HomeMy WebLinkAboutHabitat Management Plan 962700108
REVISED REPORT
HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND
BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN
181 PORTAGE WAY
PORT HADLOCK, WASHINGTON
March 21, 2008
FOR
FRED NASON
GEoENGINEERS (;)
File No, 16338-001-00
, .
Habitat Management and Buffer
Enhancement Plan
File No. 16338-001-00
M~rch 21, 2008
Prepared for:
Fred Nason
61 Portage Way
Port Hadlock, Washington 98339
Prepared by:
GeoEngineers, Inc.
1550 Woodridge Drive SE
Port Orchard, Washington 98366
(360) 769-8400
GeoEngineers, Inc.
Jos aghan
Senior Biologist
t~~ .fyQ~
Lisa A. Berntsen, PWS
Principal
GJA:JOC:LAB:jl
ORCH\16\16338001 \00\Finals\1633800100RevisedHMf _ R,doc
APR - 3 2008
Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any
attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, lnc, and will serve as the official
document of record.
Copyright<G 2008 by GeoEngineers, lnc, All rights reserved,
File No. 16338-001-00
,
.-'
,
APR - 3 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae No.
INTRODUCTION ......................'"..... .......... ........ ,. ......',.. ..........', .....,.. ............ ..........',....',. .........' ...........,.....' 1
PROJECT LOCATION ....' .........................'",. ...........'",....', ............ ,........ ..',. ...' .................... ,................ ,...... 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION.. ...... ........... ". .J..... ............. ........ .......... ..........".....,.. .......... .............,. .........' .......... 1
PROJECT SCOPE ................,.. ............ ........ ...........' ,...........,..... .................... ........... ........... ......... .............,.. 1
BUFFER FUNCTIONS.". .... .....................'"... ..' ..............',.... ....................... ...,.. ...................... ,... .... .............2
METHODS. ....... ,......... ,.........,...... ."...............'",.. .................... .........' .............',..... "....' ,..........' ,........ ."....",. 2
PAPER INVENTORY. .............,..... ............'"...... ............... .....,...'".... .................... ,......,. ..................... 2
FIELD RECONNAISSANCE ,... ...........'",..... ...............,.... ........... ..........,.... ..... .........' .................... ......3
RESULTS ... ........... ...., ........................ .................... .......',.. ..........,...... ,.. ......................". ........... ..........,....."..3
PAPER INVENTORY. ..........,.......', ...............',... ......................"....,.. .......................,....., .....,.. ............ 3
PRIORITY HABITAT AND SPECiES............,........................."...............................,.......................... 3
Fish.............................,......",...............",....,.........................".....,.......,.................,...................4
Wildlife.................................,........",...."............",..........."............,.................,........ ...,............, 5
Shorebirds". ... ............... ,.. ........... .................',... .................... ..,.....,............' .... ,... ......... ,...........' 5
Rare and Endangered Plants ........................"......,..............................."..................................6
SITE VISIT.. ....................., ...................... ..................... ..........' ..........."....,......."...,' ,................. .......... 6
Vegetation..........".................".............."......,..................,....."........................"........., ......,....... 6
Wildlife Species Use............"".............",........................"....",.............................".................. 6
DISCUSSION ......,........ ,.................'" ...... ...,.......... ....'"... ...............',... .......... ...........'"...'" ....... ........... ...',..... 7
PROPOSED PROJECT ............ ....i... ............... .............,... ...............,....., .......,.. .............. ........... .......... 7
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITI~ATION MEASURES .....................,........,..........,....,.................... 7
Water Quality..."..... .............i.... ... .......... ,......... ..."................."....., ..... ..,................ ....... ......,....... 7
Noise Quality .............' ,....... ..........'"........ ...................,....".... .......... .......... ........................... ..... 7
Construction Activities Impacts......, ............ ...... .....,................ ".... ................... ......... ................. 7
Occupational Impacts .............'.' .............' ,..... ............. ........ ,.... "... .............. ...... .......... ...............8
Species Habitat Quality ..................,.............."...................................................,....,......,.....,....8
TIMING OF PROPOSED MITIGATION PLANTING ........,................................,............................,.... 9
MONITORING PROGRAM OF PROPOSED MITIGATION PLANTING ..........................................10
CONTINGENCY PLAN ,..................................."............".....,.........................,................................. 11
CONCLUSiONS..... .................... .......... ............,.',.... ...............',... ....... .....................". ..........,....,.....,. ......... 11
LIMITATIONS .... ....................,........' ................",.. .................... .......... ..............',.... ...................',.... ............ 11
REFERENCES..... ......'" ................' ,..... ..,...... ..................,.... ........... .... ,.....' ....................... ................. ......... 12
File No, 16338-001-00
March 21, 2008
Page i
GEoENGINEER~
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
APR - 3 2008
List of Tables
Table 1. Native Vegetation Proposed for Mitigation Planting ........................,.............................................9
Table 2. Performance Standards for Proposed Mitigation Planting........................................................... 10
I
i
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. National Wetlands Inventory Map
Figure 3. Soil Survey Map
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX B - SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPENDIX C - BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN
APPENDIC D - PLANTING DETAILS
APPENDIX E - SPECIES LISTINGS
APPENDIX F - WDFW, NEST BOXES FOR BIRDS
File No, 16338-001-00
March 21, 2008
Page ii
GEoENGINEER~
REPORT
HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN
~81 PORTAGE WAY
PORT: HADLOCK, WASHINGTON
FOR
FRED NASON
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the Habitat Management and Buffer Enhancement Plan for an undeveloped lot
located at 181 Portage Way in Port Hadlock, Washington (site). The subject property is 0.83 acres in size
and is located in northern Jefferson County adjacent to Puget Sound. This Habitat Management Plan
(HMP) has been developed as part of an application for site development at the request of Fred Nason
(property owner). This report was prepared based on information obtained from site inspections and from
the requirements outlined in Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code Chapter 18.15.395 Habitat
Management Plan and Chapter 18.15.340 Buffer Reduction.
