Loading...
ApprovedNativeVegetationPlan.pdfM d Mitigation Plan Edmonds, WA Prepared for: Kent Halverson I Halverson Construction Group LLC 12515 Willows Road NE Suite 220 Kirkland, WA 98034 Prepared by: Suzanne Tomassi, MSc, CWB, PWS Senior Biologist Owner: MeadowView Estates Avia Environmental Consulting Table of Contents 1 Introduction .. ................... ........, ......... ......... ......... ........, ......... ......... .,....,., ..,....,. ...,........1 2 METHODS ................. ......... ......... ... ............................ . ......... ........., ..,.,.....,...,...,, ,...,.... ,.........., 2 2.1 Existing Documentation Review ............................ ....................................................... ., .....»......2 2.2 Fieldwork ........ ......... ......... ......... ................... ......... ......... .,....... ,........ ......... .,..........2 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................... ................... .......... ...... ... ......... ......... .............. .,.,.. ...,........,3 3.1 Project Vicinity ............................... ......». ...... ......... .............,..............., ........, ............3 3.2 Study Area ....................... ......... ......,... ......... ......... .....,... ......... ..................... .,., 3 4 CRITICAL AREAS........ .».... ......... ........ ......... ........................ ............. .............. ......... ............3 5 HABITAT ASSESSMENT ................................... ......... ..........,........ ,......,....,..,........,,.... .......»....4 5.1 Study Area Habitat Function ......................... ... ....,.,.. ......... ,.....,., ,.»...........................,...4 5.2 Landscape -level Habitat Function .......... ...................... ............. ...., ......... ......... ...,....,...6 5.3 Species of Local Importance .......................... ......... ....., ........ ...,..... ......... ......... ,,,...,,,...7 5.3.1 Bald Eagle. ..,...., ...... ......... ................................................... ......... .....,... .........,..7 5.3.2 Osprey ................... ......... .......... ........ .................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ............7 5.3.3 Great Blue Heron ........................ .,,......,.,............».................... ,.....,..,......»„................... .,,......8 5.3.4 Pileated Woodpecker ...... ......... ......... ......... ............... .................... ...... ...,...,..8 5.3.5 Fish .................................. ....... ........ ......... .....».,...... ......... .,..... .,....... 8 6 Project Description .... ........ . ......... .................... ......... ............ ....................... ....... ......... ...........8 7 Vegetation Management Impacts ........................ ,.......____ ......... .... ........ ......... ....,.......9 7.1 Direct Impacts .................................... ....... ..................... 9 7.2 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ....... ......... ........... ....... ......... ........ ......... ,,.9 8 Mitigation ................................................... ................. ,.....,............. ... .....,, ......... ........, ...........9 8.1 Mitigation Sequencing .........„............. .................... ......... ........ ........, .......... ,9 8.2 Mitigation Plan.....__ ....... ......... ......... ...».,... .....,...,....,..... 10 8.2.1 Goals and Objectives .................. ......,,.,....,...., ........, ,..,..,., ......... ..........10 8.2.2 Installation ....................... ................... ......... ......... .............. ,........ ..........,.,...., 11 8.2.3 Maintenance ..................................... ......... ......... ......... .................. ......... .........11 8.2.4 Performance standards...» ................... ......... .......... ......... ........ ......... ......... .»......,11 8.2.5 Monitoring Methods .................. ......... ..... ............. ... ......... ......... .................. .........12 8.2.6 General Work Sequence .. .......... ...... . ............. ............. ...... ......... ...............................12 8.2.7 Contingency Plan ............. ......... ......... ......... .»........ .....,,,. ......... .,,,..... ...,....» ...,.,...13 8.2.8 Planting Notes ............................ ......... ...... ......... .........13 REFERENCES»...................................................... _,......... ........,.. ,........ ,....... . ......... ..,........,........ .........14 April 4, 2016 INTRODUCTION Avia Environmental This habitat assessment addresses the 2.52 -ac property located at 15620 72nd Avenue W in the City of Edmonds (parcels 00513300002501 and 00513100002406) (Figures 1 and 2) and surrounding area. This document contains information and analyses required by Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.90.020. The property is presently vacant single-family use and contains a newly renovated house and associated driveway, garage, and landscaping. Four additional single-family residences are proposed for the site. This assessment was prepared by a Certified Wildlife Biologist based on a review of existing information and a site investigation. 