HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEP97-00150 Wetland Restoration Plan - SEP Inspections - 4/23/1997 CONCEPTUAL COMPENSATORY
WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
SETTLE INN RV PARK
Parcel #42024-43-00100
SE quarter SW quarter SE quarter of
Section 24, Township 20N, Range 4W
This wetland restoration plan report is prepared to meet the requirements of
Mason County's Interim Resource Ordinance (#77-93)
by
Coowe Moss Kidd
of
MOSS ENVIRONMENTAL
P.O. Box 1058 Gig Harbor, Washington 98335 (206) 858-5340
ME#8271
April 23, 1997
OWNER:
Mery Settle
1401 Deegan Road E.
Shelton, WA 98584
SURVEYORS:
Sid Bechtolt
Agate Land Surveying
E. 2680 Agate Road
Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 426-4172
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Project Description I
1.1 Location of Project Within Watershed 1
1.2 Site History and Background 2
1.3 Discussion of Existing Functions and Values 2
2.0 Existing Conditions of Area Proposed for Wetland Creation 3
2.1 Topography 3
2.2 Vegetation Community Analysis 3
2.3 Hydrologic Analysis 3
2.4 Mason County Soil Survey 4
3.0 Compensatory Mitigation Plan 4
3.1 Introduction 4
3.2 Buffers 4
3.3 Performance Standards 5
3.4 Grading Plan 6
3.5 Hydrology 6
3.6 Planting Plan 6
3.7 Irrigation Requirements 7
3.8 Water Pollution Measures 8
4.0 Implementation 8
4.1 Installation Sequence 8
4.2 Monitoring 8
4.2.1 Monitoring Plan 9
4.3 Maintenance and Permanent Protection 10
5.0 Contingency Plan 10
6.0 Budget Plan for Implementation 11
References
i
Figure 1: Site Location Within Watershed
Attachment 1: Existing Conditions
Attachment 2: Grading Plan, showing existing topography and hydrology in the
mitigation areas
Attachment 3: Planting Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued
Table l: Goals and Performance Standards
Table 2: Plant Material Characteristics
Table 3: Planting Plan Requirements
Appendix A: Photo Appendix
I
_ , II
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in the south half of the southeast quarter of the southwest
quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 24, Township 20N, Range 4W of the
Willamette Meridian in Mason County, parcel #42024-43-00100. The site consists of
approximately 10 acres in total. The northern four acres have historically been used for
receipt of landfill material; the southern half of the site is lower and contains several
springs and an existing wetland system that drains toward the west flowing off-site and
entering into a seasonal creek that flows north along the west boundary in the easement
for Highway 101.
In 1996, portions of the wetland areas in the southern portion of the site were filled.
Mason County's Department of Community Development issued a violation on March
13, 1996, for violation of landfill and alteration of wetlands, and the lack of a Mason
County Conditional Environmental Permit. The county raised concerns regarding
impacts to the streams and wetland and asked that the owner show the creek, springs, and
wetlands on a site plan. Moss Environmental conducted an initial site review on
September 26, 1996, and identified the springs, creek, and wetland site. The springs are
collected in wood culverts and directed into the main drainage swale which flows west
through the central portion of the site. There are existing wetlands associated with
ponded areas on this main drainage swale. A site plan was prepared by Agate Land
Surveying on November 1, 1996. The site plan includes existing topography, springs,
creek, and large trees (see Attachment 1, Existing Conditions).
On February 21, 1997, Mason County staff visited the site and met with Rick Lefner,
agent for the owner, to discuss restoration of filled wetland and swale areas. There were
two areas identified requiring immediate restoration. These include the southeastern
perimeter of the wetland where approximately five feet of fill has been pushed into the
edge of the existing wetland area, and a wetland seep swale that extends north in the
southwestern portion of the site flowing into the existing wetlands in the central portion.
