HomeMy WebLinkAboutWetland Mitigation 601105001 (2)
. "
(go lloboe l
1$LQ () ~ - Co 1-2- N,LA C~___l.<L':1 ~<
Wiltermood
Associ~tes, Inc.
DEe 2 3 2008
December 18, 2008
Koko Cronin
Seattle District, Regulatory Branch
US Army Corps.. of Engineers
PO Box 3755
Seattle, WA 98124-3755
Re: Wetland Mitigation Plan, Year Two Monitoring Report for the Horizon
Holdings Property at 345 Blueberry.Hill Drive, Quilcene, Jefferson County,
Washington. (COE Reference No. 2(0600736) .
Dear Koko:
This letter has been prepared to document end of Year Two 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 pl~ 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 December 2006. Photos were taken from the s(),me
locations as the photos included with the as built report and those locations are shown
in the Year Two Monitoring Results drawing.
Mitigation Plan Overview
The mitigation plan dated 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 fromtbe impactedwetland
to provide large woody debris to the wetland for use by local wildlife species. Buffer
impacts were necessary to facilitate driveway construction and involved 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 ;;lnd 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. clumps with scattered western red
cedar trees. The mitigation plan specified that the buffer be planted with vine maple,
1015 S.W Harper Road, Port Orchard, Washington 98367 (360) 876-2403 Fax (360) 876-2053
o
...
Cronin/Horizon Holdings-Year Two Monitoring
December 18, 2008
Page 2
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 creat;ed 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 twiJiberry 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 appropnate substitution 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 mstallation 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 twin berries were both installed in the western buffer next to the
driveway (see as built drawing).
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
CroninIHorizon Holdings-Year Two Monitoring
December 18,2008
Page 3
reduced to 1;2 and omitted frolll 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 alongtbe 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 five
monitoring 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 instead specified.determinihgthe performance standards in the entire
mitigation area. This monitoring plan is being followed but planted areas have been
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
CroninIHorizon Holdings- Year Two Monitoring
December 18, 2008
Page 4
monitoring. Photos will be taken from each of nine established photo stations in each
Monitoring Area 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 withip. 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 will take place at the end of the growing season and the second monitoring
visit was made on October 1, 2008. A report complete with photos of each mitigation
site will be submitted to the US Army Corps of Engineers by October 31st, 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.
Year Two 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 first and second growing seasons.
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
CroninIHorizon Holdings-Year Two Monitoring
December 18,2008
Page 5
. mitigation areas will be monitored in their entirety because the mitigation areas are
relatively sIIlall in area ;;tnd 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 builtlyeartwo 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 monitoring 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 S~ations 3, 4, 8and9 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. Hardhack was
removed. as. part of the maintenan<.;e process during the frrstgrowing season but little
of the hardhack was removed in 2008. Native vegetation inMonitoringArea 1 also
includes salal, Douglas frr, Western red cedar, hemlock, redhuckleberiyandtrailing
blackberry. This area was planted with 6Odeciduous plants that included 12 Pacific
ninebarks, 24 vine maples and 24 cascaras (installedJor Scouler'swillow). No
western'red cedars were installed because removal of hardhack revealed. at least 2
dozen young western red cedar and Douglasfrr trees. The volunteer cedars and frrs
that were found are being JIlonitored to ensure their growth and survival since no
conifers were actually installed in this area.
At the end of the second growing season, 11 of the 12 ninebarks, 12 of the 24 vine
IIlaples, .19 of the 24 cascaras and 18 of the 24 volunteer cedars were found alive and
well for a survival rate of 75% in Monitoring Area 1. The survival rate is lower than
observed in 2007 and is likely due to fact that the increasing cover by native
voluntee~ made it difficult to find all individuals. The missing individuals may be
found in future monitoring years and an increase in survival rate. is expected when the
live individuals emerge from salal, hardhack and/or sword fern coverage. The
surviving plants did well over the 2008 growing season with many of the cascaras
about 6 feet tall (see photos taken of individual cascara trees) and some of the others
are browsed by deer so remain small in stature. Thevine maples and Pacific
ninebarksremain fairly small in stature because of deer browsing but most are alive
and well so are contributing small amount to the cover within.this area. . Due to the
success of the cascaras and volunteer cedars, it appears that the installed plants cover
about 20% of Mitigation Area 1. This entire area is dominated by native plant species
including Douglas fIr, western hemlock, salal, sword fern, trailing blackberry and
hardhack.
