HomeMy WebLinkAboutCASP Report
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC
Critical Area
Stewardship Plan (CASP)
November 1st, 2024
Prepared for:
Rob Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC
Regarding:
The access easement to 404 Eaglemount Rd.
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Jefferson County Parcel #
#901193002
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | i
Table of Contents
1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Regulatory Framework 1
1.3 Applicant Information 2
1.4 Project Location 2
1.5 Site Description 3
1.6 Project Description 3
1.7 Construction Details 5
1.8 Action Area 5
2 Habitat Conditions Onsite ....................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Vegetation 7
2.2 Wildlife Observed 7
3 Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs) ....................................................... 7
3.1 State Priority Habitat & Species 7
3.2 National Wetlands Inventory 8
3.3 Migratory Birds 9
3.4 Candidate Species - Monarch Butterfly 10
3.5 Federal ESA-Listed Species & Critical Habitat 11
3.5.1 Marbled Murrelets 11
3.5.2 Yellow-billed Cuckoo 12
3.5.3 Taylor’s Checkerspot 12
4 Effects of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 13
4.1 Direct Effects 13
4.1.1 In-Air Noise 13
4.1.2 Critical Root Zone (CRZ) Disturbance 13
4.1.3 Shading 14
4.2 Indirect Effects 14
4.3 Cumulative Effects 14
4.4 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects 14
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | ii
5 Conservation Measures to Avoid & Minimize Impacts ........................................................ 15
6 Take Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 17
6.1 Determination of Effect 18
7 Mitigation Plan for No Net Loss of Ecological Function ..................................................... 18
7.1 Proposed Mitigation 18
7.2 Mitigation Goals 19
7.3 Mitigation Performance Standards 19
7.4 Site Preparation 20
7.5 Plant Procurement 20
7.6 On Center Dimensions and Area Coverage 20
7.7 Planting Instructions 20
7.8 Inspection and Maintenance Criteria 22
7.9 Planting Plan 23
8 Monitoring & Maintenance................................................................................................... 25
8.1 As-Built Report 25
8.2 Monitoring Schedule 25
8.3 Monitoring Methods 26
8.4 Maintenance 26
8.5 Contingency 27
9 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 27
10 References ............................................................................................................................. 28
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | iii
List of Tables
Table 1. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) & U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Designated Critical Habitat 12
Table 2. Plant List 24
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map 3
Figure 2. Proposed Site Plans 5
Figure 3. MSA 2023 Wetland & Habitat Survey Site Map 7
Figure 4. Priority Habitat & Species Map and Table 9
Figure 5. National Wetland Inventory Map 10
Figure 6. Planting Instructions 23
Figure 7. Planting Plan Design Map 26
Appendices
A. Site Photos
B. Native Plant Sources for the Pacific NW
C. Legal Easement Title Document
D. Engineer’s Slope Stability Calculations
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 1
1 Project Overview
1.1 Purpose
Marine Surveys & Assessments (MSA) was authorized by Onahama LLC (Rob Gruye) to
complete a Critical Areas Stewardship Plan (CASP) to meet Jefferson County code (JCC) criteria
for constructing a bridge across a regulated wetland and its associated buffer. The proposed
bridge is located along an easement that runs through parcel #901193004 (owned by Robert
Mitchell) and is needed in order to have access to parcel #901193002 (owned by Onahama
LLC). These parcels are in unincorporated Jefferson County on the west side of the Eaglemount
Road in Port Townsend, WA. Scans of the legal easement documents can be found in Appendix
C.
This CASP has been prepared in compliance with the Washington State Growth Management Act
(RCW 36.70A.030(5)) and the Jefferson County Critical Areas Code (Chapter 18.22). This report
describes MSA’s findings, including evaluating potential direct and indirect effects of the project
on sensitive habitat and wildlife species that may occur in the project area, potential impacts to
the water quality of nearby waterways, and a proposed native planting plan to meet the
mitigation and monitoring criteria for maintaining ecological function.
A habitat survey and wetland delineation were conducted by MSA Biologist Meg Amos on
November 21, 2022. Weather conditions at the site were overcast, calm and dry with an ambient
temperature of approximately 45°F. A CASP Pre-application meeting was also conducted on site
on August 23, 2023, and was attended by MSA Biologist Jill Cooper, Rob Gruye, and the
Jefferson County Department of Community Development.
A separate Wetland Delineation and Rating Report has been prepared by MSA (2024) to be
submitted along with this CASP.
1.2 Regulatory Framework
There are two critical areas confirmed within the proposed project footprint.
The area where the proposed bridge will be placed is mapped as a Seismic Hazard Area. It was
determined on site during the Pre-application meeting that the project engineer’s calculations (B2
Structural Engineers, Basri Basri PE, SE) would be adequate to address Article V (Geologically
Hazardous Areas) and IX of Chapter 18.22 JCC. B2 Structural Engineer’s calculations, along
with the site plan created by Terrapin Architecture, can be found in Attachment D.
The Critical Areas Map shows wetlands near the site, but not on the site. However, a wetland
was identified on site and a wetland report was prepared to address Articles VII (Wetlands) and
IX (Special Reports) of Chapter 18.22 JCC. This report is being submitted as a separate
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 2
document (MSA 2024). The proposed bridge will be placed across a Category IV Wetland and
the supporting footings will be within the prescribed 40-ft buffer. This work will take place
within a 60-ft wide legal easement that is located on parcel #901193004. The easement
agreement can be found in Attachment C.
1.3 Applicant Information
Property Owner: Rob Gruye (ONAHAMA LLC)
Mailing Address: 2017 McNeil Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368
Email address: rob@olympus.net
Architect: Terrapin Architecture
Phone Number: 360-379-8090
Email Address: terrapinarchitecture.com
Engineer: b2 Structural Engineers, Basri Basri, PE, SE
Phone Number: 425-318-7047
Email Address: info@b2engineers.com
Biological Consultant: Jill Cooper, Marine Surveys & Assessments
Phone Number: 360-385-4073
Email Address: Jill@msaenvironmental.com
1.4 Project Location
Jefferson County Tax Parcel # 901193004
SW ¼ Section 19, Township 29N, Range 1W
Address: The property to be accessed by the proposed bridge on parcel # 901193004 is located at
404 Eaglemount Road, Port Townsend, Jefferson County Parcel #901193002 (Figure 1).
Directions: From Port Townsend, take Lawrence St. to E. Sims Way. Follow E. Sims Way to
WA-20 W. After approximately 11 miles, turn left onto Eaglemount Road. In approximately 1
mile the destination will be on your right.
Jefferson County Legal Description: S19 T29 R1W GOV LOT 6
Zoning Description: CF-80 – Commercial Forest
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 3
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
1.5 Site Description
The site is located on the west side of Eaglemount road, approximately 0.6 miles south of the
Hwy 20 junction. There is a wide pullout that is disconnected from the private graveled easement
road by a ditch-like linear wetland that runs north and south, parallel to Eaglemount. To the west
of the small wetland the steep gravel easement heads west towards the subject parcel. This road
intersects with other existing gravel roadways, and then leads directly to the Gruye parcel
(#901193002). There are a few larger conifer trees bordering the access point and wetland, but
the forest to the north of the easement was logged around 2005, and the forest to the south was
logged around 2016 (viewed from Google Earth historical imagery).
