scot's broom, The other existing native shrub
and tree. species will not be removed and will be. fncluded in determining the succesS
of the mitigation plan. Once the installed species have achieved the prescribed
growth status weed removal may no longer been heeded. Watering of the planted
species is necessary at least one time per week during the summer mouths to ensure
plaIitsurvival. 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. A temporary irrigation system can be set up within the buffer to avoid
regular hand watering of all of the installed plants.
RECEIVEl)
Cronin/Horizon Holdings- Year One Monitoring
December 12, 2007
Page 8
:'10, .....,
J.. j
-,
HFFfRSON COUNlY fleD
This concludes the Horizon Holdings Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Plan
Implementation Year One Monitoring Report, which is the first of four reports
required over the 5 year monitoring report (a year 4 report is not required). The
monitoring visit revealed that most of the plants were observed alive and well in
each monitoring area but that some missing and dead individuals in Monitoring
Areas 1 and 2 resulted in a survival rate of 83 and 89 %, respectively, so the 90 %
survival rate standard is not met in those ,areas. The missing plants are assumed
alive but not found because of existing vegetation cover and if they are found. ill
2008, there could be an increase in survival rate. Percent cover by the installed
plants ranges from 5 to 15% with the year one percent cover standard only met in
. Monitoring Area 1 where most plants were installed. This cover standard is met
despite the survival rate of 89%. The mitigation plan was implemented in an area
dominated by native plants that are recovering following logging operations many
years ago. The area remains dominated by native plant species and there is
currently less than 15 % cover by invasive plant species. The next monitoring visit
will be made in September 2008 and the monitoring. report will be submitted by
November 30, 2008. Additional monitoring is required in 2009 (year three) and
2011 (year 5)
If there are any questions concerning the restoration plan or the year one monitoring
report, please feel free to contact me at (360) 876-2403.
Sincerely,
~.
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 Pishand Wildlife
~I. -
~ '" '" '" '" '" I 0 II
l!l W w ~ ~ ~ .. I .gl'
!: i :E ~
i :E :E '"
>-' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .1 :!
J ~ .J d d d d ...
I !l u z
~ > %
~ g u u g g !i!
I" ~ ! c c I'l I;.
II i '" o~~
~ '" \a ~ '" '"
"'~ ~ ~ t: III I I I I I I '" It:~8T I. -gl .
<<
~ g_uaI II ~II
i!:d ~ ~ ~ t: I ~i Ie ~ :1:)(%<-1
~~ i i t: .J .J .J .J .J ~ fIIi:C'" I '-J
~ ~I << << << << << 1'1 % ~I
oil i ~ l ~ ~ I t ~I S l:J CI l:J l:J CI % ~2 I ! .!:1 I.
~ 15~~~&it:~ I N N N N N i' .-. .
1Il~" '" ~ . ,-
~~ ~ m ~ ~ 'f ~ !! I I!! i; i~~ ! I
~~ i I ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ..
:>
... ..
II · I r ' " ~ IS J~ : ~ $ .. .. -:;
i l!l ~ G .: ~ I-
~ I~U d~ - L i ~
~ '" B ~
II ~i! I .... I }
..J
.. .!l L 0 d
I- .. :> 0 ii ~ -:;
c
~I ~ ~ ~ ~ I 5 i ~ I id.1 i~ z .J U Q. ...
<[ << .!. L .. ~ f g
u ..
..J 2! u u .. Q.
I~ i 5 I i. 0.. o :> ~ ~ ~
~ i~oi ~ << L .. c
l- I- ... l' ~ f Ii
~~ ~ ~ l!l ~ ~ ~ il ;Ii! i~ "'~l!s III ..J lil ~ ... u ... .J
~ o Q~ ~8ii I .... ~
::>
ii ! I Iii i i ~.. I"! ~r! l"l
J..:: ~ ~ I!! ~ '"
0 ;;11;;11 ;;1~j 5 i <[
"'~ ~ '" ; ~ ~ ~ ~ I '" % '"
<: l!i l!i e e e e ;;1 llt 8 l!i .. i!i
~ > :I: '" W
I- '" u
!l III 8 llt W
w !J! '" g ~ R
W
! .J !i 3 : ~ '"
RE z ~ l:l ii ~
RIVED :E '"
C << llt
I !J! I:i R ~ ~ '"
D :> << w 15 ill ~
u ... '"
~ ~I << III U R W !If
DEe 1 7 2007 LoI
z Ill::
0 ~ ~I ..