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 1 and 2, which as of
CroninIHorizon Holdings-Year Two Monitoring
December 18,2008
Page 6
October 2008, still show mostly volunteer vegetation cover. This area was planted
with 7 blacktwinberries and 6 tedosier dogwoods and during the October 2008
monitoring visit, all 6 dogwoods were found butonly 4 of the 7 twinberries were
found for a survival rate in this area of77%. It is assumed that some of the existing
native vegetation was making it difficult to find the two missing twinberries and they
could be alive and well because twinberry is 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 7 to 10% 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 October 2008 photos show mostly native
vegetation (red alder and sword fern) with none of the installed plants visible. Eleven
of the 12 western red cedars that were installed in this area were found. alive and . well
during the fall 2008 monitoring visit fora survival rate of 92%. The plants remain
fairly small and took some real diligence to locate them that included removing. some
overgrowth of sword. fern. and other native. 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 feet tall although a few of them are about 3 feettall.
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 ~eas are dominated by.slough sedge as
documented in Photo Station 7 photos. 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 placel1lent of woody debris in the
proposed planting area. All 6 ted.osier dogwoods and all 6 black twinberries.were
found alive and well in 2008 for a survival rate of 100%. The. plants have grown
slightly and appear to cover about 10% of the area in which they were installed. This
area remains dominated by western red cedar, western crabapple and slough sedge.
Monitoring Performance Standards
In general, the October 2008 monitoring visit revealed that most of the plants survived
the second 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 survival rate ranges from 75% in Monitoring Area 1 to 100% in
Monitoring Area 4. The average survival rate is 77% (93 live plants out of an original
121 plants) and does not currently meet the required survival rate performance
standard of at least 90% plant survival. The plant count only revealed about 7 dead
individuals and the remainder of the plants could not be found. They were counted as
CroninIHorizon Holdings-Year Two Monitoring
December 18, 2008
Page 7
dead butmay be found in upcoming monitoring years as they grow up through the
native vegetation cover. The condition of individual plants in these areas is shownin
photos at the back of .the photo station pages section of ~e report The 2008 cover by
installed plants ranges from 10.,20% throughout,the mitigationareas and the year two
percent cover standard is not met. All mitigation areas have at least. 50% cover by
native volunteers and existing vegetation~ The average cover for the installed plants is
about ~3%, which is still undetthe year two standard.
. Maintenance Plan
The main goal of the maintenance plan isto 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 orev~rgreen blackberry, reed canary 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 species have achieved the prescribed growth status weed removal may no
longer been needed. Hardhack was not removed during the 2008 growing season
because it was overlooked but it does not appear to be affecting the growth of the
installed plants nor does it obscure any in the photos because most installed plants
remain low in stature and wouldn't be visible if all hardhack was removed. Most of
the buffer is dominated bysalal, sword fern and trailing blackberry and there is very
little invasive cover (blackberry, reed canarygrass etc.) that will affect the growth of
the installed plants.
Watering of the planted species is necessary at least one time per week during the
summer months to ensure plant survival. Wateringis typically required during the
first two or three years by which time the plants should become acclimated and may
no longer need manual watering. While I cannotsay for sure, it does not appear that
the installed plants were watered over the 2008 growing season and may no longer be
necessary in the future as the live plants have acclimated. Some of the dead
individuals may recover and eventually improve the survival rate and percent cover of
the planted areas.
This concludes the Horizon Holdings Wetland and Buffer Mitigation Plan Year Two
Monitoring Report, which is the second 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 wen in each monitoring area but that some
CroninIHorizon Holdings- Year Two Monitoring
December 18,2008
Page 8
missing and dead individuals in Monitoring Areas 1 and 2 resulted in a survival rate of
75 and 77%, respectively, so the 90% survival rate standard is not met in those areas.