1.6 Project Description
The proposed project is the installation of a bridge across the Category IV wetland that lies
between Eaglemount Road and the access to a private easement (Figure 2). The legal easement is
sixty feet wide, although only approximately 20-feet of that width is currently developed as a
gravel driveway. The developed gravel easement appears to have been on the site since at least
2009 (viewed from Google Earth historical imagery). The easement was granted in 2007 and the
legal easement title documents can be seen in Attachment D. The purpose of the bridge is to
create a connection between the Eaglemount entrance and the private drive for the purpose of
ingress and egress for Jefferson County parcel 901193002. Parcel 901193004 is accessed by a
separate and already established private drive that is located north of the proposed bridge and
legal easement (Figure 1).
Proposed Bridge Location
along legal easement
Gruye (ONAHAMA LLC) Parcel
Established Access for
Parcel #901193004
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 4
Figure 2. Proposed Site Plans
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 5
1.7 Construction Details
A retired truck scale that is 40-feet in length and 10-feet in width will be used as the bridge
surface and will be supported by four concrete and rebar footings measuring 6’ x 6’ x 15” (see
Attachment D). The footings will be located outside of the delineated wetland but will be inside
the 40-foot buffer area. The first step will be determining the footing layout. A 12” hole will be
excavated beneath each footing, removing the native soil and replacing it with compacted
crushed rock. The engineer will inspect the holes and sign off on them before proceeding as per
the response to Jefferson County that can be seen in Attachment D. The footing forms will be
constructed out of plywood and will be prefabricated off-site. Once brought on-site, the plywood
boxes will be screwed together and set in place. Rebar will be added to the forms for structure,
and the engineer will inspect again. A concrete truck will park just off of Eaglemount Road on
the existing gravel pullout leading to the wetland and will use a pump with a boom and/or hose
to deposit concrete into the forms by reaching across the wetland. No equipment will enter or
drive across the wetland, and all work will be done from the Eaglemount side of the wetland.
Once the footing forms are poured and cured, the plywood will be removed and disposed of in an
approved offsite location. A retired truck scale, which is to be repurposed as a new bridge
(approved by Jefferson County Building Department) will be brought in by a professional heavy
equipment mover, who will use a crane to lift it and put it in place on top of the footings. Straw
wattles will be placed between the footings and the wetland to avoid erosion from entering the
wetland.
1.8 Action Area
For the purposes of this report, the “project area” is defined as the area within the portion of the
parcel where the construction work will take place. The project area also includes areas that may
be used for staging materials and equipment, as well as accessing the site.
The “action area” is defined as any area that may be ecologically impacted from short-term
construction activities or long-term habitat modifications and covers approximately 0.25 miles
from the project area to account for construction noise.
2 Habitat Conditions Onsite
The existing wetland is small and disturbed with erosion/runoff, invasive plant species, and
occasional trash left by cars using the area as a pull-off (Figure 3). To the east of Eaglemount
Road there is another larger wetland, however this wetland is functionally and physically
disconnected from the wetland in question, as no culverts are located under Eaglemount Road in
this location. Some larger conifer trees are located immediately adjacent to the wetland near the
entrance to the easement, but mostly this area is previously clearcut land that is regenerating.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 6
Figure 3. MSA 2023 Wetland & Habitat Survey Site Map
3
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 7
2.1 Vegetation
The majority of habitat immediately surrounding the wetland site where the proposed bridge will
be installed consists of native mixed conifer forest with an understory of upland shrubs and
herbaceous plants. The plant species observed include western red cedar (Thuja plicata), western
hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), coastal willow (Salix
hookeriana), salal (Gaultheria shallon), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), deer fern
(Blechnum spicant), invasive reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), invasive Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), Sedge Sp. (Carex sp.), Douglas spirea (Spiraea douglasii), and
cattail (Typha latifolia)
2.2 Wildlife Observed
During the habitat survey, the MSA Biologist observed the following species:
● Common raven (Corvus corax) – visual observation
● Spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus) – auditory observation
● Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) – visual observation
● Pacific wren (Troglodytes pacificus) – visual observation
● Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis) – visual observation
● Red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber) – presence of excavations in nearby trees
● Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasii) – auditory observation
● Blacktail deer (Odocoileus hemionus) – presence of tracks/scat
3 Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCAs)
The designated FWHCAs listed below, as defined under JCC 18.22.610, were identified within
the action area (or may occur there) and will be discussed in the following sections:
● Areas where federally listed species (endangered and threatened) and state-listed species
(endangered, threatened, and sensitive species) have a primary association;
● Rivers and streams;
● Species and habitats of local importance.
3.1 State Priority Habitat & Species
The WDFW Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) mapper indicates there are listed occurrences of
few species or habitats of special concern within the 0.25-mile action area (Figure 4, (WDFW
2024a). There is residential coastal cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki) occurrence and migration
and presence of a freshwater forested/shrub wetland located within the outer reaches of the
action area.
Similarly, according to queries of the WDFW Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) data, the same
unnamed stream is shown connecting to Discovery Bay approximately 0.2 mile away, within the
action area (WDFW 2024b). Within this unnamed stream, there is documented presence of
residential coastal cutthroat.
Figure 4. Priority Habitat & Species Map and Table
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 8
3.2 National Wetlands Inventory
The United States Fish and Wildlife National Inventory (NWI) map depicts a 0.39 acre and a 2.0
acre freshwater forested/shrub wetland classified as a PSSC located within the action area
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 9
(Figure 5, (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2024a). These two wetlands are a palustrine
system which encompasses nontidal wetlands, a cowardin class scrub-shrub which are areas that
consists of woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall and are seasonally flooded. Additionally, there
are two riverine habitats classified as R4SBC. These rivers channels are seasonally flooded and
contain flowing water part of the year.
Figure 5. National Wetland Inventory Map
3.3 Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which prohibits the take
(including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species
without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS).
“A Migratory bird species is included on the list if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
● It occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or
ecological processes and is currently, or was previously listed as, a species or part of a
family protected by one of the four international treaties or their amendments.
● Revised taxonomy results in it being newly split from a species that was previously on the
list, and the new species occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of
natural biological or ecological processes.
● New evidence exists for its natural occurrence in the United States or U.S. territories
resulting from natural distributional changes and the species occurs in a protected
family.” (www.fws.gov/law/migratory-bird-treaty-act-1918)
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 10
In the proposed project location, IPAC lists the following species as occurring on the USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list:
● Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout their range in the continental USA and
AK:
o Evening grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus)
o Lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes)
o Rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus)
● Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in
this area but warrant attention because of the Eagle Act. There are no bald eagle nests
documented within the protective buffer for bald eagle disturbance (600 ft maximum buffer)
nor within the 0.25 mile action area (NOAA ESI 2006; USFWS 2007).
3.4 Candidate Species - Monarch Butterfly
The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is large and conspicuous, with bright orange wings
surrounded by a black border, and covered with black veins. On the upper side of the wings, the
black border contains a double row of white spots. During the breeding season, monarchs lay
their eggs on their obligate milkweed host plant (primarily Asclepias spp.). In temperate western
North America, monarchs undergo long-distance migration and live for an extended period of
time. This migration can take monarchs distances of over 3,000 km and last for over two months
(USFWS 2024b).
Monarch butterflies are a Candidate species and not yet listed or proposed for listing. There are
generally no Section 7 requirements for candidate species, but it is encouraged by all agencies to
take advantage of any opportunity there may be to conserve the species (USFWS 2024b; 85 FR
8183, December 17, 2020). The population of monarch butterflies in Washington is low and is
considered to have a declining trend. This butterfly is facing threats in both its winter and
summer habitats, where action will be required to restore its suffering populations. In
Washington, they are usually found east of the Cascades, where milkweed occurs (NatureServe
Conservation 2024).