1Q'h S, SW 140Ih St SW y�a4b 141ftSW P �i �P 143,0 % ASW Project area 143,hM. �/ �.yAti X Point / ..d ��� ��... ;,•, !/ ,:. � Lynnwood lwo,r,rwt. t ssmslsw s� / f VGv1K'It^✓drW Anion 3,,,Wem S � t r, Ana ro 9h anmlu t.NIla sQ _ High Schod wrl - -AP,sw n rye�II���w 10111 I J GS y I761h SI9W 116th SIY W!P Figure 1. Subject property vicinity map (from Google Maps). 1 April 4, 2016 Avia Environmental Figure 2. 2015 aerial photograph of subject property (from Google Maps) 2 METHODS 2.1 Existing Documentation Review Publicly available documentation reviewed for this assessment includes Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) maps and guidances, WDFW SalmonScape online maps, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage database, Snohomish County online property information, City of Edmonds online maps, general information on habitat types from Johnson and O'Neil (2001), and scientific literature. 2.2 Fieldwork The biologist conducted a brief site visit on November 5, 2015, to discuss the subject property and proposed actions with the project arborist and construction personnel. A second site visit was conducted on November 19 and consisted of a detailed examination of vegetation, wildlife, and habitat features on the site and surrounding area. Vegetative structure and composition were assessed and the presence of wildlife species, sign, and habitat features were recorded. The property was examined for the presence and sign of pileated woodpecker and other species of local importance. April 4, 2016 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 Project Vicinity Avia Environmental The project site is located near the northern boundary of the City of Edmonds, approximately 500 feet east of the shore of Puget Sound (see Figure 1). Residential development surrounds most of the site, with Meadowdale Beach Park approximately 500 feet to the north and several smaller parks and natural areas nearby. The greater vicinity is a mix of high to low density residential development. 3.2 Study Area The subject property totals 2.52 acres (109,650 sf) and five lots. It is presently unoccupied, with one newly renovated home, garage, and driveway on one of the lots. A mix of native and non-native landscaping surrounds the developed lot, and undergrowth and lower branches have been cleared from the areas of proposed houses (Appendix A, Photo 1). The western portion of the site is a steep slope down toward the Sound; the height of the trees in the area west of the existing house has been reduced by topping (Appendix A, Photo 2). Thinly vegetated understory is the result of a past landslide on this slope in this area. The landslide area is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom, with scattered young and topped red alder, bigleaf maple, and Douglas fir. Sparse native understory species in the area are beaked hazelnut, salal, and bracken fern. While this landslide area is located within the boundaries of the study property, it is not included in the assessment or mitigation except insofar as it may impact the bordering slopes and buffers. The slope adjacent to the landslide area is forested with mature Douglas fir, western red cedar, and bigleaf maple and has a dense understory of mostly native species (Appendix A, Photo 3). Table 1 lists all vegetative species observed on the site during two field visits. 4 CRITICAL AREAS The WDFW SalmonScape database depicts a stream with a salmon -bearing tributary (documented Coho rearing habitat) in Meadowvale Beach Park (Appendix B). The mainstem of the stream (Lunds Gulch Creek) is not shown as a salmon -bearing waterway, but the presence of salmon in a tributary implies the presence of salmon in the downstream mainstem as well. The stream is approximately 1,000 feet from the edge of the subject property at its closest point. It drains to Puget Sound northwest of the subject property. Lunds Gulch Creek and its adjacent riparian area are part of a WDFW PHS Biodiversity Corridor. The edge of the corridor, as depicted on current PHS maps, is approximately 500 feet north of the subject property (Appendix Q. 3 April 4, 2016 Avia Environmental The steep slope on the west side of the subject property is regulated as a geologically hazardous area under ECDC 23.80 and is not further addressed in this report except as habitat. No other critical areas were noted on or immediately adjacent to the property. Table 1. Vegetative species recorded in the subject property. Common name Scientific name ...... ---- Trees ...................... Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Western red cedar Thuja plicata .�........................................ Bileaf m g maple Acer macrophyllum Red alder Alnus rubra Pacific madrone Arbutus menziesii _...w .............. Black Black cottonwood __.......................... _............ _. Populus balsamifera Bitter cherry �............... ................................. Prunus emarginata .......................... Shrubs Himalayan blackberry Rubus ameniacus Evergreen blackberry Rubus laciniatus _. ry Rubus spectabilis ......._............ Snowberry .................... ......... _......... ............... .-__.... Symphoricarpos albus ................................ Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium Beaked hazelnut �.........._ Corylus cornuta .................. Osoberry ......... Oemleria cerasiformis Salal Gaultheria shallon .�... ................... Cascara �................. ........... .......... ...__ Rhamnus purshianus ........ English ivy Hedera helix English holly ..................................___....... Ilex aquilfolium Scotch broom _ Cytisus scopariu Cherry laurel Prunus laurocerasus Herbs Sword fern Polystichum munitum Bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum Fringecup Tellima grandiflora Pacific bleeding g hea rt Dicentra formosa Grasses.__..................................w-Poa sp. 5 HABITAT ASSESSMENT 5.1 Study Area Habitat Function Habitat in the project vicinity can be generally characterized as urban and mixed environs (Johnson and O'Neil 2001). Native habitat on the site consists of mid -age to mature forest dominated by Douglas fir, western red cedar, and bigleaf maple, with a dense understory of mostly native trees, shrubs, and 4 April 4, 2016 Avia Environmental herbaceous species (see Appendix A, Photo 3). Vegetation is structurally and compositionally complex in some areas, providing high-quality habitat for birds and mammals common to the area. Wildlife of the nearby shoreline and biodiversity corridor likely use the subject property to varying extents. Distinct areas of varying quality on the property are described in the following paragraphs. Vegetation in the areas of proposed residential development consists of mature conifers with little remaining undergrowth or mid -story vegetation (see Appendix A, Photo 1). Habitat value is consequently limited, consisting of nesting, perching, and foraging habitat for primarily canopy -dwelling bird species. The landslide area described in Section 3.2 is densely vegetated with invasive shrubs. The dominant Himalayan blackberry is an aggressive invasive species, and little other vegetation can successfully compete with it. It does, however, provide forage and cover for some species, such as white -crowned sparrows. Remaining small snags on the edge of the clearing provide perching and foraging habitat for woodpeckers and other birds (see Appendix A, Photo 2). Undisturbed habitat on the forested slope is suitable for urban -adapted woodland species, including common passerines and near -passerines such as black -capped and chestnut -backed chickadee, dark - eyed junco, bushtit, song sparrow, Steller's jay, American robin, and crow; small mammals such as squirrels, voles, and mice; and larger mammals such as raccoon, coyote, opossum, mountain beaver, and deer. The canopy, mid -story, and understory provide potential nest sites for songbirds, near - passerines, and raptors. Foraging opportunities are high in the native vegetative community. Dead and decaying trees are abundant on the steep slope, as are logs and stumps. These habitat features are valuable wildlife habitat components, particularly for woodpeckers and cavity -nesting birds. Few of the trees, snags, and logs show sign of woodpecker use, however. Two cavities that may be used for nesting by birds were noted on the site. Despite the paucity of woodpecker sign, three woodpecker species were observed during the two site visits: downy woodpecker, red -shafted flicker, and pileated woodpecker (see Section 5.3, below). Species and sign observed on the site during the November site visits are listed in Table 2. 5 April 4, 2016 Avia Environmental Table 2. Wildlife species identified on the study site. Common name Scientific name Observation Habitat/location ._......� _........_ W ......__ type Birds mm . Song sparrow .................... Melospiza melodia Aural _........ _....._ Forest understory Black ca ed chickadee pp Poecile atncapillus Visual Forest midstory Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis ---------- Visual Forest understory Golden -crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Visual ................... Forest midstory and canopy American goldfinch Carduelis tristis Aural Forest canopy Stellar's jay _. Cyanocitta stelleri _ ........y Aural Forest midstory and canopy American crow ........ Corvus brach rh nchos .............. y Visual ......._ �....._.. Forest canopyand fly -over Pacific wren I Troglodytes pacificus _ _.... .. _........... Visual Forest understory Bewick's wren ..... Thryomanes bewickii ............ Visual . .... .............. . Forest understory Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna ............ Aural Forest midstory Great blue heron ----------- Ardea herodias Visual -_........_............. Forest canopy Red -shafted flicker .....M tes auratus Colapwwwwwwwww _ _. ............. Visual ..... Forest midstory ______....... _................... Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Visual Forest midstory and landslide ...Down area snag woo.._.. y dpecker �.__ ........._. Picoides pubescens Visual .......�� �...._ .. _. Landslide area snag Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Visual Conifer, adjacent property Mammals �.............._ .............._....... Mountain beaver p __. ontia rufa A lod._.._.... _............... Burrows Forested slope Douglas squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii Visual mmmmmmm .. Forest midstory All vegetative communities within the study should be considered together in qualifying habitat value, as their juxtaposition and interspersion create transitions zones that may attract wildlife beyond those species supported by each habitat alone. This transitional habitat, or edge, has both positive and negative impacts on wildlife. In general, edges support higher species richness than each block of habitat they join. This increase in richness is most noticeable when the adjoining communities are very different from one another. However, edges can also promote invasion by pest species into adjoining habitat, particularly where they occur near urban areas. Nest depredation and brood parasitism are also generally high in edge habitat. Creation of edge in urban areas is usually considered more harmful than beneficial to wildlife. Edges between vegetative communities on the subject property do not add substantial value to the habitat as a whole. The edge between the development area and forested slope is define mainly by the loss of under- and mid -story in the transition, and the edges surrounding the landslide area similarly represent a loss of mid- and upper -story strata, as well as intruding Himalayan blackberry sprouts. 5.2 Landscape -level Habitat Function Although the subject property is in a developed landscape, it is within approximately 500 feet of a large forested PHS biodiversity corridor. The corridor is separated by roads and other residential development from the subject property and its adjacent habitat. Thus, movement of mammals and April 4, 2016 Avia Environmental herptiles across a larger landscape is probably limited, but most birds are less hindered by the lack of a vegetated corridor than other species. Birds and mammals are likely to utilize the subject property as a stop -over or forage area by individuals of larger wildlife populations in the corridor. Species whose breeding requirements are completely met on the property could also breed where vegetation provides nest and forage sites. As a moderately sized habitat patch, the subject property habitat provides refuge value for wildlife in this urbanized area. Generally, the larger the habitat fragment in an urban area, the greater species richness it supports (Johnson and O'Neil 2001). Forest fragments surrounded by urban development are vital to urban bird conservation, although they don't support the species that larger forests on the outskirts of urbanizing areas can (Donnelly and Marzluff 2004). The vicinity as a whole is urban, and specifically single-family residential. As a general rule, species diversity decreases and species densities increase as urbanization increases (Johnson and O'Neil 2001). Density increases are largely the result of exotic species thriving in urban areas, although the study site still supports a native wildlife community. Of particular value on the subject property are the numerous snags and large conifers, which are increasingly rare in urbanizing landscapes, and which enhance urban biodiversity by supporting a variety of species in additional to common urban species. 5.3 Species of Local Importance An area may be classified as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area if it has a primary association with a State priority species, species with state or federal listing status (threatened, endangered, or sensitive), or other species of interest (ECDC 23.90.010). These species are collectively referred to as species of local importance. WDFW PHS online data show no records of bird or mammal species of local importance on or within 0.5 mile of the subject property. The nearest PHS species occurrence is Dungeness crab, approximately 500 feet to the west in Puget Sound. Species of local importance that were observed or could potentially occur in the vicinity of the subject property are addressed in the following sections. 