The survival rate standard is met in Monitoring areas 3 and 4 where there is 92% aIld
100% survival respectively. The averagesurvivalrate is 77%, which is well under the
required 90% survival rate. The missing plants are assumed alive but not found
because of existing vegetation cover and if they are found in 2009, there could bean
increase in survival rate. Percent cover by the installed plants ranges from 10-20%
with the year t\Vo percent cover standard not met in any of the monitoring' areas. 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 2009 and the monitoring
reportwill be submitted by November 30,2009. Additional monitoring is required in
2009 (year three) and 2011 (year 5)
If there are any questions concerning the restorationplan or the year two monitoring
report, please feel free to contact me at (360) 876-2403.
Sincerely,
-.do 1L10rLL ---:jSm;:{ l w{
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
..,
i ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
:1 ~ I ~ i
~... I g, t: t: ~
n~~I~:t:;1
"'~~l!iml'fa~1
I~ i I ~ s ~ , ~ ~
II ~ ~ ; ! 1 ! I'" i
~II ~ I i I ~
I~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I !
I i ~ ~ ; ; ~ ~ ii
. ~g =- iii ; l!J l!J l!J l!J :Ii
~ b!; Iii i ij...
o ,,;~ I!I": ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<: ~i III ~ Ii! Ii! Ii! Ii! ~~
~
110I
Z It:
o ~
~ ~
v. ii2
e e
o Z
:E: 0
0.. :s
en ~
0.. :s
@
.".
<[
~
<[
~
l!J
b
l!i :0:
8 Ii i
J ~l!J i I
~ ;~ ~Ii! !
I ~~ ~R ~
I!! Ii!~~!l! ~
~ i~ ati~ ~ i
fi) ~~ !I~ ~ i
~ il ~HI
I ~~ i.l ~ ~
~ m~ "'~~ a ~
I :ll!s h~ l!J"
(0 Iii ~
... !~ !i~ II
~I ~~ ~ i ! i
~(1V.~O
I
I
,
\\\\
'" R R
... '" !oJ
l ~ ~
=> => =>
d d d
A",~Il:l l:l l:l
_ ;0;0;0
. . .
-J
~I =
II
3
of>
Cl Cl
l;i ~~
:; ~ ~ II ~
t- i -:; II E
Z -J t a./!
<Ii uzc .L li III
it '" U H !
C Lite
~ Ii J f 8
5
j:Q
If)
<[
~
>< a
! ~
!l' ...!J! 8
i ~!i! 15
! ~ l;;
I !oJ I!; a
Z U R
: > f III
!I
!I it
C III U
-J -J
C C
'" '"
N N
~ ~
R R
l l
=> =>
-J -J
U U
U U
a a
;0 ;0
. .
z
>
~
~ ~
of>
~l
z !!
.. X
:E ...
~ ~
'" '"
N N
Cl
e -:;
.!! b
.s; 3
r l
il J;
~ C
~J.!
Cl c
~ .3
Cl Cl
of> of>
Cl Cl
J.! J.!
aa
ii
.... ....
~
a >-
% Il!:
~ 15
g ~
III :;
C ....
Il!:
C ..
l;l ~
('5 if
II
~ ~
R fl
II! Il!:
~ ~
... ...
> >
R !oJ
!If !If
. C')
N _
N .
_ N
.
C
:E
(')
C
:E
'"
l-
S N
'" 4:
W :E
IX
L:l
Z .
......... N N
IX _ ..... ~
..... - N:::~
i=:E -
-
z
c
~
<Xl
c
c
(\J
l'l
o
I ~
w fl 8
:E IAJ Z
4: .J.... 01:
Z !Ii Z IAJ
Z :E U ;:;
o i: c
I ~ 0 l'l
B :>: ~
~I
y. 4: III U l'l IAJ
\II
.....
\II
\II
.....
\II
Z
01:
o >-
:t: ll!:
t- ll!:
~ It!
:=> Z
j:Q ....
>
4: t-
01:
4: llI(
~ ~
4: .J
U III
.
~
...
CD
5!