The geographic area and habitat near the project area is not known to be of high priority for
monarch butterflies, especially considering they primarily occur east of the Cascades
(NatureServe 2024). Thus, it is unlikely this species will be adversely affected by the proposed
project.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 11
3.5 Federal ESA-Listed Species & Critical Habitat
A range of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have critical habitat or may
occur within the action area. The designated critical habitat within the action area (which
includes the 100-year floodplain) is presented below in Table 1.
For each listed species with the potential to be in the project’s action area, the relevant life
history traits, listing status, and distribution of species are presented in the sections below.
Salmon species that may access streams south of the project site will also be included.
Table 1. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) & U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Designated Critical Habitat
Species and Designated Critical
Habitat
Designated
Critical Habitat
located within
Action Area
Likely or
documented
occurrence within
Project Area
Marbled murrelet (USFWS, 2016)
(Threatened) N N
Yellow-billed cuckoo (USFWS, 2021)
(Threatened wherever found) Wherever found N
Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (USFWS,
2013) (Endangered wherever found) Wherever found N
3.5.1 Marbled Murrelets
Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) are small marine birds in the Alcidae
family that have a habitat-split strategy. They spend most of their time foraging at sea and
will fly up to 50 km inland to nest only within old growth forests (Nelson 1997). Marbled
murrelets do not make their own nests, and instead will use the large branches or
platforms within large old growth forests (Nelson 1997; Piatt et al. 2007). In the critical
nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the
survival and conservation of the species (WDFW 1993; Miller et al. 2012). Adult birds
are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance,
sea perch, Pacific herring, surf smelt, other small schooling fish, and invertebrates.
Marbled murrelets have been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1992 (57 FR
45328, October 1, 1992). Critical habitat was designated by USFWS in 1996, revised in
2011, and reviewed again in 2016 to determine if the ESA definition of critical habitat
was being met (81 FR 51348, August 4, 2016).
There is no marbled murrelet critical habitat designated within action area. The nearest
critical habitat and nesting area is located approximately 4.95 miles from the project site
within the Olympic National Forest. There have been individual marbled murrelets
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 12
sighted resting or foraging by eBird citizen scientists in the marine waters of the
Discovery Bay, outside of the action area (eBird 2024). The nearest documented sighting
is approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the project site within Discovery Bay. Other than
some potential behavioral disturbance from in-air noise during construction activities,
which is expected to be temporary and minor, it is unlikely this species will be adversely
affected by the proposed project.
3.5.2 Yellow-billed Cuckoo
The yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is a fairly large bird that is long and
slim with a hunchbacked appearance. Its bill is mostly yellow, thick and downcurved, and
nearly as long as the head is wide. They have a long black tail with large white spots, and
their bodies are a warm brown color above with whitish below (Cornell Lab of
Ornithology 2015; USFWS 2024b). Yellow-billed cuckoos prefer densely wooded habitat
with water nearby, including woodlands with low, scrubby, vegetation, overgrown
orchards, abandoned farmland, and dense thickets along streams and marshes (Cornell
Lab of Ornithology 2015).
Yellow-billed cuckoos are Threatened; likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. The Western
Distinct Population was first designated as “Threatened Wherever Found” in 2014 and
has been since revised and updated (86 FR 20798, April 21, 2021).
There is no designated critical habitat for yellow-billed cuckoos, instead they are listed as
“Threatened Wherever Found.” There have been no sightings within 0.25 miles of the
project site (eBird 2024), so it is unlikely this species will be adversely affected by the
proposed project.
3.5.3 Taylor’s Checkerspot
The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori) is a Pacific Northwest
endemic butterfly. This butterfly is medium-sized, with a striking checkered pattern of
orange to brick red, black, and cream. It is a subspecies of Edith’s checkerspot; three
additional Edith’s checkerspot subspecies occur within Washington (colonia, beani,
and edithana) (WDFW 2024c). The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly historically ranged
from the Puget Trough/Willamette Valley/Georgia Basin, from west central Oregon,
through Washington, to southern Vancouver Island in Canada (NatureServe Conservation
2024). It is currently restricted to a small scattering of 8 populations in Washington, a
single population in British Columbia, and 2 populations in Oregon (WDFW 2024c). The
decline of this butterfly has accompanied the loss of open, prairie and grassland habitats.
Threats include habitat loss and degradation due to development, natural forest
succession and the spraying of bacterial insecticide to control pest insects. In Washington,
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 13
several major colonies are on public lands, but some of these lands have uses that could
be incompatible with butterfly conservation. The USFWS (2007) reports that only about
5% of the species' total occurrence is on private land and over half is at the Military Joint
Base Lewis-McChord (NatureServe Conservation 2024).
The Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly is federally listed as “Endangered Wherever Found”
(78 FR 61505, October 3, 2013). It is also listed as Endangered in Washington State.
Taylor’s checkerspot is dependent on prairie and grassland habitats. It also occupies
coastal bluffs and dunes as well as small forest openings (balds) (WDFW 2024c).
It is unlikely the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly would be near the project site since
suitable habitat for the Taylor’s includes dunes, balds, or prairie grasslands. WDFW says
there are only 45 documented locations in Washington state where the Taylor’s
Checkerspot are currently found (WDFW 2024c). The noise from the proposed
construction work will be temporary and is not expected to adversely affect this butterfly
species.
4 Effects of the Proposed Action
When reviewing all the data, the direct and indirect effects of the project on the listed species and
their critical habitat should be considered. Impacts to ESA-listed species and critical habitats are
based on current baseline conditions versus historic pre-development conditions, where existing
structures are considered an element of the environmental baseline at the time of a proposed
action.
4.1 Direct Effects
When considering the direct effects of the proposed project, one must determine if the proposed
project will immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential
direct impacts caused by the construction process include in-air noise, critical root zone
disturbance, and shading. These potential effects are listed below.
4.1.1 In-Air Noise
Some temporary increases in ambient noise will be generated during development of the
property. Noise generated during construction may cause wildlife to temporarily avoid
the area but is not expected to impact wildlife or ecosystem function in the long term.
Additionally, noise from construction will only occur during daylight hours.
4.1.2 Critical Root Zone (CRZ) Disturbance
The CRZ is the portion of a tree’s roots that are critical for its stability and vitality. The
CRZ is considered to be a distance from the trunk that equals one foot for every inch of
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 14
the tree's diameter at breast height (DBH). For any trees that are located near the
proposed footprint during construction activities, standard Best Management Practices
(BMPs) will be followed to avoid disturbing the CRZ. These BMPs include marking the
CRZ of trees with paint or flagging to avoid compacting with heavy equipment and/or
materials, and using a thick layer of mulch, or sufficiently wide and thick steel plates in
the vehicle wheel path to avoid rutting and damaging the vegetation.
4.1.3 Shading
Shading impacts could result from the bridge being placed over the wetland. The bridge
could limit the amount of sunlight available to the native vegetation located underneath it.
Additionally, existing shrubs such as salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) may not be able to
grow to their full normal height due to being constrained by the bridge height, which
according to the applicant will be approximately 3-feet over the depressional wetland
area. However, 1,600 ft2 of native plants are proposed to be installed along the edges of
the existing easement roadway to compensate for these impacts (see Section 7.1).
4.2 Indirect Effects
Indirect effects are considered negative impacts on listed species and their critical habitats which
may occur after the completion of this project. No indirect effects are anticipated from the
completion of this project.
4.3 Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects, which take into account this project as well as future development in the
area, are reasonably certain to occur in the action area. The bridge will increase the accessibility
to the area, which could lead to more vehicle traffic and more development opportunities uphill
of the wetland. These cumulative habitat alterations could impact ESA-listed species and/or their
critical habitat areas. However, there are no ESA-listed species with designated habitat in the
action area, so the impacts are likely to be minimal. Additionally, the easement access is intended
to be used exclusively as a private driveway to the Gruye parcel. Extensive measures will also be
taken to reduce and/or mitigate any potential impacts, such as the proposed Mitigation Planting
Plan (Section 7).