5.3.1 Bald Eagle WDFW (2015) PHS data show the nearest documented bald eagle nest site to be approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. WDFW-recommended management zones do not extend to the site. Bald eagles are common foragers over Puget Sound. The study site itself contains no suitable bald eagle foraging habitat. Tall conifers on the site could be used for perching at times and are potential nest trees. Two bald eagles were observed perched in tall conifers between the subject property and the Puget Sound shoreline during the November 19 site visit (Appendix A, Photo 4). 5.3.2 Osprey The nearest documented PHS osprey occurrence is 0.6 mile from the subject property (WDFW 2015). The species is common in the Puget Sound shoreline area, and individuals often perch in tall trees near open water during foraging. Suitable foraging perch sites are present on the subject property. Future 7 April 4, 2016 Avia Environmental use of the property for nesting cannot be precluded, as the species regularly nests in the tops of tall trees near open water. No nests were observed on or adjacent to the property during site visits. 5.3.3 Great Blue Heron Great blue heron rookeries (colonial nesting sites) are usually located in tall trees near wetlands, lakes, and other water bodies. The species is very common in western Washington year-round. In winter in particular, the species is widespread, foraging both in aquatic and upland areas (Seattle Audubon Society 2015). One individual was observed during the November 19 site visit landing in a tall deciduous tree near the southwestern extent of the subject property. 5.3.4 Pileated Woodpecker Pileated woodpeckers are fairly common in urban forests in the Puget Sound area. They occupy both mature and second -growth forest (Lewis and Azerrad 2003). While they historically may have preferred large conifers for drumming and foraging, they also forage in standing and fallen dead deciduous trees of many sizes. Pileated woodpeckers create distinctive, rectangular foraging holes, which can normally be identified as pileated woodpecker sign. These holes are surprisingly uncommon in dead and dying trees and stumps on the subject property. One individual was observed on November flying between and foraging on a large conifer on the forested slope and one of the cut snags in the landslide area. 5.3.5 Fish As described in Section 4, WDFW SalmonScape data indicate the occurrence of rearing Coho salmon in a tributary to Lunds Gulch Creek, approximately 1,000 feet north of the subject property (WDFW 2015). As Coho are an anadromous species, it can be assumed that they also occur in the mainstem creek downstream of this tributary. No streams or other fish habitat are present on the subject property. G PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plans may be provided by the site developer. In summary, three single-family residences and associated access driveways are planned. Regulatory steep slope areas along the western property boundary and a 25 -foot top -of -slope buffer will remain undeveloped. Mitigation for habitat impacts is described in Section 8 of this report. Some view corridor cutting is proposed for the steep slope area adjacent to three of the proposed single-family lots. Deciduous trees on the slope will be cut at approximately the level of the top of the slope. Given the steepness of the slope and the location of most deciduous vegetation downslope from the subject property, deciduous trees will be topped at approximately 5 to 20 feet. Trees will be topped in a manner that encourages growth of branches, providing a dense midstory of vegetation up to 40 feet from the ground, including branching. Topped trees will be maintained to limit heights to 40 feet or less in future years. No coniferous trees will be cut or pruned except to remove dead wood, or as directed by an ISA Certified Arborist. E« April 4, 2016 Avia Environmental T VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IMPACTS Plans for development of new homes are complete and not the focus of this report. Rather, this section addresses the potential impacts of view corridor work and mitigation activities proposed on the steep slope and in its adjacent buffer. 7.1 Direct Impacts Topping deciduous trees as described in the previous section will encourage branching and leafy growth from about 5 to 40 feet above ground level. This is meant to create a dense layer of vegetation to provide habitat for mid -story species. Some loss of canopy deciduous habitat will occur, but the majority of canopy cover is composed of conifers and will not be impacted. The overall effect of the action will be to lower the sub -canopy vegetative layer by approximately 20 to 60 feet. Native understory vegetation will not be removed, but the temporary increase in sunlight that will occur after trees are topped may promote growth of groundcover. The impact to wildlife species is expected to be temporary, the result of a temporary reduction in midstory and canopy habitat. A slight shift in wildlife species use could potentially occur with the lowering of the sub-canopy/midstory that will result from tree topping. In actuality, however, midstory wildlife communities are unlikely to respond noticeably to this small alteration in habitat structure. Construction noise and physical disturbance may occur during tree topping and will be temporary. The primary construction impact will likely be avoidance of the area by wildlife. 