E !!! ~ .. 1'1
CI B N N _ !!:l
z i
JEffERS N COUNTY DCn en it: .
0 i~
0 .... I
b Z !t
::z: 0
0.. :::IE
en ~
0.. :::IE
@
..
:. <[ \0 \0 X
..... ..... g ~
II! x \0 \0 - .....
f l'l N
<[ , ~x
x !!l C> C>
- -
VI
I-
...J N
:J \0 ..... X
VI <[ ..... ..... x .....
W X \0 II'l C'l I
Ill:: CD II'l
l:J
Z .. N .... ..
.... ... N N
Ill:: ... ..... N
<[ ..... ..... ..... ~ ~
CJ !:: !!l N ..
l- X N N CD _
~ ....
~(1V.~o z
CJ
::E:
,.... Q Z Ill:
C C ~ <[
0 :.l C C >- Q
N Ill: :- :J: ~ W
<[ 8 .... u w ~
llQ III W I- W
W W Q U llQ Q C >
X w ! ::> z iii IX C
<[ ...J Ill: l"l ....
Z 0.. Z W :- ..J U
<[ U &; <[ .... Z c....
z x ... Ill: Ill: > z
C &.. C <[ :.l W - W
x w tl U U I- > U
X Z Q '" <[ c.'l
C > <[ w <[ ...J IX ~
W ::> W
u 0.. Ill: U llQ :- '" 0..
~I <[ llQ U Q W *
DABOB BAY
l~ J~(;)E r\lJq IT),
, ....... 'iL~ it))
t,
1i"~
L..
;f.JF~'R . .
l'I",!, SON COUNTY fleD
SR 104
o
o
-<
~
?J
o
~
\f)
o
IDGEHAVEN
HOOD CANAL
BLUEBERRY HILL DRIVE
PURPOSE: CONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY
ACROSS NORTH END OF WETLAND
LATITUDE: 47.7591
LONGITUDE: -122.78517
SW 1/4 SEe lOT 26 N R 1. WWM
SITE
GlW'HIC SCALI
50 0 50 100 200
... L--'" I
( ..nn)
APPLICANT REFERENCE: 200600736
SITE ADDRESS: 345 BLUEBERRY HILL DR.
QUILCENE, WA
MAILING ADDRESS: K. SHOCK
CAPTAIN COOK, HI 96704
PROPOSED FilL
IN: WETLANDS
AT: 345 BLUEBERRY HilL DRI, QUILCENE
COUNTY OF: KITSAP STATE: WA
VICINITY MAP
SHEET ----1-- OF -l.-
DATE: 7/6/06
HORIZON HOLDINGS/SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
MONITORING PHOTO STATION 1
Photo Station #1 is located on the south property line and looks north through the enhanced Wetland A
(Monitoring Area 2). The installed vegetation is not very clear in the September 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 twinberries and 6 red osier dogwood.
September 2007
January 2007
HORIZON HOLDINGS/SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
MONITORING 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. The installed plants are not visible in this view because of the cover by
existing vegetation and they were not observed during the field visit.
September 2007
RECEIVED
DEe 1 7 2007
JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD
January 2007
HORIZON HOLDINGS/SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
MONITORING PHOTO STATION 3
Photo Station # 3 looks north and northeast across the enhanced wetland buffer (Monitoring Area 1) in areas
that are planted with cascara buckthorn, vine maple and pacific ninebark with scattered volunteer western red
cedar within the existing native vegetation. The cedars are being considered when determining the survival
rate and percent cover by installed plants in Monitoring Area 1. The photos were both taken from a fencepost
that is located along the south property line (lower right comer of as built photo). As seen in the other photos
taken of this site, the existing vegetation is obscuring the view of installed plants and in this area, most of the
installed plants were found alive and well. The September photo actually looks more northerly than the
January photo so it is not showing the inst~lled vegetation that is visible in the right edge of the latter photo.