The full scope of cumulative impacts cannot be quantified in this assessment, but with
appropriate regulations in place, it is unlikely that ESA-listed species, critical habitat, or human
recreation will be greatly affected by the construction of the bridge.
4.4 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects
Completion of this project is not anticipated to promote future construction or other activities
that would not otherwise have occurred without its completion. The only purpose of the project
is to allow access across the wetland.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 15
5 Conservation Measures to Avoid & Minimize Impacts
Conservation measures presented here include avoidance and minimization efforts. All
development must be located, designed, constructed, and maintained in a manner that protects
ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. This section describes the steps that should
be taken during project planning and implementation to find the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative to achieve the project goal.
The following mitigation sequencing steps, as described in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) and JCC
18.22.740, shall be considered during project development and site selection:
● No action: To avoid the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action.
o The project purpose and need are described in more detail in the Project
Description section. “No Action” would not achieve the project goal.
● Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid
or reduce impacts.
o The proposal includes the minimum footprint necessary to achieve the goal and
the permitted/allowed use of the property. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
discussed below will be implemented during construction to minimize impacts.
o No materials will be crossing the wetland, and all materials will be staged within
the existing gravel roadway along the main road.
● Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.
o Any disturbed earth located outside of the proposed footing locations and
resulting from construction activities will be covered with mulch to mitigate
sediment runoff.
● Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations.
o Opportunities to reduce or eliminate the permanent direct and indirect negative
impacts from the project are described below in the list of BMPs.
● Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute
resources or environments.
o To mitigate for impacts caused by the placement of the bridge and footing
construction, it is proposed that 1,600 ft2 of native plants be installed on site along
the existing easement road and uphill of the wetland. The addition of native plants
will help remedy current erosion issues, and will increase wildlife habitat on site.
See Section 7 for mitigation planting plan details and calculations.
● Monitoring the impact and the compensation project and taking appropriate corrective
measures.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 16
o Monitoring of the installed plants is outlined in Section 8 of this report. 5 years of
monitoring will be required per Jefferson County Critical Areas Ordinance 18.22.
In order to minimize potential impacts to ESA-listed and priority species and habitat associated
with this project, the following conservation measures are recommended by MSA for
implementation at the site:
Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be exercised throughout this project:
• Before any construction work begins, site construction limits for clearing and runoff will
be clearly laid out on site.
• Care will be taken to contain all construction debris.
• Training for all employees on emergency spill response and containment.
• Daily housekeeping to ensure debris does not enter the water/area adjacent to the work
site.
• Removed fill, if proposed, will be disposed of at an approved upland location.
• Normal workdays are recommended to be scheduled Monday through Friday from 7 am
– 7 pm to comply with local noise ordinances.
• Prior to any construction activity, a silt fence and straw wattles will be installed in
between the construction footprint and the critical habitat areas.
• In upland areas, any disturbed earth resulting from construction activity will be covered
with mulch and/or re-seeded/replanted with native plants to mitigate sediment runoff.
• All staged building materials will be confined to the existing gravel roadways and
parking areas.
• Construction work will be done as quickly as work and inspection allow, to minimize
potential exposure of loose soils to rain and wind.
Additional General Best Management Practices for Small Construction Sites:
• Whenever possible, use hand-tools during construction.
• Marking the critical root zone (CRZ) of trees with paint, flagging, or other to avoid
running equipment and stockpiling materials in CRZ and therefore limit soil disturbance
and compaction. Additionally, it is recommended that any necessary heavy equipment
and/or truck access located within a CRZ include a layer of mulch, or sufficiently wide
and thick steel plates in the vehicle wheel path to avoid rutting and damaging the
vegetation.
• Whenever possible, work should be performed from upland areas to avoid impacts to the
wetland.
• Construction should not be conducted during heavy precipitation events, regardless of the
protection of vegetation. If vegetation is damaged, or rutting occurs, it is recommended
that those areas be re-planted with native vegetation and a layer of mulch at a minimum
depth of 3 inches.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 17
• Limit the extent of clearing operations and phase construction operations.
• All work should be performed during approved work windows, when applicable, and/or
following any permitting agency seasonal restrictions.
• The duff layer, native topsoil, and natural vegetation should be retained in an undisturbed
state to the maximum extent practicable. The single most effective means of limiting
stormwater impacts during and after construction and minimizing costs of implementing
BMPs is to retain existing soil and vegetation to the maximum practical extent.
• Daily check list of potential safety areas.
• All oil containing equipment will be staged in secondary containment capable of handling
3x the volume of oil contained in said equipment.
• Stacking soils adjacent to areas of excavation to facilitate replacement.
• Utilizing ball valves on all concrete and grout ports to ensure no grout leaks out.
• Prevent pollutant release through following the guidelines laid forth in the Department of
Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual
• Divert runoff away from exposed areas wherever possible. Keep clean water clean.
• Reduce runoff velocities to prevent channel erosion.
• Schedule installation of BMPs. Some temporary BMPs should be installed before
earthmoving activities begin.
• Schedule regular inspections of the site and the stormwater BMPs throughout the
construction process. Repair or replace BMP equipment or materials as needed. Maintain
the BMP equipment or materials as necessary. Without proper maintenance of equipment
and materials, BMPs may fail.
• Before reseeding a disturbed soil area, amend all soils with compost wherever topsoil has
been removed.
• Prevent the tracking of sediment off-site.
• Be realistic about the limitations of controls that are specified and the operation and
maintenance of those controls. Anticipate what can go wrong, how to prevent it from
happening, and what will need to be done to fix it.
• Make sure that bids and estimates include costs of purchase of materials and manpower
for installation, maintenance, and removal of BMPs.
• Schedule removal of the temporary BMPs (or retrofit them for permanent use) at the end
of the construction project.
6 Take Analysis
The Endangered Species Act defines “take” as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The USFWS further defines
“harm” as “significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to
listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering.” It is likely that no “take” will result from this project.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 18
6.1 Determination of Effect
ESA-listed species and critical habitat in the action area are evaluated below based on the
following assessments:
● No effect (absolutely no effect whatsoever, either positive or negative);
● May affect, not likely to adversely affect (insignificant effects that never reach the level
where take occurs, or effects are discountable and extremely unlikely to occur; or there
would be an entirely beneficial effect); or,
● May affect, likely to adversely affect (measurable or significant effects are likely, and the
project will require formal consultation).
This determination of effect for protected species is contingent upon implementation of the
conservation and minimization measures in Section 5. In general, direct adverse effects to ESA-
listed species (avoidance, behavior modification) will be short-term and would not contribute to
an increased risk of extinction.
After reviewing the appropriate data, the determination of effect to each listed species within the
action area is:
● Marbled murrelet – “May affect, not likely to adversely affect”
● Yellow-billed cuckoo– “No effect”
● Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly – “No effect”
7 Mitigation Plan for No Net Loss of Ecological Function
7.1 Proposed Mitigation
This project does not meet the criteria in JCC 18.22.640 Buffer reductions and averaging, which
allows for up to a 25% buffer reduction with mitigation. The four footings will be located within
the inner 75% of the Category IV wetland’s 40-foot buffer, and the bridge bed will shade existing
wetland vegetation. Although the new footings will be located on top of the existing compacted
gravel driveway, it was determined by Jefferson County DCD that large trees may have been
previously cut down during the construction of the easement on the west side of the wetland
without permits. Because of these issues combined, a 1,600 ft² mitigation plan was agreed upon
during the pre-application meeting on site. This ratio is two times larger (2:1) than the proposed
impact (20-foot-wide easement x 40-foot buffer x 2). This Critical Area Stewardship Plan
(CASP) and performance bond are being submitted to comply with the permit conditions in JCC
18.22.965 Critical Area Stewardship Plans.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 19
7.2 Mitigation Goals
Goal (1) Buffer Enhancement: Create a newly vegetated area of approximately 1,600 ft2 plant
coverage of diverse native plant species. This will enhance the ecological value and function of
the habitat within the critical area buffer and adjacent to the buffer by reducing erosion and
creating wildlife habitat.