PROJECT LOCATION
There is only one proposed development property associated with this HMP. This property consists of
one parcel (962700108) located to the south of Port Hadlock, Washington in the Northwest \4 of Section
7 of Township 29 North, Range 1 East of the Willamette Meridian. The site is located within a Jefferson
County designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation area along the shoreline of Oak Bay. Figure 1
(Vicinity Map) shows the approximate location of the site. The site is located in the Quilcene-Snow
Water Resource Inventory Area and is part of the North Olympic River Basin. Jefferson County has
zoned the site as Rural Residential 1 :5.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Development activities proposed for the site include the construction of a single-family residence. The
site contains an estuarine wetland that has been identified as a Category I wetland. Jefferson County
Code 18.15.340 states that Category I wetlands require a 150-foot setback from the wetland edge. A
building setback requirement of five feet from the edge of the buffer is also required for all buildings
proposed for construction on the site. Currently, the 150-foot wetland buffer encompasses the entire
portion of the 0.83 acre site that is not wetland. Photographs of the site are located in Appendix A.
Buffer averaging is not feasible for this property, since the wetland buffer encompasses the entire site.
Draft plans for the site have been developed using buffer reduction to reduce portions of the buffer to 65
feet in the southwest comer of the proPfrty to allow developable footprint for this property as shown in
Appendix B. After construction of the s,ngle-family residence, invasive species will be removed from the
buffer and replanted with native shoreline plants to provide greater buffer functions than the existing
buffer. A detailed buffer enhancement plan for the site is presented in Appendix C.
PROJECT SCOPE
GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) has prepared this HMP to accommodate site development activities.
This HMP was completed through research and review of fish and wildlife habitat data as well as through
on-site field reconnaissance and a review of preliminary development plans for the site. Site-specific fish
and wildlife data was obtained from Jefferson County, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW), Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS), and
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. On-site
File No, 16338-001-00
March 21, 2008
Page 1
GEoENGINEE~
This report addresses specific Jefferson County requirements for the preparation and completion of an
HMP as follows:
documentation of baseline conditions included identifying and documenting m4flne
specIes.
. Presents detailed maps of the proposed site location, building locations and sizes, existing
structures and landscape features, and water bodies. The location of any listed species and their
critical habitats are discussed in the text.
. Describes the proposed project development in sufficient detail for analysis of the land use
change as applicable to fish and wildlife habitat within the vicinity of the site.
. Analyzes the effect of the proposed project on potential fish and wildlife species and their
associated habitat.
. Identifies possible mitigation measures to restore habitat and compensate for modifications to the
buffer so that the reduced buffer will provide equal or better protection than the standard larger
buffer. These measures include upland enhancement of the buffer with native vegetation as well
as invasive species removal.
. Prepares a plan that explains how the property owner will avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse
impacts to fish and wildlife habitats caused by the proposed project.
BUFFER FUNCTIONS
Shoreline buffers perform many protective functions for associated waterbodies. They provide specific
water quality protection through displacement and filtering of pollutants and sediments, shoreline
stabilization, thermal cover and temperature moderation for aquatic species and specific habitat features
such as food, cover, nesting, perches and wildlife corridors. Site-specific conditions in the buffer
including slope, soil, vegetation characteristics (condition and type), and sources of the water quality
pollutants directly affect the buffer widths necessary to protect water quality functions (Desbonnet et al.
1994).
METHODS
PAPER INVENTORY
GeoEngineers completed a file review of available information on existing and historic sensitive fish,
wildlife and plant species occurring in the vicinity of the project area. This information was obtained
from:
. the USFWS species list for Jefferson County (USFWS 2005) as shown in Appendix D;
. the NOAA salmonid species list for the Puget Sound (NOAA 2006) as shown in Appendix E;
. the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (USFWS 2004), Jefferson County critical
areas database (Jefferson County 2007);
. the DNR Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (DNR 2006);
. the WDFW Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) maps and database (WDFW 2007);
. the WDFW SalmonScape databllise (WDFW 2003); and
File No, 16338-001-00
March 21, 2008
Page 2
GEoENGINEERSg
. the Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area, Washington (United States DePattment of Agriculture.."
[USDA] 1975 and 2001).
GeoEngineers reviewed the 1991 United States Geological Survey (USGS) map and the 1990 aerial and
topographic maps (USGS 1991 and 1990). GeoEngineers also reviewed recent aerial photographs to
determine changes in cover and land use practices that have occurred in and around the project area
(Google Earth 2007).
FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
GeoEngineers biologists performed a site visit on April 29, 2007 to record observations of fish and
wildlife habitat as well as upland and marine plants on and within the vicinity of the site. The weather
was cloudy and the temperature was approaching 550F. Wildlife habitat characteristics of the site were
documented as well as direct observations of the physical habitat features (snags, nests, burrows, trails,
dens, streams, marine shoreline habitat, etc.). Visual observations of fish, wildlife, tracks and scat were
also documented. Vegetation on the site was assessed for general size and abundance and compared with
surrounding land uses. Photographs were taken during the investigation to accurately depict the existing
condition ofthe site and are included with this document as Appendix A.