This swale area is approximately 15 feet wide by 70 feet long (see Attachment 1, Existing
Conditions). Subsequent to the meeting with county staff, the owner, and the owner's
agent, Moss Environmental visited the site to ascertain existing conditions and investigate
soils and hydrology pertaining to development of a restoration plan. The plan that
follows provides restoration for the two areas described above. The northern portion of
the site is proposed to be utilized for a 58-unit RV park; the southern portion will remain
as open space and recreational areas.
8271 mit/cmk/smh/4/24/97 1
1.1 Location of Project Within the Watershed (Figure 1)
The northern five acres contains ar,. existing residence and historic landfill area.
Highway 101 bounds the western site boundary with East Deegan Road extending
along the eastern site boundary. To the east of East Deegan Road extends a long,
moderately steep slope with a westerly aspect. Water flows laterally above a
hardpan layer below the surface of the slope and through surface sheet flow
toward the site entering the site through a series of seeps and springs along the
eastern boundary. On-site, the seeps and springs are directed into one main
drainage swale that extends through the southern half of the site, flowing west
toward a seasonal creek which flows into Goldsborough Creek off-site to the
north. A high elevation on the eastern side of the site is 185 feet, dropping to a
low elevation of 100 feet at the seasonal creek on the western boundary. The
catchment draining onto the site appears to be approximately 52 acres in size.
Soils on the site are mapped as the Shelton gravelly sandy loam series on 15-30%
slopes for the majority of the site, with a small portion of Grove gravelly sandy
loams mapped in the northwestern corner. Soils associated with the creek drainage
course off-site are mapped as the Bellingham silt loam series, and it is most likely
that the wetland soils on-site are also of the Bellingham silt loam series.
1.3 Discussion of Existing Wetland Functional Values
The wetland areas have the potential to provide water quality remediate functions
based on the location of the wetlands adjacent to the seasonal creek. Water
flowing down the slopes and entering the wetland system will be slowed by dense
vegetation within the wetlands allowing for bioremediation prior to entering the
creek. Short-term water storage capacity of the wetland areas is moderate, based
on the connection with the surface water system. The wetlands are not large in
size, but will provide some storm water storage, thereby reducing peak flows. The
wetlands will also provide some long-term water storage which will provide base
flow continuation for Goldsborough Creek, which is known to provide habitat for
fish. The wetlands on-site have high value for perched ground water discharge, as
the primary source of hydrology for the wetlands is from springs and seeps
emanating from lateral ground water flow from the hillside to the east. The
wetlands do not appear to have value for recharge to the deeper ground water
system as the majority of water exits the wetlands through surface connection with
the creek or through evapotranspiration. The wetlands have moderate to high
potential for wildlife habitat due to their association with the riparian corridor
connection with the creek. The size of the wetland is the primary limitation to
provision of wildlife habitat as the wetlands are less than one-half acre in total
8271 mit/cmk/smh/4/24/97 2
size. However, the wetlands do have unique habitat features such as large snags
and dense vegetation which will provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS of AREAS PROPOSED
FOR WETLAND RESTORATION
2.1 Topography
The proposed wetland restoration areas include an area approximately 10-15 feet
wide and 100 feet long along the eastern perimeter of the existing wetland area and
a seep area that is approximately 25 feet wide and 80 feet long that flows into the
southern edge of the existing wetland (see Attachment 1, Existing Conditions).
Both areas designated for restoration have recently been filled with approximately
five feet of gravelly, sandy fill material. Current topography is approximately 115
feet on the eastern perimeter where restoration is proposed, and approximately 110
feet in the southern seep area where restoration is proposed. One to five feet of fill
will be removed from these areas; grading in gentle slopes to the existing
elevations.
2.2 Vegetation Community Analysis (Photo Appendix)
Vegetation along the eastern perimeter where restoration is proposed is sparse.