Goal (2) Native Cover: 60% by year one, 80% by year three, 90% by year five.
Goal (3) Survival: 100% in year one, and at least 85% survival in years 2 through 5.
Goal (4) Invasive Species Cover: Invasive species should be no more than 10% in any
monitoring year.
Goal (5) Soil: For newly planted plants, deconsolidate and amend soil where holes are dug
before plants are installed and add a minimum of 3” mulch. Ensure that mulch is placed 1” away
from installed plant stems to avoid rot.
7.3 Mitigation Performance Standards
Performance standards are measurable criteria for determining if the goals and objectives of the
mitigation project are being achieved. If the proposed benchmarks are not achieved by
comparing the surveys to the mitigation goals, then contingency plans will need to be
implemented, which are outlined in Section 8.5 below.
Performance Standard (1) Wetland & Buffer Enhancement: Native plants will be installed in
year one. Photographs will be taken during monitoring years. A comparison of photographs from
previous years along with the percent cover and survivorship standards outlined below will help
in assessing the quality of the buffer. The planting areas are clearly outlined in this report and
described in Goal (1), Table 2 and shown in Figure 7.
Photo stations for the planting site will be determined, and a photograph of the restoration
location will be taken on an annual basis. To meet survival performance standards, individual
plants that die must be replaced with the same species unless a different species is suggested by
the project biologist due to site conditions.
Performance Standard (2) Native Cover:
The percent cover standard will be monitored by visually estimating the amount of native plant
coverage during each monitoring year. For consistency, this will be done from each individual
photo station.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 20
Performance Standard (3) Survival:
Immediately after planting, all plants will be counted and documented. At the end of each
growing season (late Aug- early Sept) plots will be visited and a count of surviving plants will be
documented. The percent survival for the plots will be calculated by dividing the total number of
surviving plants by the total number of plants originally installed.
Performance Standard (4) Invasive Species Cover:
The percent cover standard will be monitored by visually estimating the amount of native plant
coverage during each monitoring year, just as with native plant cover. For consistency, this will
be done from each individual photo station.
Performance Standard (5) Soil: A minimum of 20% organic matter by bulk density in the soil
will be verified by invoices.
7.4 Site Preparation
Topsoil around and beneath newly installed native plants will be comprised of a minimum of
20% organic matter. MSA recommends that the amended soil consist of 6" of coarse sand and 6"
of vegetative compost which should be worked into the soil before planting. After plant
installation, a layer of mulch at least 3” thick will be placed as a groundcover around the plants,
making sure that the mulch is located 1” away from plant stems to avoid rot.
7.5 Plant Procurement
Plants will be selected from a regional native plant nursery. Invoices will be provided after
purchase. See Appendix B for a list of local native plant nurseries and resources. Substitutions
may be necessary for species or individuals outlined in this planting plan which cannot be found
at local nurseries. All plant substitutions will be approved by the project biologist prior to
installation to ensure their suitability for the site.
7.6 On Center Dimensions and Area Coverage
The total square footage of native plant coverage was calculated using “on center” dimensions
(i.e. the distance between the center of one plant to the center of the next plant, when mature).
The average on center (O.C.) dimensions of each plant species was sourced from Sound Native
Plant’s “Calculating Plant Quantities” guidelines, and a conservative estimate of coverage was
calculated using a typical plant quantity/coverage calculator.
7.7 Planting Instructions
Whenever possible, planting should be done between mid-October and mid-December as plants
grow roots during the cool weather, even when the tops of the plants are dormant. Planting
between mid-December and mid-April is also acceptable but more attention to supplemental
watering may be required due to drier seasonal weather conditions. Any nursery instructions that
come with the plants should be read and followed.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 21
Plants should be laid out by hand in the designated areas portrayed on the planting map (Figure
7) following the spacing specified in Table 2. Before planting, set the potted plants out on the
landscape according to the planting plan design and make sure the arrangement works before
digging any holes. Next, dig a bowl-shaped hole for each plant at least twice the width, and
slightly deeper than the potted plant’s container. Roughen the sides and the bottom of the hole
with a pick or shovel. If the soil is especially dry, fill the hole with water and let it soak in before
continuing.
Remove the plant from its container gently without pulling on the stem of the plant. Loosen
bound roots on the outer inch of soil and cut any roots that encircle the root ball to ensure that the
plant will not continue to grow within its “memory” of the pot wall confines. Set the plant in the
hole so that the top of the soil remains level with the surrounding soil. Fill the surrounding space
with loose topsoil comprised of at least 20% organic matter. Native topsoils are preferred,
whenever possible. Cover any exposed roots but do not pile dirt onto the stem or root collar, as
this can kill some plants. To discourage root rot, gently tamp down the filled soil to remove any
air pockets that may exist below ground, while allowing the soil to remain somewhat loose.
Form a temporary basin or trench around each plant to encourage water collection, and then
water thoroughly.
Immediately after watering, mulch such as wood chips, leaves, or brown carbon rich compost
should be added to a 3-inch thickness over the entire planting area, leaving at least a 1-inch
diameter area around the plant stem free of mulch. The mulch will aid in slope stability, moisture
and nutrient retention, and weed control. Heavy duty woodchips are preferable in areas where
noxious or invasive species may become a problem. Staking of trees or shrubs should not be
necessary unless high winds exist, or the tree is tall and has little roots. If staking is deemed
necessary, use a thick rope or padding around the trunk of the tree to prevent damage to the bark,
and use the minimum amount of tension necessary to achieve balance (Figure 7).
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 22
Figure 6. Planting Instructions
(Sourced from City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development Environmentally
Critical Areas Standard Mitigation Plan)
7.8 Inspection and Maintenance Criteria
Maintenance must be done twice yearly. No herbicides or pesticides are to be used, and all work
should be performed by hand whenever possible, with the lightest possible equipment where
such use is necessary.
During year one, every failed plant must be replaced within the plot. During year one, and during
the first year after any replacement planting, plantings must receive 1 inch of water at least once
weekly between June 15 and September 15. Trees and shrubs must be weeded to the dripline, and
mulch must be maintained at a depth of 3 inches. Weed herbaceous plantings as necessary
(flowers, ferns, etc.). All litter and non-native vegetation must be removed, such as Himalayan
blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), evergreen blackberry
(Rubus laciniatus), Scots broom (Cytisus scoparius), English ivy (Hedera helix), morning glory
(Convolvulus arvensis), Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica), etc., and properly disposed of
off-site. Any receipts obtained from work done on the site should be filed with the Department of
Permitting through the project biologist monitoring report.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 23
7.9 Planting Plan
To cover a minimum of 1,600 square feet, it has been determined that 5 trees, 98 shrubs and 611
ground cover plants will be required for this planting plan. These plants will be installed along
the edges of the existing gravel easement, located to the west and uphill of the wetland. The
wetland and nearby surrounding areas already consist primarily of native plants, and planting
uphill of the wetland in an area that is experiencing a large amount of erosion will help to
preserve and enhance the quality and function of the wetland habitat.