RESULTS
The results of our literature review and field reconnaissance are presented in the following sections.
PAPER INVENTORY
The NWI map was used to assist with the overall habitat characterization of the site. Mapped NWI
wetland data for the site, as shown in Figure 2, indicates the presence of wetlands along the shoreline of
the site on the northwestern boundary. This wetland type is mapped as regularly exposed intertidal
emergent/unconsolidated shore. Portage Way is located in between the eastern boundary of the site and
the shoreline of Oak Bay. The Oak Bay shoreline is also mapped as wetland and is typed as regularly
exposed intertidal aquatic bed/unconsolidflted shore.
,
,
The site contains tidal marsh and coastal beach soil types (Figure 3). The tidal marsh soil type is located
on the central and western portion of the site. This soil is very poorly drained and is frequently flooded
and ponded. Available water capacity is low and water permeability is moderately low through the most
restrictive layer. This soil has a moderately saline horizon within 30 inches of the soil surface. Tidal
marsh is identified as a hydric soil on the Hydric Soils List - Washington (USDA 2001). The coastal
beach soil type is located on the eastern edge of the site and is associated with Portage Way. It is
frequently flooded and never ponded. Vegetation does not grow on coastal beaches and they are subject
to continual wave action during high tides and storms.
Aerial photographs of the site and surrounding area do not show a large increase of development in the
vicinity of the site (Figure 3). Surrounding land use at the site consists of residential development to the
south and west with marine water to the north and east. There is no commercial development within the
vicinity of the site and there has been no change in land use in the past 17 years on the site.
PRIORITY HABITAT AND SPECIES
Information gathered for PHS in the vicinity of the site was taken from the USFWS species list for
Jefferson County (USFWS 2005), the WDFW PHS maps (WDFW 2007), SalmonScape database
(WDFW 2003) and NOAA salmonid species list for the Puget Sound (NOAA 2006). The DNR NHP was
File No, 16338-001-00
March 21, 2008
Page 3
GEoENGINEEIl!O
APR - 3 2008
examined for the presence of any rare or isensitive plant species located in the vicinity of the site (DNR .
2006). The USFWS species list for Jeffdrson County was reviewed for listed ano proposed endang~~a
and threatened species, critical habitat, candidate species and species of concern for this project.
Fish
There are no streams containing listed fish species present on the site (WDFW 2007). There is one
stream located to the south of the site approximately 400 feet across Portage Way which contains
sa1monid presence. Our site reconnaissance confirmed the absence of any critical stream features on site.
The northern shoreline of the site is exposed to an inlet of Oak Bay which connects to the Puget Sound.
This waterbody contains many fish species in the shoreline environment and serves as a migratory
corridor for adult sa1monids returning to spawning streams. Fish presence is assumed to occur along the
shoreline of the site during certain times! of the year. Priority anadromous fish species that may occur
along the shoreline of the site include i chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), chum salmon
(Oncorhynchus keta), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), stee1head (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and
bulltrout (Salvelinus confluentus).
Chinook Salmon
Puget Sound chinook salmon are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as shown
in Appendix E. Their current designated critical habitat, within the Puget Sound, is nearshore marine
areas. The northern shoreline of the site is located along designated critical habitat marine nearshore
areas of the Puget Sound (70 FR 52630-52853). There are no streams containing spawning chinook
salmon on or within the vicinity of the site (WDFW 2007). However, varying life stages of chinook
salmon are expected to be present within the shoreline of the site during certain times of the year.
Chum Salmon
Chum salmon do not warrant listing under the ESA. However, chum salmon are present in the vicinity of
the site for foraging and passage to spawning streams. There is no documented chum habitat on or within
the vicinity of the site (WDFW 2007). Varying life stages of chum salmon are expected to be present
within the shoreline of the site during certain times of the year.
Coho Salmon
The Puget Sound coho salmon are listed as a species of concern under the ESA as shown in Appendix E.
There is no designated critical habitat for coho salmon. There is no documented coho habitat present on
the site. However, coho salmon are documented to occur in the stream located to the south of the site
(WDFW 2007). Varying life stages of coho salmon are expected to be present within the shoreline of the
site during certain times of the year.
Steelhead
Puget Sound steelhead are listed as threatened under the ESA (72 FR 26722-26735) as shown in
Appendix E. The marine waters within the vicinity of the site are known to contain different life history
stages of Puget Sound steelhead at various times of year. There are no steelhead-producing streams
within the vicinity of the site (WDFW 2007). However, steelhead migrate through the area and may be
found foraging on forage fish in the immediate project vicinity as well as in other habitats identified
around the project area throughout the year.
Bull Trout
Bull trout are currently listed as threatetied under the endangered species act as shown in Appendix D.
There is no documented bull trout critical habitat on or within the vicinity of the site (70 FR 56212-
56311). It is not likely that bull trout will be found foraging along the shoreline or in the vicinity of the
project area.
File No, 16338-001-00
March 21, 2008
Page 4
GEoENGINEE~
Forage Fish
There is no documented forage fish spawning along the shoreline of the property (WDFW 2007).
However, there is documented sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) spawning habitat on the eastern side,
of Portage Way along the shoreline and along the Portage Canal. The intertidal substrate along the
northwestern shoreline of the site is comprised of marine vegetation and mud. Forage fish are typically
found in shoreline areas containing fine gravel and sand. Forage fish will not likely spawn along the
shoreline of the site but will likely be present in this nearshore marine area of the site during certain times
of the year. The presence of forage fish along the shoreline will attract salmonid fish species to forage in
this area.