There is one existing old growth cedar stump located in the center of the perimeter
restoration area. This cedar stump will remain in place with fill being removed
from around it as the stump is unique in its size and provides insect production and
nesting sites for wildlife adjacent to the wetland. Along the seep area proposed for
restoration there is also sparse vegetation, other than a few weedy species that are
becoming established on the fill. The existing wetland swale that has not been
recently disturbed contains tree canopy, shrub and herbaceous layers. The tree
canopy is dominated by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western red cedar (Thuja
plicata), and red alder (Alnus rubra). The understory is dominated by salmonberry
(Rubes spectabilis), and vine maple (Acer circinatum). Herbaceous and aquatic
species include smart weed (Polygonum sp), skunk cabbage (Lystichiton
americanum), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa),American brooklime
(Veronica americanum), horsetails (Equisetum sp.), and yellow iris (Iris
pseudocorus). There area also several downed logs located within the open water
areas of the existing wetland.
8271 mit/cmk/sm1V5/6/97 3
2.3 Hydrologic Analysis (Attachment 2)
Direction of flow within the existing wetland area is toward the west with
subsequent flow off-site into the seasonal creek. Water within the proposed
restoration areas flows toward the west and north following the general wetland
patterns.
2.4 Soils Analysis
Soils on the site are mapped as the Shelton gravelly sandy loam and the Grove
gravelly sandy loam series. The Shelton series consists of coarse textured glacial
till underlain by cemented compacted till typically at depths of 30-36 inches. The
Grove gravelly sandy loam series consists of coarse textured glacial till with no
underlying hardpan layer, as in the Shelton series. Therefore, the Grove soils are
naturally more permeable than the Shelton soils. The Bellingham silty clay loam
series is mapped off-site to the west associated with the stream corridor, and it is
most likely that these are the soils that were present in the wetland areas on-site.
The Bellingham silty clay loam series consists of poorly drained silty soils that
formed in upland depressions in glacial lake basins. Soils on the site have been
altered by historic fill, as well as more recent fill, along the eastern perimeter of
the existing wetland swale, and fill within the seep in the southern portion of the
site. This restoration plan includes removal of this fill from these two areas.
3.0 RESTORATION PLAN
3.1 Introduction
Mason County's Interim Resource Ordinance requires that unauthorized impacts to
regulated wetlands be restored. As mentioned previously, a site visit was
conducted by Mason County staff at which time it was determined that fill should
be removed from the eastern perimeter of the existing wetland, as well as from the
seep area on the southern side of the wetland. We anticipate a high level of
success in restoring the wetlands as the underlying soil and hydrologic conditions
are suitable for the re-establishment of wetland vegetation.
3.2 Buffers
Mason County's Interim Resource Ordinance requires that management areas be
maintained perpendicular to a wetland edge. These management areas include a
50-foot vegetated setback and a 65-foot building setback. This plan does not
8271 midcmk/smh/4/24/97 4
include restoration of the existing wetland buffers, however, this activity maybe
pursued in the future.
3.3 Performance Standards
The overall goal of this restoration project is to provide functionally restored
wetlands to compensate for recent impacts to these areas. The restoration plan
includes removal of fill that was placed in these areas and the planting of native
trees and shrubs in order to reestablish the wetland vegetation community. The
specific goals and performance standards are detailed in Table 1.
Table 1: Goals and Performance Standards
Overall Goal: to restore approximately 2.000 square feet of wetland perimeter along the eastern edge of the
existing wetland,and to restore approximately 2,000 square feet of seep wetlands along the southern portion of the
wetland. The desired restored vegetation.community is a facultative/forested wetland.
- GOAL PERFORMANCE STANDARD
1. At least 4,000 square feet of wetlands will be Hydric soils,hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland
restored on this site. hydrology will be present throughout the designated
restoration areas.
2. To restore a multi-layered forested wetland with At least one species of native evergreen trees and
native plant species similar to those present prior to three species of native shrubs will be established in
the disturbance. the restored wetland.
3. To restore water quality remediation within the Native herb vegetation should attain at least 80%
wetland area. cover.
Native shrub vegetation should attain at least 45%
cover.
Native trees should attain at least 45%cover.