September 2007
January 2007
HORIZON HOLDINGS/SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
MONITORING PHOTO STATION 4
Photo Station 4 is in the same general location as Photo Station 3 but it looks more in a northeasterly direction
and together, they form a sort of panorama of this general area. Again, the existing vegetation is obscuring the
installed plants in the September photo but there are a few cascara trees (orange flags) on the left edge of this
photo that did well over their first growing season. When this area was walked in September 2007, most of the
installed plants were observed alive and well.
DEe 1 7 z~nl
.JEffERSON r.mmTV nCD
SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
MONITORING 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 Area 3). The installed vegetation is not very
clear in this photo because it is shorter than the existing vegetation but 12 western red cedars were installed.
The cedars are not tall enough to be seen in the September photo but they were all observed alive and well in
this area. They are 2 to 3 feet tall throu hout this area.
September 2007
January 2007
SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
MONITORING 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 twinberries, which is part of Mitigation Area 4. The tree in
the right foreground of the January photo appears to be in the right middle background-of the September photo
so it appears that the September photo was taken from along the north property line rather than within the
buffer. The installed plants are visible in the January photo as orange flags but are not as visible in the
September photo because of its position along the north line but also because the existing vegetation is taller
than the installed twinberries. There are a few orange flags visible in the middle of the photo and they
represent live plants. A total of 6 black twinberries were found in this area and they had done well during the
2007 growing season.
E
DEe 1 7 2007
JfFFERSOI COUNTY DCD
SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
MONITORING PHOTO STATION 7
Photo Station #7 shows the enhanced wetland just to the south of the road crossing the wetland and is planted
with 6 red osier dogwoods amongst the existing native vegetation in Monitoring Area 4. The western red
cedar branches on the right side of the photo are part of the downed woody debris that was pushed from the
driveway into the wetland as part of the mitigation. The dogwoods in this area did well over the 2007 growing
season and all 6 were found alive and well. They grew to heights of roughly 4 feet and had good new growth.
They are not visible in either photo taken of this area because of the existing vegetation but one of the
dogwoods is visible as an orange flag that lies just left and beyond the dead cedar branch in the foreground.
September 2007
January 2007
SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
MONITORING PHOTO STATION 8
Photo Station #8 is located on the outer edge of the 100 foot enhanced buffer and shows the southeast portion
of Monitoring Area 1. 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. The installed
plants are not visible in the September photo because of the existing vegetation but most were found alive and
well even though they were somewhat browed by deer. Close up views of the plants in this area are provided
on the last two pages of these photos.
I
September 2007
January 2007
D t L 1 7 2~r {"
JEFfERSON COUNlY Den
SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
MONITORING PHOTO STATION 9
Photo Station #9 shows another view looking to the northwest on the outer edge of the 100 foot enhanced
buffer (Monitoring Area 1). It shows 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 these photos 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. Again, the
installed plants are not visible in the September photo because of the heavy cover by existing native plants but
most were found alive and well when thoroughly checking through the vegetation cover.
September 2007
RECEIVED
DEe 1 7 2007
JHHRSON
January 2007
SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
MONITORING PHOTO STATION #10
This series of photos was taken from the eastern buffer edge looking across Monitoring Area 1 and look from
north (View A) to south (View C). As discussed on the other photo station pages, the installed plants are not
visible in this series of photos because of the existing vegetation cover. The cover by native species in this
area is currently at 100% and the installed plants were intended to increase diversity.
View A
View B
RECEIVED
DEe 1 7 2007
JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD
View C
SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
MONITORING PHOTO STATION #11
This series of photos 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 along the 100 foot wetland buffer edge. 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. The foreground grassy area is outside the wetland buffer.
September 2007
January 2007
RECEIVEn)
:, ,.. ,~ ... 7' r.( I(:/}
J.J t ~,.1 l. I'd I
jEfFERSON COUNTY Den
SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
Typical Plant Conditions-September 2007
These photos were taken to visually document conditions of individual species within the enhanced buffer
areas because they are not visible amongst the existing native plant cover. Additional photos will be taken of
these species during each of the required monitoring years so that their condition is constantly monitored.
RECEIVED
cascara
Black twinberry
eastern buffer
DEe 1 7 2007
ninebark
cascara-eastern buffer
western buffer
RECEIVED
ofC 1 7 2007
JEFFERSON CoUNlY oCD