Wildlife
Wildlife presence and use of the site was evaluated through a thorough review of available literature as
well as a site investigation. Sources consulted during the assessment included the USFWS endangered
and threatened species list for Jefferson County, Washington (USFWS 2005) (Appendix D) and the
WDFW PHS map (2007) of the site and surrounding area. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but
captures the most likely listed species to be present on the site based on habitat type, amount and
landscape position. The USFWS identifies several listed species that may occur in Jefferson County.
These species include bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus
marmoratus) and northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina).
Bald Eagles
The WDFW PHS maps indicate that there are no bald eagles nests present within I-mile of the site.
There are no trees present on site that cO\lld be potentially used for perching and nesting. Bald eagles are
present in Oak Bay and may be found foraging within the vicinity of the site during certain times of the
year.
Marbled Murrelet
Marbled murre1ets are associated with marine environments and old-growth forests. There is no suitable
nesting habitat present near the site. There is also no documented presence of marbled murrelets in the
vicinity (WDFW 2007). However, because the site is adjacent to nearshore marine environments, there is
potential for foraging marbled murrelets to be present near the site during certain times ofthe year.
Northern Spotted Owl
Northern spotted owls are associated with old-growth forests. There is no suitable nesting habitat present
near the site. There is no documented presence of northern spotted owls within the vicinity of the site
either (WDFW 2007). It is highly unlikely for northern spotted owls to be present within the vicinity of
the site.
Waterfowl Concentrations
There are documented waterfowl concentrations of brants (Branta bernicla), pintails (Anas acuta) and
mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) along the shoreline of the site and in Oak Bay (WDFW 2007). Waterfowl
are also expected to be present along the shoreline of the site during certain times of the year for feeding
and resting during migration. Migratory water fowl, such as ducks, geese and swans, are expected to be
present within the vicinity of the site.
Shorebirds
There are documented shorebird concentrations of dunlins (Calidris alpina) and western sandpipers
(Calidris mauri) along the shoreline oft~e site and in Oak Bay (WDFW 2007). Other shorebirds are also
expected to be present along the shoreline of the site during certain times of the year for feeding.
File No, 16338-001-00
March 21,2008
Page 5
GEoENGINEERS g
Rare and Endangered Plants
No current endangered or threatened plants as listed under the ESA are within the section the proposed
development site is locate in as identified on the DNR NHP rare plants list by section (DNR 2006).
I
I
SITE VISIT
GeoEngineers performed a site visit on April 29, 2007 to characterize fish and wildlife habitat on and
within the vicinity of the site. The site IS currently undeveloped and does not contain any permanent
structures. The southwestern boundary of the site is bordered by Portage Way and single-family
residences beyond the road. The eastern boundary of the site is also bordered by Portage Way with Oak
Bay located to the east of the road. Oak Bay Park, owned by Jefferson County, borders the site to the
northeast and an estuary associated with Oak Bay borders the northern boundary of the site. The
shoreline is located on the northwestern boundary of the site and is comprised of a stable natural berm.
The wetland along the shoreline is comprised of marine vegetation and mud. There are no access trails
leading to the shoreline from any portion of the site. Topography on the site is relatively flat with an 8-
foot tall wood chip berm separating Oak Bay Park from the site. Neighboring properties within close
proximity of the site contain natural berms and rock bulkheads. The eastern side of Portage Way located
along Oak Bay Park is lined with an 8- foot rip rap wall.
Vegetation
The 150-foot wide buffer along from the wetland edge of the site contains a large patch of invasive
species and small patches of native vegetation. The invasive species include Himalayan blackberry
(Rubus armeniacus), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica) and teasel
(Dipsacusfullonum). The native vegetation was primarily composed of red alder (Alnus rubra), Hooker's
willow (Salbe hookeriana), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) and nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) along
the western shoreline and miscellaneous. grasses in the eastern portion of the site. There has been no
clearing or preparation of the ground for. construction. Vegetation to the southwest of the site along the
shoreline consisted of a small group of mature Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees with a scrub
shrub layer consisting of Hooker's willow, oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), thimbleberry (Rubus
parviflorus) and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa). The marine wetland edge of the site is comprised
of marine plant species including seashore saltgrass (Distich lis spicata), fleshy jamea (Jamea carnosa),
pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima). Additional site
photographs depicting the site and surrounding land use are located in Appendix A.
Wildlife Species Use
Vegetation is a major factor in the distribution of wildlife. Plants provide food and shelter against
predators and weather, as well as sites for nesting, resting, perching and breeding (Leedy et al. 1984).
Due to the disturbed nature of the site, abundance of invasive plant species and the surrounding land use,
the site is assumed to not support a variety and abundance of wildlife species. During the site visit,
American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) were observed perching on fence posts located on site.
Migratory waterfowl were noted within the vicinity of the site and tracks were observed along the wetland
edge. Possible habitat for reptile and amphibian species was also observed to be present in the buffer.
Due to the condition of the buffer, wildlife utilization is expected to be relatively low and not very
diverse. The seasonal and often secretive habits of many fish and wildlife species make it difficult to
confirm habitat use with just one site survey. Therefore, not all wildlife species that utilize the site could
be verified by direct observations or signs (tracks, nests, etc) and species utilization ofthe area is referred
to the documented presence within the literature as described above in the PHS.