Soils should be saturated within the restored
wetlands for at least two weeks with the rate of flow
slow enough to prevent erosion and provide
opportunity for nutrient uptake.
4. To avoid invasion of non-native species into the Less than 10%of the mitigation area should be
restored wetland. covered with undesirable invasive or weedy species.
Invasive species that are potential problems on this
site include reed canarygrass (Phalaris
arundinacae). Weeds on the 1994 Washington
State Noxious Weed List should be removed from
the mitigation area.
8271 mit/cmk/smh/4/24/97 5
3.4 Grading Plan (Attachment 2)
Grading (removal of fill) will occur on the eastern perimeter of the wetland and
within the seep area in the southern portion of the wetland. The fill that has been
placed within both of these areas will be removed, lowering existing topography
by one to five feet. Grading will include over-excavation of approximately 12
inches to allow for topsoil placement to augment the soil conditions. The side
slopes of the perimeter and in the seep area will not exceed a 3:1 horizontal to
vertical ratio. We recommend the use of a topsoil mix(such as Nutramulch®) to
provide a suitable substrate for the native species, since the nature of the soil
below the fill is unknown. Should the removal of fill reveal intact hydric soils, it
may be eliminated, depending on the judgment of the overseeing biologist.
3.5 Hydrology (Attachment 2)
Hydrology will be restored to the wetland perimeter and the seep by removal of the
fill. Hydrology current flows on top of the compacted surface of the fill in both
the perimeter and seep areas. Removal of the fill will allow hydrology to enter the
restored areas from lateral perched ground water flow from the hillside, as well as
from surface flow. The direction of flow within the restored areas will be the same
as the current direction of flow; toward the west in the perimeter wetland, and
toward the north in the seep wetland. Water will exit the restored areas by flowing
into the existing wetland with subsequent flow off-site to the west, associated with
the seasonal creek. The restored wetland areas are expected to have seasonal
hydrology associated with the winter rainy season. Successful restoration of
wetland hydrology is anticipated based on the presence of the existing wetland and
the large volumes of water moving downslope. To avoid direct pollutant inputs
into the restored wetland perimeter, we recommend directing road surface runoff
to the east side of the road and filtering this runoff through a bioswale prior to
release into the creek.
3.6 Planting Plan (Attachment 3)
The intent of the proposed restoration project is to restore facultative forested
wetland community, including both trees and shrubs, to disturbed areas. These
plantings will restore wildlife habitat adjacent to the existing wetland area and will
facilitate flood water storage and water quality remediation by slowing water flow.
The planting plan specifies native tree and shrub species that are either currently
present in the existing adjacent wetland, and/or typically present in riparian
wetland communities in the Puget Lowland areas. All recommended species are
8271 mit/cmk/smh/5/6/97 6
available from local native plant nurseries. Plantings include western red cedar
(Thuja plicala), salmonberry (Rubes spectabilis), red currant (gibes sanguineum),
and red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera). Planting instructions are shown on
Attachment 3. Tables 2 and 3 details the number, size, and spacing requirements
for the plantings. The existing cedar stump should be retained in the restored
wetland perimeter. There does not appear to be a high risk of erosion in the soils
adjacent to the wetland area; therefore, we are not recommending hydroseeding at
this time as the development of dense herbaceous vegetation may limit the
recruitment of native trees, shrubs, and herbs from the surrounding seed source.
Table 2: Plant Characteristics
Common Name Scientific Name USFWS Mature Height Spacing
(Region 3) and Spread
Ind. Status
Western red cedar Thu a plicata FAC 60-130' h x 40' dia 10 feet
Salmonbcrry Rubes s ectabilis FAC 1 5-10' h x 5-8' dia 4 feet
Red-flowering currant Ribes san uineum NR 5' h x 4' dia 4 feet
Red osier dogwood Cornus stoloni era FACW 10' h x 10' dia 4 feet
Table 3: Planting Plan Requirements
Species Size&Cost per 'plant Number Cost
Trees
Western red cedar 2 al/$5.50 40 220.00
Shrubs
Salmonbe 2 al/$5.50 84 462.00
Red flowering currant 2 gaU$5.50 84 462.00
Red osier dogwood 2 al/$5.50 84 462.00
Total $149600
Plantings should be installed in a clump/gap mosaic pattern. This pattern includes
clumping individuals of one species together, then placing individuals of that same
species farther from the first group, and repeating this process with different
species, forming a mosaic pattern.