7.2 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Indirect and cumulative impacts can be addressed insofar as land use of the surrounding landscape can be expected to change over time. Most surrounding properties are already in single-family development. Continued habitat fragmentation in the greater landscape is an ongoing concern, as properties in the vicinity may be developed for denser residential use than presently exists. However, habitat in the nearby Meadowdale Beach Park is unlikely to be degraded in the foreseeable future. As well, regulatory buffers that apply to Lunds Gulch Creek and the Puget Sound shoreline are mandated to retain their present functional value in perpetuity. H MITIGATION 8.1 Mitigation Sequencing The following avoidance and restoration activities are designed to minimize negative impacts to habitat and enhance opportunities for wildlife to use the steep slope area of the subject property. 0 Work will be conducted under the supervision of an ISA certified arborist. E April 4, 2016 Avia Environmental • No conifers will be removed, damaged, or pruned in the steep slope area except as determined by an ISA certified arborist. • No removal of native understory vegetation is proposed. • Topped deciduous vegetation will remain at a height conducive to vigorous regrowth and branching. • Care will be taken to avoid damage to lower branches and root zones of trees during work. • Ground (non -target) vegetation will be avoided to the greatest extent practicable during work. • To reduce the risk of disturbance to non -target vegetation, heavy machinery such as track hoes will not be used during vegetation management and mitigation work. • Existing snags and some downed wood (to the extent that it does not constitute a hazard on the steep slope) will be preserved on the site. 8.2 (litigation Plan A detailed Mitigation Plan is included with this report. The plan consists of enhancing the top -of -slope buffer with infill planting to bring the native plant density to 4 feet on -center (OC). Invasive vegetation, including Himalayan blackberry, ivy, English laurel, and holly, will be removed (including roots) and removal areas planted with native shrubs to 4 feet OC. Work will be conducted with hand tools only to avoid disturbance of existing native vegetation. The mitigation is intended to increase habitat value in the top -of -slope buffer and on the slope itself by removing invasive vegetation, which tends to proliferate in monospecific infestations, and increase vegetative cover, plant species diversity, and habitat structural diversity in the low and middle strata. Enhancement areas total 9,847 square feet, plus some additional area where large holly and ivy trees are to be removed. Mitigation areas will undergo maintenance at least twice yearly and be subject to yearly milestones to monitor performance. The included Mitigation Plan includes installation specifications, plant quantities, invasive removal locations, and planting locations. 8.2.1 Goals and Objectives 1. Remove English ivy from trees and ground in buffer and slopes areas (refer to Sheet 1 for locations). Plant removal areas with native shrubs where needed to bring shrub density to 4 feet OC. Depose of invasive plants offsite. Remove Himalayan blackberry plants and sprouts, including roots, from buffer and slope areas (refer to Sheet 1 for locations). Replace with native shrubs where needed to bring density to 4 feet OC. 3. Remove invasive holly and laurel from locations indicated on Mitigation Plan Sheet 1. Replace with native shrubs to bring density to 4 feet OC. 4. Maintain all planted areas free of invasive species for three years. 10 April 4, 2016 Avia Environmental 5. Maintain all existing native plants in buffers and other removal/planting areas. 8.2.2 Installation 1. Site preparation, invasive plant removal, and planting will be conducted by experienced landscapers under the guidance of a qualified professional (mitigation specialist, habitat biologist, landscape architect, or arborist with mitigation experience). 2. Refer to Detail 1 on this sheet for installation specifications. 8.2.3 Maintenance 1. Maintenance will take place twice yearly, in spring and fall, for at least three years following installation. 