HomeMy WebLinkAbout118-99 - Ord. Amending County Resource Ordinance ORDINANCE NUMBER J / r?e -99
AMENDMENTS TO THE MASON COUNTY RESOURCE ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE amending the following sections of the Mason County Resource Ordinagce ,
Ordinance 77-93 , as amended : Section 17 . 01 . 110 Aquatic Management Areas , Section 17 . 112
Terrestrial Management Areas , Section 17 . 01 . 040 , Establishment of Designated Lands , Section
17 . 010120 Development Review Process , and Section 17 . 01 . 240 Definitions , under the authority
of Chapters 36 . 70 and 36 . 70A RCW .
WHEREAS , the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on July 13 , 1999 , to
consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission , the Mason County Department of
Community Development and citizens on the proposed amendments ; and the Board provided for
a written public comment period for changes from the Planning Commission version , which were
under consideration ,
WHEREAS , the Mason County Planning Commission formulated its recommendations after a
public hearing on June 16 , 1999 , and approved findings of fact ,
WHEREAS , these hearings were duly advertised public hearings ;
WHEREAS , these amendments are intended to comply with the Orders of the Western
Washington Growth Management Hearings Board , Case No . 95 -02-0073 ;
WHEREAS , the Mason County Board of County Commissioners formulated its decision after the
public hearing and written comment period and has approved findings of fact to support its
decision as ATTACHMENT A ,
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED, that the Board of County Commissioners
of Mason County hereby approves and ADOPTS the amendments to the Mason County Resource
Ordinance , #77-93 , as amended , as described by ATTACHMENT B .
DATED this x' day of QG-�o be C , 1999 .
Board of County Commissioners
Mason County , Washington
ATTEST :
Ilk L x d Q� k W! - eo &tnz:;�f
yn ' a). Olsen , Chair Clerk of the Board
opposed
Mary Jo Cady , Commissioner APPROVED AS TO FORM :
(e�yw U P"ap,
John A . Bolender, Commissioner Prosecutinj Attorney
ATTACHMENT A - ORDINANCE
Mason County Board of County Commissioners
Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Amendments
October 12 , 1999
FINDINGS OF FACT
1 .
Under consideration is a proposal to amend the Mason County critical area
regulations intended to designate and protect critical fish and wildlife habitat
areas . The changes are proposed to update the county regulations and to address
the concerns of the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board in
case # 95 - 2 - 0073 .
2 .
The county performed a substantial public participation process and the record
provides background information on the proposal . Public participation included .
the Planning Commission ( PC ) workshop of November 9 , 1998 ; PC public hearing
November 16 , 1998 , PC workshop November 23 , 1998 ; PC workshop January
19 , 1999 , community workshops March 29 , April 6 , April 12 , and April 15 , 1999 ;
PC public hearing June 16 , 1999 ; and Board of County Commissioners public
hearing July 13 , 1999 . In addition , public participation was provided through the
SEPA review process and other written public comment .
3 .
STREAM ( AQUATIC MANAGEMENT AREA ) BUFFERS - DISCUSSION
Mason County received a substantial amount of scientific information as well as
expressions of opinion and preference on the issue of stream buffers . Much of this
dealt with anadromous fish and the needs of the fish for upland habitat protection
near streams and waterways . Such protection is addressed in the amended
ordinance by buffers established along water bodies .
Mason County retained consultants , Applied Environmental Services , Inc . ( AES ) , to
assist in the collection and analysis of best available science and in the
preparation of the ordinance . In a review letter dated June 11 , 1999 , AES
concluded that buffers as proposed at 100 feet for types 1 , 2 , and 3 streams , 75
feet for type 4 streams , and 50 feet for type 5 streams provided adequate
protection of value and function for aquatic management areas . AES went on to
say that , while there was no consensus on buffer requirements , the proposed
buffers appear to be within the range provided by best available science ( pages 8 -
10 ) .
Similar recommendations were provided earlier by Dr . James Buell in his letters
dated November 16 and 21 , 1998 . Dr . Buell recommended a buffer of 100 feet for
Attachment A
Page 2
types 1 , 2 , and 3 streams , 50 feet for types 4 and 5 streams . There were also
recommendations from the Department of Community , Trade and Economic
Development ( DCTED ) in a white paper dated March 16 , 1998 , on compliance
with the GA and response to ESA listings of salmon . The paper proposed a
minimum 100 foot buffer for healthy salmon streams as the " Best Available
Science ( done by King County and UW researchers ) . " The AES letter , the DCTED
white paper , and Dr . Buell ' s comments provide much of the foundation for the
buffers recommended by the Planning Commission .
Other scientifically based recommendations on buffers were reviewed and can be
found in the record from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW )
( Millard Deusen dated October 6 , 1998 , November 16 , 1998 and July 12 , 1999 ) ;
the Skokomish Tribe ( Jim Park dated July 13 , 1999 ; Marty Ereth dated November
16 , 1998 ) ; the Point No Point Treaty Council ( Byron Rot dated July 7 , 1999 ; Sally
Nickelson dated July 9 , 1999 , Carol Bernthal dated November 16 , 1998 ) ; AES
(Wayne Wright dated November 18 and 23 , 1998 ) ; and DCTED ( Chris Parsons
dated September 25 , 1998 ) .
Given the state of best available science in such a complex field , such
recommendations are judgements by the scientist or others making the
recommendations . Such recommendations may have their flaws ( some noted in
Dr . Buell ' s letters cited above ) , and others may reflect the values of the scientist
rather than the limits imposed by science ( as noted in Upstream - Salmon and
Society in the Pacific Northwest , National Research Council , page 142 ) .