3.7 Irrigation Requirements
Irrigation may be necessary during the first one or two growing season summers
after the restoration plantings have been installed. There is a water source
available at the existing residence on the site, and the small size of the restoration
areas will make it possible to utilize this source for watering. A specific irrigation
design is not included with this plan. The plantings should be established by the
end of June in order to allow some root development prior to droughty conditions.
8271 mit/cmk/smh/4/24/97 7
3.8 r Pollution Mitigation Measures During Construction
Water o g g
Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), specifically siltation control,
should be used during excavation of the fill from the restored areas. The grading
plan indicates recommended locations for silt fence placement around the
perimeter of the existing wetland that will not be disturbed (Attachment 2).
Grading should be completed outside of the silt fences with the silt fences
removed at the completion of planting.
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 Installation sequence
It is anticipated that the mitigation project will be installed in May or June of
1997. Ideally, plants would be installed in the early fall or early spring in order to
give them an opportunity to establish root systems prior to the summer dry season.
However, it is important that the restoration occur as soon as possible; therefore,
we are recommending installation in early June.
June 1, 1997 Stake restoration area. Install silt fencing around perimeter of
existing wetland to be undisturbed as shown on the grading
plan.
June 2-5, 1997 Grading plan as indicated on Attachment 2, will be
completed. The grades will be overexcavated by 12 inches to
allow for the placement of purchased topsoil.
June 6-8, 1997 Purchased topsoil will be placed to a depth of at least 12
inches throughout the restored wetland areas.
June 9-10, 1997 Native plant materials will be installed according to the
planting plan as shown on Attachment 3.
June 30, 1997 Silt fencing will be removed from the perimeter of the
existing wetland.
8271 midcmk/smh/4/24/97 8
4.2 Monitoring
Monitoring of sites provides necessary information to determine if the goals of the
project have met the performance standards. Mason County may request that this
project be monitored. Monitoring should begin with an as-built report
documenting the conditions of the mitigation project upon completion of
installation, and should continue (at least biannually) once in the growing season
in order to identify potential problems such as winter kill that may require
replacement, and once late in the growing season in order to ascertain the vigor of
the restoration area prior to the dormant season.
4.2.1 Monitoring plan
The monitoring program, to evaluate the success of the mitigation project,
should use scientific procedures. Permanent sampling points would be
established to determine success of the vegetative cover in the restored
areas. Fixed photo monitoring points to illustrate the progress of the
restoration plan should also be established. Permanent sampling plots
should be approximately 40 feet in diameter and the location of these plots
should be representative of the restored vegetation community.
Quantitative Assessments
Vegetation Diversity
One of the four performance standards (number 2 ) is related to plant
species diversity. To assess diversity, the number of native trees, shrubs,
and herbs should be counted in each sample plot. This documented number
should be compared with the performance standard. Note: It is not
necessary for each sample plot to meet the performance standard. The
sample plots in the restored wetland may be combined to determine if the
standard has been met.
Vegetation Density
Performance standard three pertains to vegetation density. To determine if
this standard is met, the survival of planted species, as well as approximate
areal coverage for each strata, should be documented. Desirable volunteer
species may be counted toward the density standards.
8271 midcmk/smh/4/24/97 9
HydrolM
Performance standards one ,md three relate to the establishment of wetland
hydrology. The spring mono toring visits should occur between the second
and third weeks of March for each year to determine if wetland hydrology
is present early in the growing season. An assumption may be made that
hydrology has been continuous through the winter rainy season. The rate of
flow should be visually estimated. Signs of gullying or other types of
erosion may indicate flow rates greater than desired.