2. Installed plants will be watered by hand as necessary for 2 years following installation, or until plants are established. 3. Dead mitigation plants will be replaced as needed during fall visits. 4. All invasive woody plants in the planting areas will be removed during maintenance, including roots. 5. Non-native weeds will be removed in an 18 -inch diameter of installed plants. 6. Mulch rings will be replenished around installed plants to maintain a thickness of 4 inches and diameter of 18 inches. 8.2.4 Performance standards The mitigation will be measured against the following performance standards. 1. Survival: a. 90% of installed plants will be alive by the end of Year 1. Plants will be replaced as needed to achieve this standard. b. At least 80% survival of installed plants will be achieved in Years 2 and 3. 2. Native woody vegetation cover: a. 50% cover of native trees and shrubs will be achieved by Year 1 within planted slope and buffer areas. Volunteer plants may count towards this cover standard. b. 80% cover of native trees and shrubs will be achieved by the end of Year 3 within planted slope and buffer areas. Volunteer plants may count towards this cover standard. 11 April 4, 2016 Avia Environmental 3. Native plant diversity: At least five native shrub species will be established in slope and buffer areas by the end of Year 3. Volunteer plants may count towards this standard. 4. Invasive cover: No more than 10% cover by invasive plants will be present in any monitoring year. 8.2.5 Monitoring Methods An as -built plan will be completed after plant installation. The plan will depict quantities and locations of plants by species. Monitoring will be conducted yearly after fall maintenance. A monitoring report will be prepared after each monitoring visit. The report will include: 1. Counts of dead (installed) plants; 2. percent survival of installed plants; 3. percent cover estimates for each planted area, obtained using a standard cover estimation method such as plot or transects; species count of installed plants; 4. a visual assessment of plant health; 5. a visual estimate of invasive plant cover; 6. site photos taken at established photo points; 7. notes on site disturbance, litter, vandalism, or other actions that may impair habitat function; and 8. recommendations for maintenance and/or replanting as necessary to achieve performance standards. 8.2.6 General Work Sequence 1. Remove invasive plants in all indicated areas and dispose material off-site. 2. Install plants per typical container planting detail as shown on this sheet (Detail 1) of the mitigation plan. 3. Amend each planting pit with one shovel -full of organic compost. 4. Water each plant thoroughly by hand/hose to remove air pockets. 5. Install a 4 -inch -thick layer of coarse wood chip mulch around the base of each installed plant in an 18 -inch -diameter circle. Mulch should not touch plant stems. 12 April 4, 2016 Avia Environmental 8.2.7 Contingency Plan If performance standards are not met by the end of the monitoring period, a qualified professional will evaluate the site for causes of failure and make recommendations for remediation. Monitoring will continue until performance standards are met. 8.2.8 Planting Notes 1. The mitigation area will be preserved for the life of the project. 2. A supervising qualified professional will supervise plant placement. 3. The qualified professional may make minor species substitutions in the field. Any changes will be reflected in the as -built plan. 4. Plant materials will be inspected by the supervising qualified professional on delivery. Unhealthy plants will be rejected. 5. Actions and activities will be conducted in accordance with the details of the Mitigation Plan. 13 April 4, 2016 REFERENCES Avia Environmental Donnelly, R. and J.M. Marzluff. 2004. Importance of reserve size and landscape context to urban bird conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18:733-745. Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O'Neil. Wildlife -Habitat Relations in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. Lewis, J.C. and J.M. Azerrad. 2003. Pileated woodpecker. Pages 29-1 — 29-9 in E. Larsen, J.M. Azerrad, and N. Nordstrom, editors. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species. Vol. IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. Seattle Audubon Society. 2015. Birdweb website (www birdweb.or ). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2015. Priority Habitats and Species Program online database, accessed November 2015. . 2015. SalmonScape online database, accessed November 2015. 14 Appendix A - Site Photographs Photo 1. Undergrowth and branching removed from development area Photo 2. Previously cleared slope Photo 3. Forested steep slope Photo 4. Bald eagles in conifer near Puget Sound shoreline Appendix B - SalmonScape Map Q m 4J 0. m u N C O E m N 'a M C m t N_ LL 4- 0 -+ C w E L m Appendix C - PHS Map