Differences in buffer recommendations also strongly reflect the intended purpose
of the recommendation . If the buffer is intended to protect the aquatic
management areas and fish and aquatic resources , then smaller buffers are usually
found to be adequate . As more general wildlife benefits are added to the purpose
of the buffer , then the buffer recommendations tend to widen to include possible
habitat for more and more wildlife species . But even the wider buffers , such as
those recommended by WDFW , do not provide total wildlife protection . WDFW
stated : " Maximum protection from a fish and wildlife perspective would likely
involve no development anywhere . " (Management Recommendations for
Washington ' s Priority Habitats - Riparian , page 88 ) .
But , whatever reservations may exist , the scientific studies and the
recommendations drawn from them establish a range of action supportable by the
best available science .
AES , as noted above , was retained by the county to assist it in developing the fish
and wildlife amendments and in sorting through the science and science based
Attachment A
Page 3
testimony . Initially , AES compiled information and scientific studies and assisted in
negotiations with the parties who had petitioned the GMHB on this issue , along
with a few other parties . The buffer width was not agreed to in the negotiations
( PC Minutes ,. November 9 , 1998 , page 3 ) , but the county consulted with AES and
determine to propose in its first draft for public review ( dated October 23 , 1998 ) a
150 foot buffer on type 1 , 2 , and 3 , streams , 100 foot on type 4 steams and 75
foot on type 5 streams . This buffer program was consistent with that
recommended by AES ( letter dated November 18 , 1998 , page 12 ) to address both
stream buffers and general wildlife usage . On pages 5 and 6 , Mr . Wright notes
that even 150 feet ( his recommendation ) is not adequate for all wildlife functions ,
but would meet all other habitat functions ( except for microclimate , if treated
separately from temperature effects and not together with temperature , as Mr .
Wright recommended ) . As discussed in the letter , wildlife functions have the
greatest range of possible buffers , from 8 meters to 300 meters ( 25 feet to 984
feet ) . The letter expressed Mr . Wright ' s concerns that wildlife functions analysis in
the WDFW riparian report was summary in nature and that the data set for wildlife
not representative nor well analyzed .
On January 19 , 1999 and after considering the substantial testimony and written
information received to that date , the Planning Commission ( at the fourth
workshop or pubic hearing held by the Planning Commission on this the draft
proposal ) directed county staff to revisit the aquatic management area buffers to
see if they could be reduced . Mason County requested that AES review the
question of whether reduced buffers for aquatic management areas , buffers
comparable to those presented by Dr . Buell and those in use by other counties ,
were scientifically justified and within the range of buffers supportable by best
available science . The result was the AES letter of June 11 , 1999 as discussed
above . With the reduced buffers , the requirements for site specific buffer
reductions were amended to include a Habitat Management Plan .
Other written comment , which in some cases provided scientific information , was
provided on buffers by : Bart Robbins dated July 13 , 1999 , Helena James dated
July 9 , 1999 ; Norm Schaaf of Merrill & Ring dated June 17 and June 2 , 1999 and
November 12 , 1998 , Jean and John Springer dated April 22 and October 5 , 1999 ;
Bill Quigley undated ; Bob Sund dated December 26 , 1999 ; Chris Snapp of Green
Crow dated November 23 , 1998 ; Irene Davis dated November 19 , 1998 ; Linda
and Vic Gusti ( ? ) dated November 23 , 1998 ; Alexander Mackie dated November 9
( with attachment from Dr . Buell ) , 16 and 23 , 1998 ; Lynda Links dated November
18 , 1998 ; Ken Howard dated November 30 , 1998 , James and Carol Swindall
dated November 30 , 1998 , David Craig of the US Forest Service dated November
19 , 1998 ,0 Dennis Yakovich undated and received November 23 , 1998 ; Richard
uest of the Skokomish Tribe dated November 1 , 1998 .
Attachment A
Page 4
Mason County determined that the buffers must be within that range supported by
the science . However , the county also considered the need to harmonize the
goals of GMA ; it considered the burden on the land owner versus their share of
the responsibility for the current status of the fish species ; it considered the
strongly expressed desire for the restrictions on the land owners and citizens to be
no more than was necessary to achieve the desired purposes ; it considered the
risk to the resource ; and it considered coordination and consistency with the
buffers and protections of neighboring jurisdictions .
As a general rule , interference with other goals of the GMA increase as buffers
increase . WDFW stated : " Maximum protection from a fish and wildlife perspective
would likely involve no development anywhere . " ( Management Recommendations
for Washington ' s Priority Habitats - Riparian , page 88 ) However , the county
believes that the appropriate protection , of fish and wildlife habitat is compatible
with the pursuit of other goals . The attempt of the county to balance the GMA
goals contained in RCW 36 . 70A . 020 ( 9 ) and ( 10 ) - the encouragement of the
conservation of fish and wildlife habitat and to protect the environment and water
quality - with other goals of the act results in buffers of a reasonable width which
make provision for some activity within the buffers . Considerations to advance
other GMA goals include , but are not limited to : continuing existing housing and
keeping land available and thus more affordable for housing ( goal 4) ; continuing
existing business and keeping costs of protection low ( goal 5 ) ; only imposing
proportional and necessary regulations ( goal 6 ) ; more timely and less burdensome
permitting ( goal 7 ) ; providing for agricultural use and natural harvests ( goal 8 ) ;
allowing recreational and educational trails and activities ( goal 9 ) , responding to
citizen requests for clarity , minimum restrictions , flexibility , and consistency with
adjoining jurisdictions ( goal 11 ) , and providing for roads and utilities ( goal 12 ) .
From a regulatory perspective , using standard buffers has several advantages . It
does not require detailed analysis of every site and project , which saves time and
expense for all parties . Citizens can easily learn what the standards are , making
them easier to follow , reducing unintentional violations , and making a violation
more discernable . They have a greater appearance of fairness .