..~~1
8-8.
%xzN
fIIi~'"
~2il
,I ~l.
II ~I
, fIJ.
!. <.
Iii "81
I OJ
II j!
I ii'l
~
i
I
..
~.
I.
!!
\I)
.....
\I)
N
o >:
S S
N
S i\1 ~
_ CJ'I_
.....
.
N
~ ~
..... .....
.
N
.....
~
.
~ N N
~ ~ 2
ll!:
~
~ W 01:
t- w
f}~f;
ll!: .J U
~ ~!z
~ :> ~
'" II: II:
W :=> W
> '" CL
*
I
I I ~
I~ ~ rJ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ 2 ~
~... I 9 i ~ ~ I
Ii ~ I~ ~ = ~ P
~~i ~!'f2~~
~~ ~ : i ~ ! l ~
Ii b i ~ I I : I ~
~~ I t Iii ~
i: I ~I ! U n i~
~~ ; ~ b b b b i!
~ it" w ; Iii i i ~~
O:SI!l:!( ~~~~~
<: l!i III l!S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i
<
LLI
Z Ill:
o <
i= c
~ Z
en ii2
o e
~ z
~ 0
a.. :IE
en <
a.. :IE
@
v
<[
~
b
II
; d i
I ~b I I
i il ~~ I
I ~~ ~I i
! i;;11 h
~ l!!iS bb ~ ~
I _I u~ i I
, i~ III I ~
~ ib i~1 b ~
D l>1:l ll>8ii ~
I" !i !~~ ! I
~I ~i ~b ! i
'"
...
lL
:E
3
u
~I u
f ~
'" .
~I ~
,
$ ..
t;; 9- Ii
J i !i u i
t-% 'l;!1S
Z..J .&0....
<I: C ~ ~ It
...I Y u U It
ll.~ La~
1-1=; "1'11
;::! /ill :.! lL U
::)
P'l
II)
<I:
~
~ ~
w ~ ~
~ ~!l lit:
z ~ ...
Z :E ~ i!l
i ~ i3 '"
B :> f ~
~I
~. c '" U
!I :i ~ !:l
R R '" '"
l&I I&J W I.aI
i:i: ii
dd dd z
>
l:l l:l l:l l:l !i!
'"
'"
c
. .
. .
. .
. I
..J ..J
C C
l:I l:I
N N
~ ~ ill
l:I l:I !i
N N :E
..
! ~
~ L
~ ~
:) > $
0..& ..
.Y
a.
..
'1
...
~ f
~ 11
.. c:
~ .3
~ >- I
t! l:i
g! lj
'" - lit:
~ i!
~ ~ ~
(5 iiI ~
"'... !If
:i!:l ~
:.
II!
f
..,.
<[
:E
(')
<[
:E
Co')
I-
.J
:::>
Co') <[
LrJ :E
~
l:I
25... ~ N
!Xc <[ ;:::... ~
I- :E 2:!
....
z
c
~
I'
o
o
N
'"
c
:.: c
~ ~
wille
:E w ~ '"
~ ~ 2: eJ
z ~ ~ &;
i w Lo.. C
! i!i ~ l;'l
(,J > ll. oe
~I
~. < III (,J '" w
\II
......
\II
\II
.....
\II
=1
~ " ~II
= I g.
:c ~ ~.
0:0;1 I'l -01
8~8if Ii gl
:~~, II ~I
~2~1 ! =!
~i
~
i
I
..
-.
I.
!j
\II
.....
\II
N
gx
... ,...
N
, ~ N
N 0 0
... ......
,...
.....
In
N
N ,...
(') I
CD III
..,.
N
.....
N
N
..,.
N
~ ~ N
aJ CD!2
z
oe
!.E i'i
8 ~
;:) Z
III :;
<[ I-
oe
<[ :.:
(,J (,J
~ :5
(,J III
oe
<
'"
w
(,J W Q(
l- W
l;'l ~ ~
Q( ..J U
~ ~!Z
~ 5: tf
10') Q( Q(
W :J W
> '" 0.