File No, 16338-001-00
March 21, 2008
Page 6
GEoENGINEER~
DISCUSSION
PROPOSED PROJECT
A new single-family residence will be built at the site in accordance with current Jefferson County
development codes. The proposed residence will be located in the southeastern comer of the site to
reduce buffer impacts to the greatest extent possible. The site will be landscaped with natural vegetation
to provide wildlife habitat and improve water quality of stormwater.
i
Currently, the 150-foot wetland buffer eitends across the entire site. Draft plans for the site have been
developed using buffer reduction to reduce portions of the buffer to 65 feet with a five foot sideyard
setback. After construction, the buffer will be revegetated and enhanced to provide greater function than
the original buffer. Buffers from the southern and eastern shoreline on Oak Bay do not extend past
Portage Way, therefore they do not impose any restrictions on the site from that direction. The following
sections outline the plan for buffer enhancement and includes a description and plan explaining how the
reduced buffer would provide equal or better protection than the larger buffer.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION! MEASURES
The following section addresses specific mitigation measures for potential impacts that may occur as a
result of the proposed development project.
Water Quality
An inlet of Oak Bay borders the site to the northeast. The southeastern quarter of the site will be
disturbed from the proposed development. The water quality in the immediate vicinity of the shoreline
could potentially be impacted from sediIT/.ent releases from the site during precipitation events or spills.
The installation and maintenance of sllt fences along the shoreline during construction represent
acceptable mitigation measures for potential surface erosion. Additional water quality treatment could
consist of the use of sub-surface dispersal trenches for runoff from impervious surfaces following
construction. Native vegetation will be planted along the shoreline and throughout the remaining buffer
area to reduce the occurrence of erosion and improve water quality leaving the site.
Noise Quality
Construction activities associated with the proposed development are not expected to have significant
noise impacts on the environment around the site. This area is a moderately developed area and existing
traffic and noise levels from traffic and maritime vessels are above normal. However, conservation
measures will be used to reduce noise impacts to wildlife and neighbors. The use of heavy machinery
will be minimized and consolidated as much as possible. An attempt will also be made to organize work
requiring heavy machinery into single events. Construction activities will also be limited to normal (8
AM to 5PM) working hours.
Construction Activities Impacts
The construction of new buildings typik::ally will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on a
property. Impermeable surfaces, such as roads, rooftops and driveways, cause additional rain to run off at
accelerated rates and less water to infiltrate back into the soil (Leedy and Adams 1984). To prevent
increased erosion and impacts to water quality, runoff from the building and other impervious surfaces
may require a storm water management plan that diverts this runoff away from the ground surface and
back into the ground.
File No, 16338-001-00
March 21,2008
Page 7
GEoENGINEE~
APR
Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be adhered to throughout the project. Appropriate erosion
control devices, such as silt fencing, mulch berms, and erosion control matting should be used if needed '.
during all aspects of the project to mitigat~ potential erosion and runoff. Heavy machinery usage shall be
consolidated into the shortest time periods allowable. GeoEngineers also recommends that construction
staging be confined to discrete areas of the site to minimize disturbance to surrounding fish and wildlife
and their habitat. No construction debris or supplies should be placed in or along the edge of the buffer.
Posting buffer signs would serve as an indicator of restricted areas where construction activities would
need to be avoided.
Coinciding with, or immediately subsequent to the completion of the construction work, the restoration
and stabilization of bare ground should occur. Restoration and stabilization activities include the
application of a native seed mix and landscape stabilization of any cut and filled areas using native plant
speCIes.
OccupaOonallmpacts
During the occupational phase of the project, residents should be made aware of the responsibility
associated with living in close proximity to a shoreline environment. Soil or yard waste must not be
dumped anywhere within the shoreline buffer so that it may enter the water. To prevent increased erosion
and impacts to water quality, runoff from buildings and other impervious surfaces should be directed to
sub-surface trenching that diverts direct runoff away from the ground surface and back into the ground.
The occupants of the residence should also promote landscaping with native species. Landscaping
characteristics should be built around existing wildlife habitat features such as trees and shrubs.
Landscaping around the construction zone should be compatible and blend with the native buffer. Bird
boxes should be built or purchased and placed on the property to promote avian wildlife. Bird boxes can
be built and placed on live trees according to the bird species requirements that may be most likely to
utilize habitat at the site.
Species Habitat Quality
Due to the disturbed nature of the site, wildlife use is not expected to occur on a regular basis. Animal
species that dependent upon small and discreet habitats, such as small rodents and amphibians, may be
displaced during construction activities. However, once the project is complete, sufficient habitat will be
created for use by many of these species.
Existing invasive vegetation (Himalayan ~lackberry, poison hemlock and stinging nettle) will be removed
from the site and replaced with natural vegetation to promote wildlife usage and to improve water quality.
Several young native species including red alder, Hooker's willow, Nootka rose and Indian plum are
present along the shoreline of the site. Himalayan blackberry has grown around these plants stunting their
growth. These plants will be saved duriqg invasive species removal. Included below is a table (Table l)
that identifies native plant species to be used in the mitigation planting plan. Appendix C - Buffer
Enhancement Plan and Planting Specifications is the planting plan that identifies the locations of the
proposed plant species, planting specifications and schematic, as well as text to identify the ecological
characteristic of each species.
File No, 16338-001-00
March 21,2008
Page 8
GEOENGINEERS .0
Table 1. Native Vegetation Proposed for Mitigation Planting
Common Scientific On-Center Estimated
Name Name Spacing (feet) Size Number
Douglas fir Pseudotsuga: 12 1 gallon 31
men!iesii -L_ ... .m........_..... . . ............ ....... Iw
Hooker's willow Salix hookeriana 6 1 gallon 43
_._---_.~----~--_._---
Thimbleberry Rubus 6 1 gallon 74
parviflorus
-------- ......