However , having only standard buffers does not provide for flexibility or
adjustments for the individual site . Many scientists commented that science
supports site specific adjustments because there are important site specific
variables . In addition to the standard or generic buffers , the draft ordinance
provides for flexibility and adjustability by allowing an increase or decrease the
buffer with suitable documentation . Reduction in the buffer requires the safeguard
of a Habitat Management Plan , with review and comment by the state and
affected tribes ,
Attachment A
Page 5
The ordinary high water mark ( OWM ) is defined in the Resource Ordinance and is
used for defining the edge of the stream and the inner edge or beginning of the
buffer. Although there are suggestions to use the edge of the floodplain or the
stream ' s channel migration zone ( CZ ) for the inner , or water , edge of the buffer ,
this would have the effect of prohibiting development in the floodplain . To follow
the logic of prohibiting development in the entire floodplain would require taking
the land because , if one did not prohibit all construction in the valleys , then one
would still have to provide for stabilization of the river banks . Preventing such
stabilization efforts is exactly the purpose for not allowing development . Existing
development would also have to be phased out , or allowed to be destroyed . This
is a recommendation which appears based on values more than science . " The
bioconservative values are more concerned with protecting nature in its
° uncontrolled state " and might believe that " nature knows best . " Those differing
but equally science - based approaches can lead to profound differences in how
people weigh interventions . . . °° UPSTREAM , page 142 . This approach is
conceptually inconsistent with the provision for bank stabilization ( G . 9 . ) and in
generally with any provision that allows development or investment in the river
valleys (flood plains or CMZ ) or continued human activity . The ordinance does
provide for unstable areas and existing erosion in its provisions for increasing the
buffers ( D . 3 . d . ) .
The county ' s overall strategy for the aquatic management area is one of protection
and enhancement . In addition to the protection provided from new development by
the regulations , Mason County is acting in partnership with volunteers , tribes ,
conservation districts , the state , other jurisdictions and the Federal government to
enhance the environment , particularly for anadromous fish .
The county recognizes that more will be learned about specific conditions in
Mason County and that the related science can change . The effectiveness of the
plan and its implementing regulations will be reviewed no later than 2002 , and at
least every five years thereafter as required by RCW 36 . 70A . 130 ( 1 ) . In addition ,
the county has established a policy of considering amendments each year , and any
significant new information or change in scientific knowledge can be incorporated
in the regulations .
The county also notes that the fish and wildlife regulation does not stand alone in
protecting the functions and values of aquatic management areas . Many of the
functions and values provided by the buffer to the stream are also addressed by
other regulations . The most directly related of these include : Water quality and
water flow protections from the Mason County Storm water Management
Ordinance ## 141 - 7 , which uses the Department of Ecology Storm water
Management Manual and requires the use of Rest Management Practices , as
Attachment A
Page 6
defined in the Manual . Water quality , erosion , mass wasting , siltation issues are
also addressed in the Landslide Hazard Area and Erosion Hazard Area provisions of
the Mason County Resource Ordinance , Section 17 . 01 . 100 and 17 . 01 . 10 ,
respectively . The Wetlands section of the Resource Ordinance provides additional
protection to wetlands that often make up important parts of the riparian systems
and affect water quality , water quantity , and provided additional valuable habitat
areas in the wetlands and their buffers . Health Department regulations governing
sewage and solid waste protect water quality , as do critical aquifer recharge area
regulations . Generally , these regulations prevent , minimize , or mitigate impacts
from development near the aquatic management areas or their buffers .
STREAM (AQUATIC ENT AREA ) BUFFERS - FINDINGS
Aa
Mason County finds that adopting standard buffers designed to protect fish
species and necessary associated habitat is an appropriate approach to protecting
the functions and values of those critical areas .
B .
Mason County finds that buffers of 100 feet for types 1 , 2 , and 3 streams , 75 feet
for type 4 streams , and 50 feet for type 5 streams provided adequate protection
of value and function for aquatic management areas within the range of options
supported by the best available science .
C .
Mason County finds that the level of protection , exemptions , permitted uses , and
provisions for flexibility in the regulations harmonize the goals of the GMA by
providing for the advancement of other goals of the GMA together with an
appropriate level of protection to the functions and values of the critical area .
4 .
Terrestrial Management Area Protections - Discussion
Terrestrial management protections are intended to protect species that are not
aquatic . The proposal was developed with consideration of guidelines for adopting
comprehensive plans , Chapter 365 - 195 WAC , and protects the habitats of those
species that were identified as being of local importance . The proposal also
provides a method by species might be listed in the future . There was no
documentation or proposal for any species other than those protected herein ,
except for candidate species in the WDFW Priority Habitat and Species Program
( PHS ) and some special plant species . The plant species were removed because on
review of the WAC , other regulations developed under the GMA , and Hearings
Board decisions indicated that such protections were not necessary under the fish
Attachment A
Page 7
and wildlife critical area requirements of the GMA . The candidate species and
habitats were removed because testimony was presented that their listing was not
substantial scientific evidence that the species were of local or state importance as
such species merely need to be nominated to be candidate species and do not go
through a scientific review . It was also found that WDFW does have authority to
protect such species .
The process of protection for terrestrial management areas is that all major
development ( Major new development includes and is limited to all activities which
require subdivision , short subdivision , or large lot subdivision approval , mobile
home park or RV park approval , grading permit approval , or building permit
approval , provided that this does not include repair , remodel , or alteration of
existing buildings which do not increase the foot print of the building by more than
10 % ) is to be processed under the ordinance . Almost any activity that requires a
permit from the county is reviewed to determine if it is located in an area to which
the regulations applies - - that is , if it is a fish and wildlife protection area . Current
information is used to determine if this is so , and , if such review is necessary , it is
done through preparing a Habitat Management Plan ( HMP ) . The HMP must address
WDFW management recommendations , avoid impacts or provide mitigation , and
receive timely review by WDFW and tribes . It can only be approved when impacts
are avoided or mitigated . This process is very similar to the one in place in Mason
County to protect bald eagles since 1993 and which has worked well without
being unduly burdensome to the public nor administratively difficult .
Habitats protected under the Resource Ordinance include wetlands protected
under provisions contained in Section 17 . 01 . 070 and instream habitats and
riparian areas protected under the aquatic management areas provisions .