The following table shows the plant species, recommended numbers, and O.C. dimensions for
the planting areas (Figure 7). Plants will be selected from a regional native plant nursery. The
species in the table below were chosen to create habitat and to provide slope stabilization, while
considering hardiness and ecology. Site photos of the planting areas can be seen in Appendix A.
Table 2. Plant List
Quantity Common Name Scientific Name Size O.C.
Dimensions
Area A
(200
ft²)
1 Douglas fir Pseudotsuga Menziesii 5 Gallon
3 Tall Oregon grape Mahonia (Berberis)
aquifolium
1 to 5
Gallon 4’ on center
5 Red-flowering
currant Ribes sanguineum 1 to 5
Gallon 4’ on center
4 Ocean spray Holodiscus discolor 1 to 5
Gallon 4’ on center
76 Kinnikinnik Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 3.5” to 1
Gallon
1.5’ on
center
Area B
(800
ft2)
35 Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 1 to 5
Gallon 4’ on center
10 Ocean spray Holodiscus discolor 1 to 5
Gallon 4’ on center
5 Red-flowering
currant Ribes sanguineum 1 to 5
Gallon 4’ on center
125 Coastal strawberry Fragaria chiloensis 3.5” to 1
Gallon
1.5’ on
center
125 Kinnikinnik Arctostaphylos uva-ursi 3.5” to 1
Gallon
1.5’ on
center
56 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 3.5” to 1
Gallon
1.5’ on
center
2 Cascara Rhamnus purshiana 5 Gallon 15’ on
center
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 24
Area C
(400
ft2)
12 Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 1 to 5
Gallon 4’ on center
8 Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 1 to 5
Gallon 4’ on center
3 Red-flowering
currant Ribes sanguineum 1 to 5
Gallon 4’ on center
100 Coastal strawberry Fragaria chiloensis 3.5” to 1
Gallon
1.5’ on
center
40 Twinflower Linnaea borealis 3.5” to 1
Gallon
1.5’ on
center
13 Yarrow Achillea millefolium 3.5” to 1
Gallon
1.5’ on
center
Area D
(200
ft2)
2 Scouler’s willow Salix scouleriana 5 Gallon 10’ on
center
6 Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 1 to 5
Gallon 4’ on center
5 Thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus 1 to 5
Gallon 4’ on center
76 Coastal strawberry Fragaria chiloensis 3.5” to 1
Gallon
1.5’ on
center
If an individual plant species is difficult to find at a local native plant nursery, substitutions can
be made if approved by the biologist. For plant nursery resource list see Appendix B.
The species listed in the table above shall be dispersed within the designated planting areas
shown in Figure 7. In areas where there are existing native plants already growing, new native
plants should be interspersed amongst the existing ones. On-center spacing dimensions should be
followed during plant installation. Once plants are installed an as-built report will be prepared
and plant locations will be documented to serve as the baseline for future monitoring years.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 25
Figure 7. Planting Plan Design Map
8 Monitoring & Maintenance
8.1 As-Built Report
An as-built drawing and report will be submitted as documentation of the implementation of the
approved planting plan within one month of installation. The plan will include a
quantitative final list of species, vegetation descriptions, and photo documentation from
established photo stations. A panoramic photo of the entire mitigation site will also be provided,
if possible. Photos should be taken between June and August, during the growing season.
8.2 Monitoring Schedule
Monitoring will take place over a period of five years at the end of the growing season (late
August or early September) of each monitoring year. The performance standards will be
monitored by measuring plots within the planting area, which will be established and mapped
after the planting occurs. Collected data and photos will be compiled into an annual Riparian
Monitoring Report, which will be submitted by October 31 each monitoring year for five years.
A B
C
d
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
8’ x 25’ 8’ x 100’
10’ x 20’ Eaglemount Road 10’ x 40’
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 26
8.3 Monitoring Methods
Each annual monitoring report shall include written and photographic documentation on plant
mortality and any replanting efforts. There will be specific locations where photos will be taken
from for each plot, and these photo points will be referenced on the as-built plan. Planting areas
A and D should have a minimum of one monitoring station each. Area B will need a minimum
of four stations and Area C will require a minimum of two stations. Each year, photos will be
taken at the established photo points for each site, and these successive photos will be used for
comparison over the 5 years. Photos will be taken at all established photo points for all
monitoring years to provide visual documentation of the performance standards’ progress, or
lack thereof. Photos must include the date the photo was taken, as well as the direction from
which the photo was taken. The established photo location points must be identified on a site
drawing.
Percent cover will be measured by visual estimate, as described in Performance Standard Section
7.3. Up to 20% of any stratum can be composed of desirable native volunteers when measuring
cover. No more than 10% cover of non-native or other invasives (e.g., Himalayan blackberry,
Japanese knotweed, evergreen blackberry, reed canary grass, Scots broom, English ivy, morning
glory, etc.) is permissible in any monitoring year. Bond holders are encouraged to maintain
mitigation sites within these standards throughout the monitoring period, to avoid corrective
measures. Measurement criteria will follow the goals outlined in Section 7.2.
A qualitative review of the condition of the site’s hydrology (e.g. erosion, slope stability, etc.),
soil health, buffer condition, and wildlife use will be included in the monitoring report. The
Monitoring Report will also document whether the performance standards are being met.
The results of the Monitoring Report will determine whether contingency measures will be
needed. If deficiencies are found, replanting should occur between the months of Oct-March,
unless irrigation will be provided. Monitoring may be extended if mitigation goals have not been
met. Receipts for any maintenance activities such as re-planting, dump runs for weed removal,
structural replacement, etc. will be provided to the project biologist to include in the monitoring
report. The applicants will be responsible for the maintenance of their site and will hire a
biologist of their choosing to conduct the as-built and monitoring surveys and to prepare the
required reports to document the progress. Contact information for MSA can be found in the title
page of this report, and the applicant information is located in Section 1.3.
8.4 Maintenance
Maintenance shall occur at least twice during the growing season to ensure the survival of all
native species within the mitigation area, including volunteer natives. Watering by hand or
sprinkler may be necessary during year number one until the plants are established (see Section
7.7). Water requirements will depend on the timing of planting with the seasons and weather
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 27
conditions. Once plants are established, extra watering may not be necessary. Hand weeding may
be necessary around all plants that are being monitored for survival and coverage.
If the required survival rate is not met by the end of any monitoring year, plants lost to mortality
will be replaced to achieve the percentage cover performance standard described above. Prior to
replacement, observations will be made on plants that did not survive to attempt to determine
whether their survival was affected by species/site selection, damage caused by wildlife, or other
factors. Subsequent contingency actions must be designed to respond directly to any stressor(s)
that are determined to have increased the mortality of planted native species (Section 8.5).
8.5 Contingency
Contingency actions must be designed to respond directly to any stressor(s) that are determined
to have increased the mortality of planted native species. If it is found that a particular plant
species is not surviving well at the site, a more appropriate species will be selected for its
replacement. If excessive damage by wildlife, exposure, or other elements is observed, protective
measures may need to be introduced. Monitoring years may be added if significant re-planting
becomes necessary. Monitoring on an annual basis for five years will occur with photographs
and measurements outlined in Section 7.3 to determine the survival rate of the transplanted area.