Qualitative Assessments
Soils
At each quantitative monitoring point, the texture and color of soils (using
the Munsell color chart) within 18 inches of the surface should be recorded.
Photographs
Photographic documentation should be used to establish a baseline and
track project success. Photos should be taken from the same vantage at
each monitoring period, with the location of the photo station marked on
the site plan. Photos should be submitted with the monitoring reports.
Overall Site Review
In addition to the quantitative sample transects, qualitative assessments of
the entire mitigation area should be made to determine if areas outside the
sample plots meet density standards and invasive exotic cover goals.
4.3 Maintenance and Permanent Protection
1. The selected plant species are native to Western Washington and should
require minimal maintenance, which includes the potential need for
watering during the first two years of growth.
2. Invasive exotic species should be mechanically removed by hand. Due to
the proximity to the intermittent swale/wetland area, herbicide applications
are recommended only during the summer dry season.
3. Plant materials which do not survive should be replaced with like species or
an alternate species. The reason for plant failure should be assessed. If a
problem with the species requirements is determined to be present, and/or if
specified plant species are not locally available, alternative species may be
recommended.
8271 mit/cmk/smh/4/24/97 10
5.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN
Maintenance of the restored wetland areas will be essential to the success of the project.
Monitoring during construction will determine if erosion or settling is occurring. If it
appears that erosion potentially threatens to introduce sediments into the wetland/swale
area, silt fencing may remain in place until an herbaceous cover becomes established.
Invasive exotic species should be removed by hand, or with spot treatments of approved
herbicides applied only during the summer dry season. Invasive exotics are not
anticipated to be a significant problem on this site. Due to the known hydrology of the
area, the minimal grading required to restore the wetland areas, and the presence of
existing wetland plants within the wetland soil to serve as a seed source, the project has a
high likelihood of successfully attaining the stated goals.
6.0 BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
A cost estimate for installation of this restoration project follows.
Construction Bond
Excavation/Grading (8 hours @ $70/hour) $ 560.00
Nutramulch® (74 cubic yds @ $10/cu.yd.) 740.00
Topsoil placement (4 hours @ $70/hour) 280.00
Plant materials 1,496.00
Plant Installation (1.5x plant cost) 997.34
Subtotal $ 4,073.34
+25% inflation/administrative costs 1,018.34
Total $ 5,091.68
8271 midcmk/smh/4/24/97 11
MITIGATION SITE MONITORING FORM: SETTLE INN RV PARK RESTORATION PROJECT
Sample plot#: Date: Completed by:
O As-built O Yr 1 March O Yr 2 March O Yr 3 March D Yr 4 March
O 30 days O Yr 1 September O Yr 2 September O Yr 5 March
TREES NO. NO. NO. NO. %SURVIVAL
PLANTED ALIVE STRESSED DEAD
SHRUBS
HERBS
DESIRABLE VOLUNTEERS
OVERALL AREAL COVER: TREES SHRUBS HERBS
INVASIVE EXOTICS %COVER METHOD OF CONTROL
SOILS 0 HORIZON A HORIZON B HORIZON
Hydrology:
Wildlife Observed:
Comments:
8271 mit
REFERENCES and LITERATURE CITED
Brown, E. R. ed. 1985. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and
Washington. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region.
Corlery,W.L. Soil Amendments at Planting. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 2(l): 27-30.
EPA 190/r-9-006, A Citizen's Guide to Wetland Restoration, 1994.
d Don'ts of Wetland Planning. Wetland Journal Vol. 7
Garbisch, E.W., 1995. The Do's an g ,No. 2.
Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of WA Press, Seattle
and London.
Kentula, M.E., R. P. Brooks, S. E. Gwin, C. C. Holland, A.D. Sherman, and J.C. Sifneus. 1992. An
Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation. EPA/600/R-92/150.