Terrestrial Management Area Protections - Findings
A .
Mason County finds that adopting an administrative review process , which
includes site specific environmental review and management according to best
available science , is an appropriate approach to protecting the functions and
values of habitat for terrestrial - - that is : non - aquatic - - species .
Bu
Mason County finds that the level of protection , exemptions , permitted uses , and
provisions for flexibility in the regulations harmonize the goals of the GMA by
providing for the advancement of other goals of the GMA together with an
appropriate level of protection to the functions and values of the critical area .
Attachment A
Page 8
A determination of non - significance ( DNS ) was issued by Mason County on
November 11 , 1998 . After review of the comments received and consideration of
the changes proposed since that issuance , it was determined by the Department of
Community Development that no significant adverse impacts are expected from
this action .
6 .
The Board finds that the amendments are consistent with the county- wide
planning policies .
7 .
The draft proposal was substantially changed based on public comments during
the review process . As detailed in the Department of Community Development
memorandum of July 13 , 1999 , the revisions were intended achieve the following
purposes :
to make to regulation easier to understand , which is vital to successful
implementation ,
• to provide for public education , which was identified as important for the
implementation of the ordinance and the long -term well being of the fish and
wildlife ,
• to include incentives and compensation to property owners , seen as a
matter of fairness and important to public cooperation ,
• to enhance protection for eelgrass and kelp beds , seen as important to
supplement protection currently provided by other regulations ,
• to establish buffers which are appropriate , necessary , and , if justified ,
comparable to those of nearby counties , which was seen as important to
protect property rights , coordinate protections with other counties , and to
advance other goals ,
• to provide necessary relief to the public by applying variance and reasonable
use provisions , which address site and project specific concerns resulting
from the general provisions ,
to provide for a variety or gradient of buffers , which was seen as necessary
to address site specific environmental needs and to not apply requirements
which were more restrictive than necessary to the purpose .
8m
Other consideration by the Board - Discussion
In addition to the discussion contained herein , the Board considered its action in
detail in two meetings held August 25 and 27 , 1999 . In those meetings it
considered the final form of the proposal and possible changes to it ® A number of
Attachment
Page
minor changes intended to clarify or better implement the intent of the regulations
developed into an August 31 , 1999 draft , which details the rationale for the
changes . Many comments were received by the Board on the Planning
Commission recommendation where the Board believed the proposal should not be
changed . The rationale for this is briefly presented an August 31 , 1999 paper .
Response to Comments . Changes from the Planning Commission recommendations
of June 16 , 1999 , were released for public comment in a draft dated September
21 , 1999 . This opportunity was advertised on September 23 , 1999 , and parties to
the Hearings Board case were notified directly . Comments were due in writing on
October 5 , 1999 . The Board considered these comments at its meeting on October
12 , 1999 , together with a staff memorandum of the same date .
Finding
The Board finds that these meetings and documents supplement these findings in
explaining the basis for action on this proposal .
9 .
Growth Management Hearings Board Compliance - Discussion
The original order of the Growth Management Hearings Board ( GMHB ) , Case #95 -
2- 0073 , expressed concern over the lack of protection for type 5 waters , with
respect to fish and wildlife habitat protection . Through the course of subsequent
procedures , the GMHB issued a stipulated order , February 10 , 1999 , in which
several areas for improvement were identified . The proposal responds to these
issues by using best available science to adopt specific and enforceable buffers for
type 1 to 5 to waters ( subsection D ) ; to define the activities that might occur in
the appropriate buffers for type 1 to 5 waters ( subsections F and G ) , to detail the
review process for projects , including a reporting /notification process to assure
adequate environmental protection ( subsections J and K ) ; to identify and protect
species of local importance and associated habitats , in addition to those species
and their associated habitat otherwise identified as state or federal endangered ,
threatened or sensitive species ( subsections B and H ) , to specify the standards to
be used in the administrative process ( subsections J . 5 . and K ) .
The buffers for aquatic management areas and the protections for terrestrial areas
are discussed above . The administrative processes are defined in the ordinance
and set up a logical review process which allows for the tribes and other agencies
to comment on major new development and require detailed review only when
appropriate . The HMP report requirements and the review standards in subsection
J . 5 . are essentially unchanged from the original draft , which was negotiated and
had the support of the involved tribes and other petitioners .
Attachment A
Page 10
Compliance - Findings
The Board finds that the proposal addresses the orders of the Growth Management
Hearings Board by establishing clear and enforceable protections , standards ,
permit review processes for fish and wildlife habitat areas , and by designating
species and habitats of local importance .
10 .
The Board finds that the proposed amendments balance the goals of the Mason
County comprehensive plan and the goals of the Growth Management Act .
From the preceding findings , it is concluded amendments to the Mason County
Resource Ordinance , as herein proposed , should be adopted .
Chair , M son County Board of County Commissioners
Date
ATTACHMENT B - ORDINANCE // Y - qq
SECTION 1 : DELETE THE EXISTING SECTIONS 17 . 01 . 110
AQUATIC MANAGEMENT AREAS AND 17 . 01 A 12 TERRESTRIAL
MANAGEMENT AREAS , AND ADOPT ANEW SECTION 17 . 01 . 110
TO READ AS FOLLOWS ,
17 . 01 . 110 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
A . PURPOSE .
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation means land management for maintaining species in suitable
habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated populations are not created .