Nootka Rose Rosa nutkana 6 1 gallon 43
... . ............h .... ...,,"~...." . .............. 1m
Oceanspray H%discus 6 1 gallon 43
disc%r
Red elderberry Sambucus 12 1 gallon 8
racemosa
-.
Indian plum Oem/eria 6 1 gallon 44
cerasiformis
m.........H..m....u......M.".~',.n...... ~,,,.,,...~.....H....
Sword fern Po/ystichum 3 Plugs 200
munitum
----....--,..----.-------
Dune grass E/ymus mollis 3 Plugs 307
Plants will be installed according to specifications outlined in Appendix C. A Mulch ring will be placed
around the drip line of each plant and soils will be amended if needed. Large woody debris present on
site will be retained for use along the edge of the marine wetland to add habitat for birds, small mammals,
reptiles and amphibians. Two large logs will be placed along the edge of the natural berm for habitat and
also serve as a kayak launch. A trail approximately five feet wide leading to the shoreline will be
constructed using wood chips and native grasses to minimize the amount of bare ground exposed. Plants
will be placed along the trail edge and the path will resemble a sinusoidal pattern rather than a straight
line to the shoreline. This will decrease the rate of flow of storm water on the path and lessen the break in
habitat to the shoreline. Bird boxes will be installed on existing trees and/or on individual pedestals
installed within the enhanced buffer. The Site Development Plan in Appendix B illustrates the proposed
location of bird boxes. Bird box specifications should follow guidelines established by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife located at their website http://wdfw,wa,gov/wlm/backyard/nest-
mat design.htm and the attached publication Nest Boxes for Birds in the WDFW Urban Wildlife Series
(Appendix F).
TIMING OF PROPOSED MITIGATION PLANTING
The above-recommended planting activities should occur after all construction activities are complete and
be timed as follows:
1. Clear invasive species and removal of debris.
2. Conduct the supplemental planting in conjunction with the clearing and removal of debris. This
will minimize re-growth of invasive species prior to planting newly opened or cleared areas.
Ideally, planting should be conducted in the early spring or late fall during the dormant season.
3. Irrigate newly planted areas during the first summer if conditions are particularly dry.
4. Conduct regular monitoring as described below.
File No, 16338-001-00
March 21, 2008
Page 9
I
I
MONITORING PROGRAM OF PROPOs~D MITIGATION PLANTING
The success of the proposed mitigation planting project will be judged using a set of performance
standards. An as-built report will be developed and submitted to the County within 30 days of plant
installation by someone with expertise in native plants. Monitoring of the newly planted buffer area will
be conducted by an individual with native plant expertise and will occur every year for three years after
installation (for a total of three monitoring events) to determine whether the performance standards are
being achieved. Yearly Monitoring reports will be prepared and submitted to the county by October 31 of
each monitoring year.
GeoEngineers developed several performance standards based upon the specific goals of this project and
the conditions of this site (Table 2). The term "recruitment" as used below refers to the establishment of
new individuals of a particular species. The recruitment of native species within the newly established
buffer area will be recorded but does not have a quantitative goal.
Table 2. Performance Standards for Proposed Mitigation Planting
Element Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Presence of invasive, exotic, and undesirable species 10% 10% 10%
(maximum percent cover)
- -- --.- --- -_.-_.-_.- _._-,--_._----~---._.._---~---_._- ___" ____~____~_____..___.___...__._._____.___".._."._..m_..__,_u__.... ----_.------_._-_._",.._._...__..~_.-._--.--- u._ .......n.............._...
Survival or recruitment of shrub species (minimum percent cover) 90% 80% 80%
_____m_m__m______.___.._______.___________.___~_._____...______~._._______..._______.___,_~____.____.___..__.__.,____
Survival or recruitment of planted woody vegetation (minimum percent) 100% 80% 80%
A biologist or the property owner should implement the following monitoring strategy to assess the
performance of the newly enhanced buffer area.
. Immediately after planting, two monitoring stations should be established and baseline data will
be recorded in the form of an as-built report. A complete photograph record should also be
collected. Photographs should be taken from the center of each monitoring station looking in all
four cardinal directions.
. At approximately the same time of year during the growing season, the following data should be
collected at each monitoring station:
.
Percent cover for both invasive species and other shrub species (grouped together). These
cover values should be estimated using a standard transect or point-method technique (using
an estimate of percent cover within an 10.8-foot radius circle,
Number of live woody individuals,
Presence of bird and other wildlife,
Photos of the buffer in each of the four directions.
.
.
.
. During each monitoring event, other observations about soil condition, the presence of debris, and
other notes about the general condition of the buffer should be recorded.
. The monitoring event should be documented with a brief memo-style report that summarizes the
condition of the buffer with respect to the above performance standards. Any recommendations
that would help improve the conqition of the buffer should also be noted.
APR - 3 2008
File No. 16338-001-00
March 21, 2008
Page 10
GEOENGINEE~'p.;
CONTINGENCY PLAN
There are many circumstances that can contribute to vegetation failure, such as inadequate irrigation,
inappropriate soil chemistry, poor soil structure, improper planting techniques, or disease. Use of a
regular and thorough monitoring protocol, such as the one described above, will help decrease the extent
to which these circumstances will cause irreparable harm. If any monitoring event reveals that the
performance standards are not being met, actions such as irrigation, selective replanting, or removal of
invasive species should be taken. In some cases, a biologist or Jefferson County personnel may suggest
alternate species for re-planting.