Kusler, J.A. 1986. Wetland Assessment: The Regulator's Perspective. Page 2-3 in J.A. Kusler and P.
Riexinger(ed.) proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Assocation of State Wetland
Managers, Chester, Vermont, USA. Technical Report 1.
Kusler,J.A. and M.E. Kentula(eds.) 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration;The Status of The Science.
Island Press. Washington, D.C. and Cove Co. CA.
Kusler, J.A. 1987. Scientific Issues Relating to the Restoration and Creation of Wetlands. National
Wetlands Policy Forum.
Leonard,W.P.,H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of
Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audobon Society.
Mason County Department of Community Development, August 16, 1996. Letter addressed to Mery
Settle regarding violation.
Mason County Department of Community Development, January 26, 1997. Letter addressed to Mery
Settle regarding continued violation.
Mason County Soil Survey. 1960.
Martin, A.C.,H.S. Zim and A.L. Nelson, 1951. American Wildlife and Plants: A Guide to Wildlife Food
Habits. Dover Publications, Inc.,New York.
Moll, G.M. and P. Rodbell. The Best Way to Plant Trees. The Virginia Gardener, VA Cooperative
Extension Service.
Moss Environmental, January 24, 1996. Letter addressed to Mery Settle regarding wetland review.
Quammen, M.L. 1986. Measuring the Success of Wetlands Mitigation. National Wetlands Newsletter,
8:6-8.
Resource Management Group, Inc. 1993. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands -Region 9-
Northwest B.J. Sabine ed. Grand Haven, MI.
Ricklefs, R. E. 1979. Ecology. 2nd ed. Chiron Press Inc. New York.
Whitcomb, C. E. et al. What is a$5 Planting Hole?American Nurseryman 144 (5):16, 111-115.
Wildlife Society,Washington, D.C., 1980. Wildlife Management Techniques Manual, Fourth Edition,
Revised. Ed. Sanford D. Schemnitz.
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON SHEET NUMBER i9
Ght '... \. Gk \ k Z - h 19
c u ��i �? I+ Mg I- (Joins s 4 _
� � —=��, sheet 1
Gh- i ti /i { iit A \\ r Ca Sf - e
/ Kf \ if
M. c / Y,
;Gh NA AL
Sf \\ 6 n / Sf
r , N
Gh' ii ' \ 12 Gh
17 - RHSE ATION ' .gig i,�;' ,'
dr 9 It 1 Q �% SMELTON I r M
-: - . . - Sf `�� 11. A/RPORT �\� --- -- ------ 9
Gh
- � ---- Ld r"� 6,1 - \ r . Lb 0 h n P r a „ i e ,T � P
�Ne 5 I r•ems' / Ca �Ae Ca •� r
\ %'L� ✓ n _ f`-�\<- � do l ��, \ i r 5'a Sf
..Ne ;- II: ..i III/// :�Ca . Il• _ �g�b Gh_
Gh
Gh
i/=• Gh p \� ,�/ •' ,
ifI Gk + Gk i � Jt. u M Sa\ .\.i' •p :\ S { `�
. s -" t .Jr.,,� II �.� - am� _ � i/' _ _:_•t-' ��) f���' ,y Gk •�
a. Sf
16 '-Gtr It r t.`'!' _;''� / �C•�� .\ i�-i�+I�4• '•
a �� S �� ; x .. i !Gh Ce C
t 5T li 4. g - 'i/MTg�Gm •II C�i
Sf c
3 I \ -4Co,\ j�\
Gh
Cc �A ,- "� ^\.�\ ( �i��i.�'` I y ,'__+ t •s;>`. .k_r '�' .'i Cr
car= _ .+w _ . IL: ;�\ .,•\� ,I „ , h:. ,,rf Sh •�
LOGGING ••Ci'... �. i..r,t� --i - ..t �q `\�,` \ _ �'/. „ -♦.i; .i� '(mot -A •>
d ,Sd Sf -r- ; �V/ Gn -__ ♦Sg• r Y 6 f L
{ \ `\ k M
i. .� ,,•i ,�.�� L e5 -: Me �ii �� �J L/_��--G-�h._ 1 • L�_� _=c. `* 'yV �' .CC M
m = C s r Gk'
Gh G �, Lj
l Sh.a ,U, SfGh :!�� L= _ 'r J0 $g-� I /i/� P�. Munson -
Gm
gd` ,1^ 'y/ )•' ♦„ SS Pt U W CL7 x
1 \V a{I'r 11. .� Sg. •► flb /—-� � ,\ , q, -(� .. t + 4 i� v v z ^ 3t
Ii; i^ cb / �f;•.o ,�.js ' ti -..i, r sa;�•s• r' _ Ga'� /_=. I _ 'Y -,•'�M' m O 0 C
•I `A
Ir_ �r `` Gh `l d/ 1 =- �L` -'(�,-I ~� ''.