This does not mean maintaining all individuals of all species at all times, but it does mean
intergovernmental cooperation and coordination is critically important in a region . In some cases,
it is sufficient to assure that a species will usually be found in certain regions across the state . The
provisions for the protection of habitat contained in this section can not succeed in their purpose of
supporting viable populations of fish and wildlife species unless other agencies and the public also act
to protect the species . In the case of anadromous fish , the Statewide Salmon Recovery Strategy
identifies that it will take a balanced approach to addressing the factors of decline that are within
human control , including harvest, hatchery , habitat , and hydropower. The intent of this Section is to :
1 . Protect critical habitat features to support genetically viable populations of fish and
wildlife species and allow for commercial and non-commercial uses ;
Z . Protect the biological , physical , and chemical components of water quality for the
benefit of aquatic and terrestrial resources , as well as human consumptive uses ;
3 . Ensure that natural stream and marine shoreline functions such as flow patterns ,
production of sediment and large woody debris are maintained with minimal
interference or impact to private properly;
4 . Protect habitat for federal or state listed endangered , threatened or sensitive fish and
wildlife .
5 . Encourage non-regulatory methods of habitat retention whenever practical , through
education , and the Open Space Tax Program .
6 . To supplement the Shorelines Master Plan for Mason County to preserve and protect
critical fish and wildlife habitat pursuant to (WAC 365A 90-080 (5)) . It is the intent that
this ordinance will compliment and supplement the Shorelines Master Plan .
B . FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREA CATEGORIES .
Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas include both aquatic and terrestrial management
areas. The following categories shall be used in classifying critical areas under this ordinance :
1 . Aquatic Management Areas
a . Commercial and recreational shellfish areas .
b . Kelp and eelgrass beds ; herring and smelt spawning areas .
Page 1
ATTACHMENT
c . Naturally occurring lakes and ponds under twenty acres and their
submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat .
d . Streams :
e . Saltwater Shorelines , and Lakes 20 Acres and Greater in Surface Area .
f. Lakes , ponds , streams , and rivers planted with game fish by a
governmental or tribal entity .
g . State Department of Natural Resources natural area preserves and natural
resource conservation areas .
2 . Terrestrial Management Areas
a . Areas with which Federal or State endangered , threatened and sensitive
species of fish and wildlife have a primary association . Species known to
be found in Mason County are listed in Table 1 . Protection of species
habitats is determined by the State or Federal listing , and their actual
presence near the site subject to review. Other listed and protected species
may be found in Mason County , which are not in Table 1 .
b . Areas that contain habitats and species of local importance . Roosevelt elk
(Cervus elaphus roosevelti) and Dolly Varden (Saivelinus Mama) are is
classified as a species of local importance because of calving grounds
located in Mason County and because of the current status of the Dolly
Varden population , which is not listed , but which is threatened enough to
be actively proposed for Federal listing .
TABLE 1 Endangered , threatened , or sensitive fish and wildlife species
known to be found in Mason County
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
Bald eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus
Northern spotted owl Stridex occidentalis
Hood Canal - Summer run chum Oncorhynchus keta
C . DESIGNATION
The areas classified in Section B above as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
are hereby designated under RCW 36 . 70A . 060 and RCW 36 . 70A . 170 , as critical areas
requiring proper land management to protect their value and functions .
D . ESTABLISHMENT OF BUFFERS ON AQUATIC MANAGEMENT AREAS
1 . Aquatic Management Areas shall have Buffers and Building Setbacks
established .
a . Buffers or setbacks shall be maintained along the perimeter of Aquatic
Management Areas , as listed in Table 2 . Distances shall be measured
horizontally from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) .
b . Buffers shall be retained in their natural condition , except as provided
elsewhere in this section .
c . Building Setback Lines : A building setback line of fifteen (15) feet is
required from the edge of any buffer area .
Page 2
ATTACHMENT
2 , Provision for Decreasing Buffer: For major new development the Director may
decrease the buffer after consultation with the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife and affected Tribe (s) , and after review of a habitat mitigation
plan , if the County determines that conditions are sufficient to protect the affected
habitat . A Habitat Mitigation Plan shall be required . Without a public hearing the
Director may reduce the buffer width by up to 25 % , but the buffer shall not be less
than 25 feet (see Section 17 . 01 . 150 Variance Criteria) . Any additional buffer
reduction beyond the 25 % must go through the public review process (Section
17 . 01 . 1201) . The order of sequence for such buffer reductions shall be as
follows :
am use of buffer averaging maintaining 100% of the buffer area under the
standard buffer requirement with no reduction in overall habitat quality of
the buffer;
b , reduction of the overall buffer area by no more than 25 % of the area
required under the standard buffer requirement with no reduction in
overall habitat quality of the buffer;
c , enhancement of existing degraded buffer area and replanting of the
disturbed buffer area using native vegetation ;
do maintain natural or approved designed infiltration of storm water where
soils permit; and ,
e . retention of existing native vegetation on other portions of the site that
provides equivalent or greater habitat value in order to off set habitat loss
from buffer reduction .
3 . Provision for Increasing Buffer : The Director shall increase the buffer width on a
case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect the structure ,
function and value of Fish & Wildlife Conservation Areas . The buffer shall be
increased or other protections shall be provided in order to prevent a significant
adverse environmental impact by a proposed project on those functions and
values . This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation ;
however , the county shall not require additional information from the applicant
solely for the purpose of increasing the buffer as provided in this subsection . Such
determination shall be attached as a permit condition and shall demonstrate that:
a . A larger buffer is necessary to maintain viable populations or critical
habitat of endangered , threatened , or sensitive species ; or
b . The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control
measures will not effectively prevent adverse impacts to the FWHCA; or
c . If the FWHCA contains variations in sensitivity, increasing the vegetation
area widths will only be done as necessary to preserve the structure ,
function and value of the FWHCA .
d . If the FWHCA lies within an area where there is evidence of a migrating
stream or river channel , increased protection may be necessary . Based
upon site habitat conditions and species presence , the aquatic
management area buffer may be extended .
e . If streams are located in ravines (side slopes of 33 % or greater for 10
feet or greater in height as measured from OHWM to slope break) , the
minimum buffer width shall be the minimum buffer required for the
stream type , or a buffer width which extends 25 feet beyond the top of
the slope , whichever is greater .