9 Summary
The proposed project is to install a prefabricated retired truck-scale as a bridge across a Category
IV wetland, to gain access to an easement road that leads to the Gruye/Onahama property. Four
concrete footings, reinforced with rebar, will be set in place just outside of the delineated wetland
boundary, and the truck scale will then be installed upon those footings. The bridge design and
engineering calculations have been approved by the Jefferson County Building Department and
can be seen in Figure 2 and Appendix D of this report. A pre-application site visit was held in
August of 2023, and was attended by Jefferson County DCD, the WA Department of Ecology,
MSA, and Rob Gruye, and this CASP was agreed upon to mitigate any potential impacts to the
wetland critical habitat and its associated buffer. A separate wetland report (MSA 2024), has also
been prepared. This CASP proposes 1,600 ft2 of native plants to be installed as mitigation, which
is a 2:1 ratio of plants to the impact area. For more information on these calculations, see Section
7.1. If this plan is followed, it is the opinion of MSA that the installation of the proposed bridge
will result in no net loss of ecological quality or function, and that the overall habitat and erosion
conditions upslope of the wetland will be improved.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 28
Final jurisdictional authority and permitting on this project will be the responsibility of the
appropriate local, state, and/or federal government agencies involved. All information contained
in this report should be reviewed by the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to approval or
issuance of permits.
Sincerely,
________________________ ________________________
Jill Cooper Meg Amos
Senior Ecologist Certifie Senior Ecologist
10 References
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2015. All About Birds. Accessed: March, 2024. Available at:
http://www.allaboutbirds.org/.
eBird. 2024. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird,
Cornell Lab or Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Accessed: March, 2024. Available at:
http://www.ebird.org.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 29
Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations.
Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1730-1, BLM/RS/ST-98/005+1730.
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 191 / Thursday, October 1, 1992 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2016 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 243 / Thursday, December 17, 2020 / Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 21, 2021/ Rules and Regulations.
Franklin, J.T. and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA, Forest
Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8.
Hitchcock, L.C. and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest.
University of Washington Press.
Jefferson County Municipal Code. Chapter 18.22 Critical Areas, 2008
King County Critical Areas PDF resource. 2012. Restoration & Enhancement in King County;
Understanding the process & technical assistance in preparing a plan.
Miller, S. L., M. G. Raphael, G. A. Falxa, C. Strong, J. Baldwin, T. Bloxton, B. M. Galleher, M. Lance, D.
Lynch, S. F. Pearson, C. J. Ralph, and R. D. Young. 2012. Recent Population Decline of the
Marbled Murrelet in the Pacific Northwest. The Condor. Volume 114(4), pages 771–781.
MSA, 2024. Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Wetland Delineation & Rating Report
NatureServe Conservation. 2024. NatureServe Explorer. Original Authors: Schweitzer, D.F., J.W.
Fleckenstein (2006 version). Updated regularly. Accessed: March, 2024. Available at:
https://explorer.natureserve.org.
Nelson, S. K. 1997. Marbled murrelet. American Ornithologists’ Union.
NOAA ESI. 2006. Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI). Puget Sound & Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Shoreline Nests. Produced by NOAA Office of Response and Restoration.
Piatt, J. F., K. J. Kuletz, A. E. Burger, S. A. Hatch, V. L. Friesen, T. P. Birt, M. L. Arimitsu, G. S. Drew, A.
M. A. Harding, and K. S. Bixler. 2007. Status Review of the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus
marmoratus) in Alaska and British Columbia. US geological survey open-file report.
Pojar and Mackinnon 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast, Washington, Oregon British Columbia
& Alaska.
Sound Native Plants Ecological Restoration Specialists website. Calculating Plant Quantities PDF
resource. https://soundnativeplants.com/.
Gruye & ONAHAMA LLC Critical Area Stewardship Plan (CASP) MSA | 30
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, May 2007.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024a. Wetland Mapper. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI).
Accessed: March, 2024. Available at: https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-
mapper/.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024b. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS):
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/ & Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC):
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2024a. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
report. Accessed: March, 2024. Available at: https://geodataservices.wdfw.wa.gov/hp/phs.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2024b. Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI).
Available at: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html#.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2024c. Species and Habitats webpage on Taylor’s
Checkerspot (Euphydryas editha taylori). Available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-
habitats/species/euphydryas-editha-taylori#resources.
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus
marmoratus) in Washington. July 1993. Unpublish. Rep. Washington Department of Wildlife,
Olympia, WA.
Appendix A.
Site Photos
Looking east towards Eaglemount Road from the easement road on the west side of the
delineated Category IV wetland proposed bridge location (photo taken 3/31/2024).
Area A looking east from the easement towards Eaglemount Road (photo taken 3/31/2024).
Proposed Bridge
Location
Planting Area D
Planting Area A
Planting area B looking west – steep bank on north side of easement (photo taken 3/31/2024).
Planting area B looking northeast (photo taken 3/31/2024).
Planting Area B (8’ x 100’)
Planting area C looking southeast (photo taken 3/31/2024).
Planting area D looking south (photo taken 3/31/2024).
Wetland looking south (photo taken 3/31/2024).
Looking west towards wetland from the pullout off of Eaglemount Road where the bridge will
cross tall salmonberry averaging 10’ tall (photo taken 3/31/2024).
Planting Area B
Appendix B.
Native Plant Sources for the Pacific NW
Native Plant Sources for the Pacific Northwest
This list contains those nurseries known to Permitting staff that grow plants native to the Puget lowlands of
Western Washington in quantities suitable for most mitigation sites. It was extracted from a longer list
compiled by the Water and Land Resources Division (WLRD) of King County for your convenience, drawing
in part on the Hortus West native plant directory and journal: Hortus West, P.O. Box 2870, Wilsonville, OR
97070. 800-704-7927. Fax: 503-570-0855. E-mail: editor@hortuswest.com. It is not an endorsement of these
businesses. The full list is available from WLRD at 206-296-6519.
Nurseries that specialize in seeds are marked (SEEDS).
Abundant Life Seed Foundation (SEEDS) Davenport Seed Corporation (SEEDS)
P.O. Box 772 P.O. Box 187
Port Townsend, WA 98368 Davenport, WA 99122-0187
360-385-5660 800-828-8873
Barford's Hardy Ferns Emmery's Gardens
23622 Bothell Way 2829 - 164th Avenue SW
Bothell, WA 98248 Lynnwood, WA 98037
Phone: 425-438-0205 Phone: 425-743-4555
Fax: 206-483-0205 Fax: 425-743-0609
Botanica Firetrail Nursery
P.O. Box 19544 3107 - 140th Street NW
Seattle, WA 98109 Marysville, WA 98271
206-634-1370 360-652-9021
Clark's Native Trees and Shrubs Frosty Hollow Ecological Restoration (SEED)
1215 - 126th Avenue SE P.O. Box 53
Everett, WA 98208 Langley, WA 98260
206-337-3976 360-579-2332
Cold Creek Nursery Heathwood Cottage Nursery
18602 NE 165th Street 18540 - 26th Avenue NE
Woodinville, WA 98072 Lake Forest Park, WA 98072
425-788-0201 206-363-3189
Colvos Creek Farm IFA Nurseries, Inc.