CONCLUSIONS
This HMP describes the current conditions of the property, the possible fish and wildlife use based upon
current habitat characteristics and documentation, and minimizing impacts to the environment through
conservations measures during construction and in the design of the sites. Key features of the mitigation
plan are summarized below:
. Enhancing and maintaining wildlife features by maintaining existing native vegetation and
installing bird boxes on trees and pedestals;
. Conducting the use of heavy machinery in one phase and stabilizing and replanting cut and fill
areas coincidentally or immediately following construction;
. Preservation of native vegetated areas through avoidance and enhancement activities;
. Enhancing and restoring the native shoreline vegetation along the shoreline;
. Enhancement of shoreline buffer through removal of invasive, diseased, or undesirable species
and replanting with native species.
By following BMPs and environmental awareness during the construction and occupation phases, and
implementing listed mitigation measures, there should be limited impacts to the fish and wildlife and
water quality of the Puget Sound and in the immediate vicinity of the site. If implemented as listed above
and followed accordingly, the reduced buffer would provide equal or better protection than the larger
buffer.
LIMITATIONS
GeoEngineers has developed this Habitat Management Plan for the property located at 181 Portage Way
owned by Fred Nason in general accordance with the scope and limitations of our proposal dated April 3,
2007. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in
accordance with the generally accepted practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. No
warranty or other conditions express or implied should be understood.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Fred Nason and his authorized agents and
regulatory agencies following the described methods and information available at the time of the work.
No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in
writing. The information contained herein should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one
originally contemplated. .
The applicant is advised to contact all appropriate regulatory agencies (local, state, and federal) prior to
design or construction of any development to obtain necessary permits and appro~als...
\
. \
File No. 16338-001-00
March 21, 2008
Page 11
REFERENCES
70 FR 52630-52853. 2005.50 CFR Part 226. Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical
Habitat for 12 Evolutionary Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in
Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 170.
70 FR 56212-56311. 2005. 50 CFR Part 17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatenend
and Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout. Federal Register, Vol. 70,
No. 185.
72 FR 26722-26735. 2007. 50 CFR Part 223. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Endangered and Threatened Sp~cies: Final Listing Determination for Puget Sound Steelhead.
Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 91.
Desbonnet, A., P. Pogue, V. Lee, and N. Wolff. 1994. Vegetated Buffers in the Coastal Zone: A Summary
Review and Bibliography. Coastal Resources Center, Rhode Island Sea Grant, University of
Rhode Island. 71 pp.
Google Earth. 2007. Google Earth Beta v4.0.2722. @2007 Navteq, Image @2007 DigitalGlobe and
@2007 Teleatlas. (Accessed April 25, 2007)
Jefferson County. 2007. jMAP-EnvironIQentally Sensitive Areas.
http://maos.co.iefferson.wa.us/W~bsite/mspub/viewer.htm ?mapset=temo esa
(Accessed April 25, 2007)
Leedy, D. L. and L. W. Adams. 1984. A Guide to Urban Wildlife Management: National Institute for
Urban Wildlife, Columbia, Maryland.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. ESA-Status of West Coast Salmon and
Steelhead.
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA- Salmon-Listings/Salmon- Pooulations/lndex.cfm
(Accessed April 25, 2007)
Pojar, J. and MacKinnon, A., et al. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast Washington, Oregon,
British Columbia and Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing, Canada.
,
United States Department of Agriculture! 1975. Soil Survey ofJefferson County Area, Washington.
United States Department of Agriculture. 2001. Hydric soils list: Jefferson County Area, Washington.
http://www . wa.nrcs. usda.gov/technicallsoilslhvdric listslhvdsoil- wa-63 l.pdf
(Accessed April 25, 2007)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper.
h tto:/ /wetlandsfws.er. usgs. gOY /wtlnds/launch .html
(Accessed April 25, 2007)
APH - 3 2008
> ,nii;Y
File No. 16338-001-00
March 21,2008
Page 12
GEoENGINEER~... .. ..' --
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species
and Critical Habitat; Candidate Species; and Species of Concern in Western Washington as
Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office.
Jefferson County. Revised December 20,2005.
http://www.fws.gov/westwafwo/se/SEListlJEFFERSO.htm
(Accessed April 25, 2007)
United States Geological Survey. 1991. Nordland, Washington; 1 :24000, 7.5-minute quadrangle.
United States Geological Survey. 1990. Aerial photograph. Available online at:
http://www.terraserverusa.com
(Accessed April 25, 2007)
Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife. 2003. SalmonScape.
http://wdfw . wa. gov/mapping/salmonscape/index .html
(Accessed April 25, 2007)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2007. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife-
Habitats and Species Map in the Vicinity ofT29ROlE Section 7. April 24, 2007.
I
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Sections that Contain Natural Heritage Features.
Data Current as of August 1,2006.
http://www .dur. wa. gov/nhp/ contact/wnhptrs. pdf
(Accessed April 25, 2007)
- j
File No. 16338-001-00
March 21, 2008
Page 13
GEoENGINEERS .,g
'I
-"'-Fer.ry~St--Fe rry,St
St .*
\ ~
..)_-.1
~
~
13
'1
I
II
I
l-~\
,./f I!
\1 \
W
\ (/l
i ....
~ -g
I \
\"'~'e~~::~~'~::~~~",\
(5(9~ "">,
J? O"'~. '\
'". ~~
\
~d,w1
~C\a.\\af{\' I,
...~,~~'! '\
/' II. \,
I ok. I
~ i !
,..,..~ 1:1. ~
~ 't., ~.
EE "....
co " Q)
~ '&,-g
<:5 \, <t;
\'" wi
( '\
I I,
'1
"'C \
o;.!
~ \,
Q) ...
"'C .,
r:: \
'I)(/l . <( <9~1'l
'iJ1)",SI. ) 0~.