Page 3
2
Ana
O O In
0� coLM
Om x x
L
o 2
m 0 N 1Q
E z m N
0
L
�. CM Y
Y " L a a) 0
o � no w 4T
as o ,n uo '.o
to A U) r r
� cs
c
m un u> u> Lo Lo y = N d42)
r O C r-. 42
m o uO va ((Y)
U 00 co CO
COtm
E'
y N
ea L OLT a1 Y
O Eno E �'
O
m L En
42)
r r LO
NLM
N d
P!1 Y r 4+ L
O
N a) a)
O J CL m ` 42) 42 42
G1
N N Ul
r �" m M 0�0 0
�4 O N C
.Q N tQ
C d 'Q •�, of .Y
4w O C V Lco
+J +J +
L
O O
E co co
LM
CL G> 4T 110- 1s0- N N d 0 C
C O O O 2 %2 42 L U
m O O O to O O V
r- I� to .0 O y N N N N
y o L O uO O `d
d m co co a
a`
No o
c N
cc
U_
G� N
N «= O
C — 0 U
U O
U 4T N .CU
++ c U N N L
EL) N N O
m O O O_ U 'O Z) E
= uj L QS O
L > C N O �' U
O O
W um a) w CO C
y a au) N jC
M
Q d D d
~ F- N M to m U
tm
= 0looms
L
� � E
,3 a o �
CO) GO x x x x x
w 42 42) 2 2 2
3 0 0 0 Cl 0
Z 00 N N N N
: VW E 421
O W O LO LO LCD
N � r �— x x zJ . �
w U
Imm a) CD
C ❑
C CD
O 412ROMMINw ® O U O
) G u M t® M CV (V
d tQ N a) a) a) iWC E
RESUME 4(�D
�j s
t4 ++ cc
as 0 m (n w m LO � LO Ln to
i O O + 40 O
� �N a yo
O L kn
MOMMOR N a) N N N N p. O
al
U! 49 (D .
0 y
N y = low
p G! O �Ocu +�
7 y O O LO LO to to C aL, c3C
C w r
C_
L O
Co V b
y 0 C L O
v N .0 a Co
.0 f0 L O w LO .- LO Ln .0 ommsL U 4a? cd
m O M O r co -Q a
N
L N 'C1
N '0 cd
(0 U) fl
LO C fi r"
O N M N t6 N
(6 E 42) L O O
EU f6 M O
Ecd
L L
U O N N NFEMME N 9
C
NNERIMa) a a) N N N 0 rn
CD
G O N N ® > >+ O O y b
U C. 2) E E 'y N
Uc g m ❑ O_ m Q LL f0 m ❑
L O LL N LL H
I p � •r• H
C
5 ® Z ® coLo Z
�
0
ATTACHMENT B
E . STEWARDSHIP OPTIONS AND INCENTIVES
The purpose of this subsection is to encourage property owners to protect critical areas
and their buffers and to reduce the burden on property owners from the application of the
Resource Ordinance regulations . Options given below may be used individually, or they
may be combined for greatest effect and benefit .
1 . Open Space Bonus : Any property owner, except on land designated as Long -
Term Commercial Forest Lands , Agricultural Resource Lands or Mineral
Resource Lands , may apply for a performance subdivision as provided in Chapter
16 .22 , Mason County Code . Approval of such a subdivision provides for a
development density bonus - that is , it allows more lots for development - in
exchange for the protection of critical areas and meeting other design
requirements .
2 . Open Space Tax Assessment: Any property owner may apply for current use
property tax assessment for lands which are fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas or their buffers pursuant to RCW 84 . 34 .
a . The land proposed for current use tax assessment shall be in a separate
tract or a conservation easement.
b . Any person who owns an identified critical area or its associated buffer
may place a conservation easement over that portion of the property . A
conservation easement is a legal agreement a property owner makes to
restrict the type and amount of development that may occur on a parcel .
Each easement is tailored to the particular property and to the interest of
the individual owner. The property owner grants an easement to an
appropriate governmental agency or non-profit land trust. It provides
significant property and federal income tax benefits to the property owner.
The purpose of the easement shall be to preserve , protect, maintain ,
restore and limit future use of the property affected . The terms of the
conservation easement may include prohibitions or restrictions on access
and shall be approved by the property owner and the county.
3 . Density Credit: On lands containing FWHCAs or their buffers , the county shall
allow a transfer of density for residential uses from the portion of the property
containing the critical areas or buffers to that portion of the property that does not
contain critical areas or buffers - that is , the property could be developed with the
same number of lots it would have if critical areas were not present - provided that
such transfer does not create any adverse impacts to the critical area that can not
be adequately mitigated and provided that all other development regulations can
be met.
4 . Tax Re-assessment: The owner of any property that has been affected by a permit
decision by the county may request an immediate re-assessment by the Mason
County Assessors Office , as provided by RCW Chapter 84 ,
5 . Conservation Futures : If approved by a vote of the people of Mason County,
Mason County shall use conservation futures revenue to compensate affected
property owners for the impact of protecting fish and wildlife through the purchase
of conservation easements on impacted land or the impacted land .
6 . Education : The county encourages proper stewardship on land to provide benefits
to fish and wildlife . The county shall provide educational information to the public
Page 6
ATTACHMENT
through its sponsorship of the Washington State Cooperative Extension Service ,
the Mason Conservation District, or through the provision of informational materials
in its offices .
F . ACTIVITIES WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE A MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT
The following uses shall be allowed , within a FWHCA or its buffer to the extent that
they are not prohibited by any other applicable law or ordinance , provided they are
conducted so as to minimize any impact on the values and functions of the FWHMA ,
and provided they are consistent with any county approved Resource Ordinance
Special Study ( such as a Habitat Management Plan or Geotechnical Report) or any
state or Federally approved management plan for an endangered , threatened , or
sensitive species .
1 . The remodel , repair , or change of use of an existing building within its existing
footprint , plus or minus ten percent and provided that such expansion does not
increase any intrusion into the aquatic management area or buffer .
