I would question their credentials.
Mike

From this way this is written, it appears that the government is forcing you to jam 300 plants into a 53-foot area, and not giving you any choice of what to plant. If that is correct, why in the heck are they requiring that?

In terms of the viability of these plants right on the beach, salt spray would be my primary concern. I imagine that at least a few of the above would not make it. I've never seen Doug-fir growing directly on the beach, and that may be why. Mahonia nervosa is unlikely to survive in ample afternoon sun. Cornus nuttallii is a higher-elevation plant and a magnet for disease. Why these "authorities" would force you to grow Cornus nuttallii on a beach, but not Pinus contorta contorta, suggests that they know nothing about native plants.

Incredibly, amazingly, overplanted if all the above were included. And not all are good seaside/coastal type plantings.....many are much more woodland type plants that simply do not thrive in an exposed coastal setting.

I'd have to question the credentials of whomever provided this plant list as well. Far too many plants and many inappropriate choices.

I appreciate the responses. The family are not gardeners and are relying on the professionals to do what is required. I'm willing to go to bat for them but hesitate to interfere without backup. At the very least I'm going to ask for credentials of the beaurocrats who insisted on this list. The planner said she wants someone walking along the beach to look at the property and see a rainforest. It's all blackmail.

There are places on Puget Sound where Douglas firs are immediately above high tide line. What will grow on the Canadian site will be much affected by whether it is along an inland waterway like Puget Sound or actually on the outer coast.

Sitka spruce will make for a nice rainforest. Of course, that may also preclude those on the property from actually seeing the ocean.

my guess is that there is a right of way at the property that gives control over planting to the local government. so this never was a choice that your daughter had to begin with.

so, if you think its stupid or not, its like arguing over pavement choices for the street. not really your business at this level. just plant those things and most of them will die anyway.

The requirements should at least be reviewed by people more qualified than the original author.
Is there some back door connection to a local native plant nursery?
Just supposin'

Mike

For whatever reasons, over-planting is common on public projects down here.

Eeldip, you are right. The development permit insists on this type of planting. And, most of them will die anyway. The property is on a sheltered inlet although it does get winter storms and therefore spray. I just hate the idea of wasting money and effort planting inappropriate plants that will be a nuisance in the future. They did buy waterfront property in order to enjoy the view!

I've got the reason now for the 300 plants in such a small area. The local government requires native plants, 1 gallon size planted 15 inches apart. The landscapers who are quoting on the job know that most of the plants won't live and the ones that do will overgrow the area in a year or two. One said, "You can always move them to another part of the property". Such is beaurocracy.

Yes, presumably the over-planting down here is based on the same thinking also. More informed and sophisticated planning based on more detailed knowledge of the species used should serve to eliminate the presumed need for this, were it to be implemented.

I would let the landscapers plant, and then dig up the excess plants the next day.

This post was edited by OregonGrape on Fri, Mar 21, 14 at 18:42

What are the follow-up inspection methods and possible enforcement measures?

My guess: Not budgeted for by the local government, or else complaint-triggered enforcement only.

They have to post a bond that they will plant native species, and they don't get their bond back for one year. I can't imagine the difficulties in digging up such over planted things after they are established. the 75 wild roses (if they all established themselves) would be a thorny issue. (sorry, I couldn't help myself)

Nootka rose - the taller of the two species rather than the shorter - is like most wild rose species suckerous and able to form patches.

The other is a forest species with small parts, liable to be seen as scattered individual specimens rather than clumps or thickets.

What a huge waste of time and money......just to satisfy some ill-informed, mindless bureaucracy!!

Even with native plants, about the only thing you would want to plant 15" on center would be the groundcover plants - salal, mahonia, kinnikinnick, etc. Maybe some beach grasses. Certainly no trees or shrubs.

One of the conifers by itself would grow 53' across in time, if uncrowded and otherwise sufficiently successful.

This must be a shotgun blast aimed at coming out with at least something alive after a whole bunch of the plants fail to establish or are elbowed out later. This is what it appears is being done on projects here - duplication of a natural re-vegetation of a disturbed site wherein way more plants germinate and grow during the early years than will still be present at various time intervals in the future.