'iJ1)(j,.'/;"e. ,l ~O'.~.
'I'ty"/fc/ w........'S,
__.-_L.::_).....,...~,~,...,'"" "~~~O"~,"-,......____
@ -----.-----.--.....
~ ,
~~ '\
" ""~'~q ,~~..
'9/er I?(/.fb-c;'/
MW_'-._~---.-F-lagler_Rd.'''-''_~_<9.:t>\~
0'11".....""_
"
$:;,
\
II,
~.~~~
'"
o
o
N
~
>-
llJ
~
;;;
~
'>
Q)
0:::
a.
llJ
~
"'C
><
E
ci.
llJ
~
Z'
'c
'0
:>
en
52
o
9
o
o
co
C"')
(t)
~
~
Ii
.c
m
CL
Notes:
1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.
2. This drawing is for infomation purposes. It is intehded to
assist in showing features discussed in an attached~
document. GeoEngineers, Inc. can not guarantee t e
accuracy and content of electronic files. The maste file .
is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as th
official record oth this communication.
N
2,000 0 2,000 .
I I W E
Feet S
Vicinity Map
181 Portage Way HMP
Port Hadlock, Washington
GEoENGINEERS Q
Figure 1
"C
X
E
ci.
to
~
~
z
en
(;
6
9
o
e
co
('f)
('f)
~
~ Notes: . o~ -. .-~_.;
~ 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. _' : -, t\81 Po rtage Way H M P
~ 2. ~hi~ drawin~ is for infom~tion purp?ses. ~1~Ts'i~til~d~d tQ.: A ____ :p6rt Hadlock Washington
0... assist In showmg features discussed In an attache" " ---." ~~- ..-- . \ l I 1 r '
document. GeoEngineers, Inc. can not guar~pt~y ~ e , ~ I 1 ~ I CJ
~ccuracy and contenot of electronic file~. The ~~st~r file. 3 c"O ~tN' fJr-1 NEE R Sr= rJ J Fig re 2
IS ~t?red by GeoEn~lneers, Inc: a~d will serve:as t~e APR ~ ~_c.~'''fI ~ U
official record oth this communication. .'~ ...\ j ---4------------------ -----------
Site Boundary
Wetlands
500
I
500
I
~
WWE
S
l"-
e
e
N
..,f
>.
to
~
i:i
~
.;
Q)
Q:::
a.
to
~
Feet
NWI Map
_.~;;~~:~\~EJ
Td - Tidal Marsh
Co - Coastal Beaches
Bk - Belfast silt loam
CIC - Cathcart gravelly silt loam
HuC - Hoypus gravelly loamy sand
HvC - Hoypus gravelly sandy loam
TuC - Tukey gravelly loam rr"'"'' "".- .--
~ ::C - Whidbey gravelly SandYIOa~r~) ..
1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. ;; ~ - '\
2. This drawing is for infomation purposes. It is intended to \
assist in showing features discussed in an attached I.
document. GeoEngineers, Inc. can not guarantee the
accuracy and content of electronic files.
~
C3
Site
Soi Is
500
I
o
500
I
Feet
Soils Map
.~""-~'-".'.<~T~~'1~~1 Portage Way HMP
!Pq~f Hadlock, Washington
.......--, -~r !:1
APR
~~O~,\~IN_EE~S ~
"ITY Of\lELOP\\~ENT
.:_...:~~.-~~~#<"t.--.....w~
~
WWE
S
Figure 3
GeoENG1NEERS .CJ
ApPENDIX A
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
liinliilliilllllllllmliinliilllllilll!ll!!lIIi11l!lIIiillllli!lIIlIlI!millIilUilllIllI!IIliiml!lml!lll!lIl!lllllllllmlllimllllilill!li1I!1!lIm~lIml!liIlI!lllll!llmmlmlllmmmnlllil!liIl11mllllillllmllllilml!llllnllmlil!llil!mmmml!lililllliiHliiilll!l!Iil!lIIil1!11!IiIIliIIllIllII!lilUlIlIIlIIlilIiI!lIl!l!I!lIIl1immlilllllllililllllilll!ilillilllllilillll!!llIill!!lililiiHlIlI!I!!lIIl1ll!llililimlHilHlHililIlHli!ll!lHlllillllllHlIIlllilllHiiIIliililllll!flilliili!lllliHliillillliiHiilllliiillliHiIIllll:miillliiHiliililliiHlI!llilililililillllliHllilllllllillilllili!iHlillilHnlHil!lllllil!llHmmillilllllil!!illlHiI!lili!llllllllIIlllllIllliil!iilIHillill
, t.
APPENDIX A
SI E PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 1 I
Himalayan blackberry in the center of site looking orth
Photograph 3
Wood chip berm with poison hemlock on the northern portion of
the site
File No. 16338-001-00
December 14,2007
Photograph 2
Western shoreline of the site look~ng southwest
Photograph 4
Mature vegetation to the west of the site
Page A-I
I
APR - 3 2008 I
i
I
-",-.,...",=..... I
j".~ 0" 011 ~""rdT J
'';LL ,Nit "\I
GeoENGlflt.F.-ris:,V)-"--
I (
Photograph 5
Eastern portion of the site looking south
Photograph 7
Shoreline use to the west of the site
File No. 16338-001-00
December 14,2007
Photograph 6
Portage Way looking south along the eastern edge of the site
Photograph 8
Brant concentration north of the site near Portage Canal
Page A-2
APR - 3 2008 \
I
\
; i-,('IV)ENT J
GEOENGINEE-it'S:O-----