Reconstruction of structures destroyed by fire or other means , provided that
completed application for reconstruction occurs within the previous structural
footprint and within two years of the destruction . This provision is intended to
apply only to that portion of a building which lies within a FWHCA or its buffer .
2 . The removal from buffer areas of noxious weeds designated in Chapter 17 . 10
RCW .
3 . Ongoing and existing activities ( such a lawn and garden maintenance ) .
4 . Buffer alterations for view corridors are allowed with emphasis placed on
limbing and selective timber removal minimized to the extent possible . View
corridor improvement actions which include the removal of trees larger than six
inches in diameter at breast height will require Mason County approval .
5 . The removal of danger trees from buffers provided they are documented to
pose a direct threat to property and life . Removal of danger trees shall be
mitigated by planting a total of six ( 6 ) new trees seedlings each a minimum
three years old and each of the same species as the removed tree or native
species trees . If the replacement is judged to be unnecessary , the Director may
request the applicant place the downed danger tree within the buffer as
habitat .
6 . The enhancement of a buffer by planting indigenous vegetation .
7 . The construction of trails which shall be unpaved when located in the buffer areas
and elevated when located in wetlands , which are not intended for motorized use ,
and which are no wider than three (3) feet, unless additional width is necessary for
safety along a precipice , steep hillside , or other hazardous area .
8 . Harvesting of Wild Crops : Harvesting wild crops which do not significantly affect
the viability of the wild crop , the function of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat or
regulated buffer (does not include tilling of soil or alteration of the Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Area) .
9 . Any of the General Exemptions authorized by Section 17 . 01 . 130 .
Page 7
ATTACHMENT
G . DEVELOPMENT AND ACTIVITIES REQUIRING A MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT
IN AQUATIC MANAGEMENT AREAS OR THEIR BUFFERS
A Mason Environmental Permit shall be obtained from the County , using the
administrative review process in this Chapter, before undertaking the following
activities in FWHCAs or their buffers
1 . The removal , excavation , grading , dumping , discharging or filling of any material
unless part of a project which has been permitted pursuant to this section or for
which no permit is required .
2 . The destruction or alteration of aquatic management areas or their buffers through
clearing , harvesting , shading , intentional burning , or planting of vegetation that
would alter the character of the aquatic management area or buffer, unless part of
a project which has been permitted pursuant to this section or for which no permit
is required .
3 . New Residential Construction and Major New Development: New residential
construction and major new development is not permitted within an aquatic
management area or its buffer , except as provided for elsewhere in this chapter.
4 . Stream Crossings : All stream crossings should be discouraged and alternatives
should be explored . Any private or public road expansion or construction which is
proposed and must cross streams classified within this Ordinance , shall comply
with the following minimum development standards :
a . Bridges or arch/bottomless culverts shall be required for all Type 1 , 2 and
3 streams (which have anadromous fish habitat) . Fish passage shall be
provided , if necessary to address man - made obstructions on site . Other
alternatives may be allowed upon a showing that, for the site under review,
the alternatives would be less disruptive to the habitat or that the
necessary building foundations were not feasible . Submittal of a Habitat
Management Plan which demonstrates that the alternatives would not
result in significant impacts to the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Area (FWHCA) may be required if the information necessary to determine
if the permit requirements contained in subsection J . 5ff have been met.
The plan must demonstrate that salmon habitat will be replaced at a
minimum 1 : 1 ratio .
b . Crossings shall not occur in salmonid spawning areas unless no other
reasonable crossing site exists . For new development proposals , if
existing crossings are determined to adversely impact salmon spawning or
passage areas , new or upgraded crossings shall be located as
determined necessary through coordination with the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife and affected Tribe (s) ;
c . Bridge piers or abutments shall not be placed either within the floodway or
between the ordinary , high water marks unless no other reasonable
alternative placement exists ;
d . All stream crossings shall be required to pass 100 year projected flood
flows , even in non-fish bearing Type 4 and 5 streams . In addition ,
crossings for Type 1 , 2 , or 3 should allow for downstream transport of
large woody debris ;
e . Crossings shall serve multiple properties whenever possible .
f. Where there is no reasonable alternative to providing a culvert, the culvert
shall be the minimum length necessary to accommodate the permitted
activity.
Page 8
ATTACHMENT
5 . Stream Relocation : Stream relocations are discouraged except for the purpose of
fisheries restoration and require a Habitat Management Plan . Stream relocation
shall only be permitted when adhering to the following minimum performance
standards and when consistent with Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval .
a . The channel , bank and buffer areas shall be replanted with native
vegetation that replicates a natural , undisturbed riparian condition ; and ,
b . For those shorelands and waters designated as Frequently Flooded Areas
pursuant to Section 17 . 01 . 090 , a professional engineer licensed in the
State of Washington shall provide information demonstrating that the
equivalent base flood storage volume and function will be maintained .
c . Relocated stream channels shall be designed to meet or exceed the
functions and values of the stream to be relocated as determined by the
monitoring in the Habitat Management Plan,
6 . Land Divisions : In order to implement the purpose of this section and the County
Comprehensive Plan , to accommodate design innovation , creativity, and flexibility,
and to achieve a level of environmental protection that would not be possible by
typical lot- by-lot development, the use of the Performance Subdivision process
(Title 16 Mason County Subdivision Ordinance) is strongly encouraged . Divisions
of land (Subdivisions , Short Subdivisions , Large Lot Subdivisions) shall comply with
the following development standards :
a . In order to avoid the creation of non-conforming lots , each new lot shall
contain at least one building site that meets the requirements of this
Ordinance , including buffer requirements for habitat conservation areas .
This site must also have access and a sewage disposal system location
that are suitable for development and does not adversely impact the
FWHCA .
b . After preliminary approval and prior to final land division approval , the
Director shall require the common boundary between a required buffer
and the adjacent property be identified using signs . In lieu of signs,
alternative methods of buffer identification may be approved when such
methods are determined by the Director to provide adequate identification
to the buffer and the FWHCA.
c . Buffer areas shall be dedicated as permanent open space tracts ,
functioning as critical areas buffers .