*
DABOB BAY
BLUEBERRY Hill DRIVE
PURPOSE: CONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY
ACROSS NORTH END OF WETLAND
LATITUDE: 47.7591
LONGITUDE: -122,78517
SW 1/4 SEe 10 r 2G N R L WWM
()
o
-<.
M
?J
o
b
SR 1 04
\.f)
o
IDGEHA VEN
HOOD CANAL
SITE
GIW'HIC lICAU
50 0 so 100 200
10- L.....--'" I
(.....)
PROPOSED FILL
APPLICANT REFERENCE: 200600736
SITE ADDRESS: 345 BLUEBERRY HILL DR.
QUILCENE, WA
MAILING ADDRESS: K, SHOCK
CAPTAIN COOK, HI 96704
IN: WETLANDS
AT: 345 BLUEBERRY HILL DRt. QUILCENE
COUNTY OF: KITSAP STATE: WA
VICINITY MAP
SHEET ~ OF----L-"
DATE: 7/6/06
HORIZON HOLDINGS/SHOCK WETLAND AND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
MONITORING PHOTO STATION 1
Photo Station # I 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. The 2008 photo shows the area in the same
condition as the previous monitoring photos. The hardhack appears to be expanding across this area of
wetland from the east and the west and wi11likely continue to spread to form a dense thicket from off-site
development.
September 2008
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 2008
September 2007
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 2007 and 2008 photos actually look more northerly than the
January photo so it is not showing the installed vegetation that is visible in the right edge. The cover by
hardhack has expanded and none of the installed plants are visible in this view.
September 2008
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. The existing vegetation continues to expand
in this area that mainly includes hardhack. There are a couple of the installed cascara trees visible in the
middle and right background that are doing well. They are visible as tall individuals with yellowing leaves
and at this time, they are about 6 feet tall.
September 2008
September 2007
January 2007
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 these photos but most were observed alive and well in this area.
They are 2 to 4 feet tall throughout this area.
September 2008
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
2008 growing season.
September 2008
September 2007
January 2007
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 2008 growing
season and all 6 were found alive and well. They grew to heights of 4-5 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. There is also a
dogwood just this side of the cedar branch in the middle.
September 2008
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 these September photos 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. The cedar in the middle of the photo is doing well.
September 2008
September 2007
January 2007
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 I). 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 these photos because of the heavy cover by existing native plants but most
were found alive and well when thoroughly checking through the vegetation cover.
September 2008
September 2007
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 I 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 ofthe existing vegetation cover. The cover by native species in this
area is currently at 100% and the installed plants were intended to increase diversity. The cedar tree on the
right side of the View A photo did well over the 2008 growing season. The trees in the View B photos are also
doing well. An installed cedar tree is visible in the middle of the View C photo that is doing well and is
currently about 5 feet tall. No other installed native plants are visible in these photos.
View A-September 2008
View B-September 2008
View C-September 2008
View B-September 2007
View C-September 2007
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 2008
September 2007
January 2007
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.
Cascara-Eastern Buffer
The cascara trees did well over the 2008 growing season and although they were browsed by deer, many are
upwards of 6 feet tall.
September 2008
September 2007
Ninebark
The ninebarks are slightly browsed by deer and remain small in stature, which made it somewhat difficult to
find all of them during the 2008 monitoring visit.
.~
September 2008
September 2007
Black twinberry- Western Buffer
The black twinberries did well over the 2008 growing season and are about 3 feet tall. They were somewhat
difficult to find among the tall sword ferns dominating the understory of the western buffer.
September 2008
September 2007
Western red cedar-eastern buffer
The cedars in the eastern buffer are doing well and are 4 to 5 feet tall as of October 1, 2008.
September 2008
September 2007
Western red cedar-western buffer
The western red cedars still remain fairly small in stature and all were found growing in the red alder forest in
the western buffer.
September 2008
September 2007
Red osier dogwood
The red osier dogwoods did well over the 2008 growing season and are now 3 to 4 feet tall.
September 2008
September 2007
Vine maple
The vine maples continue to struggle in most areas and are only about 2 feet tall at the end of the second
growmg season.
September 2008
September 2007