P.O. Box 1512 463 Eadon Road
Vashon, WA 98070 Toledo, WA 98591
206-441-1509 425-864-2803
Inside Passage (SEEDS) Sound Native Plants
P.O. Box 639 P.O. Box 10155
Port Townsend, WA 98368 Olympia, WA 98502
206-781-3575 Phone: 360-352-4122
Fax: 360-943-7026
Sourced from the King County Critical Areas Restoration and Enhancement document, Appendix A 2020
J & J Landscape Co. Storm Lake Growers
19538 - 75th NE 21809 - 89th SE
Bothell, WA 98011 Snohomish, WA 98290
360-794-4842
Judd Creek Wetland and Native Plant Nursery Sweet Briar
20929 - 111th Avenue SE P.O. Box 25
Vashon, WA 98070 Woodinville, WA 98072
206-463-2812 425-821-2222
MSK Nursery Thorsett Landscaping Nursery
20066 - 15th Avenue NW 13503 Southeast 226th Place
Seattle, WA 98177 Kent, WA 98042
206-546-1281 253-361-5838
Northfork Nursery Wabash Farms Native Plants 15751 Polson Road Ornamental and Reclamation
Mt. Vernon, WA 98273-7142 19390 SE 400th
360-445-4741 Enumclaw, WA 98022
Phone: 360-825-7051
Fax: 360-825-1949
Pacific Natives & Ornamentals Weyerhauser-Western Revegetation Greenhouse
P.O. Box 23 33405 - 8th Avenue South
Bothell, WA 98041 Federal Way, WA 98003
Phone: 425-483-8108 800-732-4769
Fax: 425-487-6198
Revegetate & Resource Plants Woodbrook Native Plant Nursery
17836 Cedar Grove Road 5919 78th Ave NW
Maple Valley, WA 98038 Gig Harbor, WA 98335
425-432-9018 253-857-6808, woodbrk@harbornet.com
Additional Native Plant Resources for the Olympic Peninsula area:
Woodbrook Native Plant Nursery
5919 78th Ave. NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
(253) 857-6808
Shore Road Nursery
By appointment only:
shoreroadnursery@gmail.com
(360) 775-8984
Friendly Natives Plants and Design
By appointment only:
lissa@friendlynatives.net
(206) 387-5943
Plantasia Design Center
2838 Sandtrap Ct SW
Olympia, WA 98501
360-754-4321
www.plantasiagardens.com
Rogers Country Nursery & Gardens
2075 Seabeck Hwy NW
Bremerton, WA 98312
360-478-0228
chris@kitsapcountrynursery.com
www.kitsapcountrynursery.com
Sound Native Plants
PO Box 7505
Olympia, WA 98507-7505
360-352-4122
info@soundnativeplants.com
www.soundnativeplants.com
Whitney Gardens and Nursery
306264 US-101
Brinnon, WA 98320
(360) 796-4411
https://www.whitneygardens.com/
Appendix C.
Legal Easement Title Document
Appendix D.
Engineer’s Slope Stability Calculations
Design Criteria
International Building Code (IBC) 2018
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-16
Project Description
Structural design of concrete footings to support existing steel bridge 40 ft x 10 ft to support HS20-44 truck
loadings. The maximum footing reactions are derived from moving load analysis as the truck travels along the
bridge.
Please see attached calculations for your reference
Page 1 of 5
BRIDGE FOOTING DESIGN FOR ROB GRUYE
404 EAGLEMOUNT ROAD
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
PROJECT NO: 21160 DATE:01/17/22
PREPARED BY: BASRI BASRI PE, SE
Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5
"MOVLOADS.xls" ProgramVersion 1.1MOVING WHEEL LOADS ANALYSISFor Simple-Span MembersSubjected to 1 - 8 Moving Loads with up to 7 Wheel SpacingsJob Name:Subject:Job Number:Originator: Checker:Input:Left Span, L1 =40.0000ft.Right Span, L2 =0.0000ft.Elastic Modulus, E =29000.00ksiMember Inertia, I =7800.00Uniform Load, w1 =0.200kips/ft.Uniform Load, w2 =0.200kips/ft.No. of Wheels, Nw =4Wheel Loads: P1 P2 P3 P4(kips)4.00 16.00 16.00Wheel Spacings: S1 S2 S3(ft.)14.00 14.00Results:Moment and Shears for Left Span, L1:M(max) =264.32ft-kipsmaximum moment under wheel @ P2@ x =17.60ft.from left end to M(max)# Wheels on Span =3P1, P2 ,P3, for M(max)VL =19.96kipsleft end shear for wheels positioned for M(max)VR =24.04kipsright end shear for wheels positioned for M(max)VL(max) =30.40kipswheels positioned for maximum shear at left endVR(max) =31.60kipswheels positioned for maximum shear at right endMaximum Deflection for Left Span, L1:D(max) =-0.3181in.maximum vertical deflection for wheels positioned for M(max)@ x =20.22ft.from left end to D(max)D(ratio) =L/1509in.deflection ratioMaximum Reaction at Center Support:R(max) =N.A.kipsno Right Span, L2 = 0L1 L2VLVRR(max)xEINomenclaturew2P8P1P2P3P4P5P6P7S1S2S3S4S5S6S7w1L1>= L2L2<= L11 of 17/19/2021 3:16 PMPage 4 of 5
Project: Rob Gruye Foundation
Location: F-1
page
of
basri
b2 Engineers
15306 61st Place NE
Kenmore, WA 98028
StruCalc Version 9.0.2.5 7/19/2021 4:01:10 PM
Footing
[2015 International Building Code(2012 NDS)]
Footing Size: 6.0 FT x 6.0 FT x 15.00 IN
Reinforcement: #4 Bars @ 7.00 IN. O.C. E/W / (10) min.
Section Footing Design Adequate
FOOTING PROPERTIES
Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure:
Concrete Compressive Strength:
Reinforcing Steel Yield Strength:
Concrete Reinforcement Cover:
Qs =
F'c =
Fy =
c =
1500
2500
60000
3
psf
psi
psi
in
FOOTING SIZE
Width:
Length:
Depth:
Effective Depth to Top Layer of Steel:
W =
L =
Depth =
d =
6
6
15
11.25
ft
ft
in
in
COLUMN AND BASEPLATE SIZE
Column Type:
Column Width:
Column Depth:
Baseplate Width:
Baseplate Length:
Steel
m =
n =
bsw =
bsl =
12
12
12
12
in
in
in
in
FOOTING CALCULATIONS
Bearing Calculations:
Ultimate Bearing Pressure:
Effective Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure:
Required Footing Area:
Area Provided:
Baseplate Bearing:
Bearing Required:
Allowable Bearing:
Beam Shear Calculations (One Way Shear):
Beam Shear:
Allowable Beam Shear:
Punching Shear Calculations (Two Way Shear):
Critical Perimeter:
Punching Shear:
Allowable Punching Shear (ACI 11-35):
Allowable Punching Shear (ACI 11-36):
Allowable Punching Shear (ACI 11-37):
Controlling Allowable Punching Shear:
Bending Calculations:
Factored Moment:
Nominal Moment Strength:
Reinforcement Calculations:
Concrete Compressive Block Depth:
Steel Required Based on Moment:
Min. Code Req'd Reinf. Shrink./Temp. (ACI-10.5.4):
Controlling Reinforcing Steel:
Selected Reinforcement:
Reinforcement Area Provided:
Development Length Calculations:
Development Length Required:
Development Length Supplied:
Qu =
Qe =
Areq =
A =
Bear =
Bear-A =
Vu1 =
Vc1 =
Bo =
Vu2 =
vc2-a =
vc2-b =
vc2-c =
vc2 =
Mu =
Mn =
a =
As(1) =
As(2) =
As-reqd =
As =
Ld =
Ld-sup =
1172
1313
32.15
36.00
63280
397800
16479
60750
93
56681
235406
268313
156938
156938
395500
1151439
0.77
0.66
1.94
1.94
#4's @ 7.0 in. o.c. e/w (10) Min.
1.96
15
27
psf
psf
sf
sf
lb
lb
lb
lb
in
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
in-lb
in-lb
in
in2
in2
in2
in2
in
in
LOADING DIAGRAM
6 ft
15 in
12 in
3 in
FOOTING LOADING
Live Load:
Dead Load:
Total Load:
Ultimate Factored Load:
Weight to resist uplift w/ 1.5 F.S.:
PL =
PD =
PT =
Pu =
U.R. =
31600
10600
42200
63280
4350
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
NOTES
Page 5 of 5