�,�f f I C
o= II `'r } Gm n __�__- -vuLp -
Sf .t- o
�, N�yq '` ` _i � \y ,J4 ._ \\\ I\� Mg �4 c •'r -,� kI�LJI._:L=;I�'_�.
~Mg t•..�� ° r.,7 "i,. Ge
Gk ♦u � I �—I r' s u nrNniir y
/ A i JZ \ f r p NI• Nf IC � -1L7 Sgl
rVrll `� ram, (-� ' ODIO�DaO_ _
910
QF
Ge Sb �1•, \ Bd
Sg \� / ;r ~�®�l�g. �^ SC c�
Mri Bd E Mf �� \ s`Q gf �/" o ( i7 q • , ( , 0. tJ `
Ce
it
it
it 27 r 2 r ^ 4 b ��_ - / ��` • �V
-30
It - 25
'Sg `- - _ `fad
Mc ice' Cc _ , •.- Sf. '- 5t•.
•d i II Gk •Cbe /M[ q .7 Z r ft �; Wd O
1 _adr \...• Sb ice' Sg Mb
s Sd'y < •. r 1 .\ ,-- Sf--_ Sf I wcl 'a �I
Gh ,L Nf�==�� IT ,✓ cC g 1 = ♦1• Sf r' / �„ p
__ / •.i17 11 5 Mecz
Sg
Gk Sg
Le Co• /. / cc
Cc •II Cc / 2
sa• _ 4 sf Gm . 3. Gk 6/• •I 1� ,�. \SlIt �_ 3~
33 / A 31 V; � 71 Bd sf Bd 33..
j- Mc •h I\AK ,Vf{ .f ; - _.h i Mf - Ce
Rd /. •S8 0 I ja 4l
e Mh Gm //„sue / I �� � ��� ;I Mg f!d Mg Ge
Sf ' Gh �/ '�0�'�''\4Qr ,I j�`•`� ••' Sd �� Gk •?� .
k Rd Gk 3d� ,k �:latia •- S. fi•ro Sf ,ip
To Gm / ✓ Gk e
r c� Y
i
o �;I,S • r, (Joins sheet 23)
Scale ':31680 - �V
APPENDIX A
Photo Appendix
S/X-1 21
5 3do�s �2�N�9 1l r►M '�3/\OW3� 3:R
A-7RI VWIXQ,/c/d.H 2Yo3( �1 aN9 i53d
�7b�(�►S QI�N�o!a(�7 jo SNot.i►Q NOJ -9N11SI)r"3 :v/\OgN
������ � _�� ..y„r � -• � M"-..r .t Y �s ,aM - Ili
gg
. .4
0 b42t
i
-- : 7 (11<
y.
C
QL 7.7lld 7-7rM
�e�/V�tl1.�Z► �� 7'trCti dW�JS' 2►dC�� �N�!S►x,3 �No►+t�a_.t_S3�1 Z►off
�T3-LbN91SBQ (-TNN71.40 --10 5NOLuQr10z) 'J/vi1S►X� :�/�4gy
5.
�
_:I 0 C-I 01
I