7 . Agricultural Restrictions : In all development proposals which would permit
introduction of agriculture adjacent to FWHCA, damage to the area shall be
minimized by the following methods :
a . Implementation of the farm conservation plan agreed upon by the Mason
Conservation District and the applicant, to protect the water quality of the
aquatic management area . The conversion of wood lots to other
agricultural uses will require such a farm plan . (The farm conservation
plan is not in lieu of a HMP .) ; and/or,
b . Fencing located not closer than the outer buffer edge .
c . A Mason Environmental Permit is not required for those agricultural
activities defined in 17 . 01 , 070 (Wetlands) which could also occur in a
FWHCA .
8 . Utilities : Placement of utilities within designated Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas may be allowed pursuant to the following standards :
Page 9
ATTACHMENT B
a . Construction of utilities may be permitted in FWHCA's or their buffers , only
when no practicable or reasonable alternative location is available and the
utility corridor meets the requirements for installation , replacement of
vegetation and maintenance outlined below. Utilities are encouraged to
follow existing or permitted roads where possible .
b . Construction of sewer lines or on -site sewage systems are not permitted in
FWHCA's or their buffers , except that they may be permitted in a buffer
area when the applicant demonstrates it is necessary to meet State and/or
local health code requirements ; there are no other practicable alternatives
available ; and construction meets the requirement of this section . Joint
use of the sewer utility corridor by other utilities may be allowed .
c . New Utility Corridors shall not be allowed in FWHCA's with known
locations of federal or state listed endangered , threatened or sensitive
species , heron rookeries or nesting sites of raptors which are listed as
state candidate or state monitor, except in those circumstances where an
approved Habitat Management Plan is in place ;
d . Utility corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the environment
of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and their buffers .
( 1 ) New utility corridors shall be aligned when possible to avoid
cutting trees greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height
(four and one-half feet) measured on the uphill side .
(2) New utility corridors shall be revegetated with appropriate native
vegetation at not less than pre-construction vegetation densities or
greater, immediately upon completion of construction or as soon
thereafter as possible due to seasonal growing constraints . The
utility shall ensure that such vegetation survives for a three year
period ;
e . Utility towers should be painted with brush , pad or roller and should not be
sandblasted or spray painted , nor shall lead base paints be used .
9 . Bank Stabilization : A stream channel and bank, bluff, and shoreline may be
stabilized when naturally occurring earth movement threatens existing legal
structures (structure is defined for this purpose as those requiring a Building Permit
pursuant to the Uniform Building Code) , public improvements , unique natural
resources , public health , safety or welfare , or the only feasible access to property,
and , in the case of streams , when such stabilization results in maintenance of fish
habitat, flood control and improved water quality. Bluff, bank and shoreline
stabilization shall follow the standards of the Mason County Shoreline Master
Program , Landslide Hazard Areas , and any floodplain management plan adopted
by the Board of Commissioners .
The Director may require that bank stabilization be designed by a professional
engineer licensed in the State of Washington with demonstrated expertise in
hydraulic actions of shorelines . For bank stabilization projects within FWHCAs ,
emphasis shall be placed on bioengineering solutions (vegetation versus hard
surfaces) unless proved by the applicant to be infeasible . Bank stabilization
projects may also require a Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife and will be determined after consultation with
WDFW.
10 . Gravel Mining : Gravel mining is discouraged within FWHCAs or their buffers , and
it shall not be permitted if it causes significant adverse environmental impact, but it
may be allowed following the review and approval of a Habitat Management Plan ,
including a detailed mining and reclamation plan .
Page 10
ATTACHMENT
11 . Forest Practices , Class IV General : Timber harvesting with associated
development activity involving land conversions from Forest Use , or otherwise
meeting the DNR definition as a Class IV General application , shall comply with
the provisions of this Ordinance including the maintenance of buffers , where
required .
12 . Road/Street Repair & Construction : Any private or public road or street expansion
or construction which is allowed in a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area or
its buffer shall comply with the following minimum development standards :
a . No other reasonable or practicable alternative exists and the proposed
road or street serves multiple properties whenever possible ;
b . Public and private roads should provide for other purposes, such as utility
crossings , pedestrian or bicycle easements , viewing points , etc . ; and ,
c . The road or street construction is the minimum necessary , as required by
the Department of Public Works and Fire Marshall , and shall comply with
the Department of Public Works' guidelines and Fire Code to provide
public safety and mitigated storm water impacts . Minimum necessary
provisions may include projected level of service requirements .
d . Construction time limits shall be determined in consultation with the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to ensure species
and habitat protection .
13 . Conservation : Any conservation , preservation , or enhancement projects to protect
functions and values of the critical area system , including activities and mitigation
allowed pursuant to the mitigation priorities identified in Section J .
14 , Outdoor Recreation Education and Trails : Activities and improvements which do not
significantly affect the function of the Fish and Wildlife habitat or regulated buffer
(including viewing structures , outdoor scientific or interpretive facilities , trails , hunting
blinds , etc .) may be permitted in FWHCA or their buffers .
a . Trails and other facilities shall , to the extent feasible , be placed on existing
road grades , utility corridors , or other such previously disturbed areas ;
b . Trails and other facilities shall be planned to minimize removal of trees ,
shrubs, snags and important wildlife habitat;
c . Viewing platforms , interpretive centers , benches and access to them , shall
be designed and located to minimize of wildlife fish , or their habitat and/or
critical characteristics of the affected conservation area .
d . Trails , in general , shall be set back from streams so that there will be ma eP
minimal impact to the stream from trail use or maintenance . Trails shall be
constructed with pervious surfaces when feasible and trails within FWHCAs
are not intended to be used by motorized vehicles .
15 . Mobile home or RV parks: new or expanded mobile home or RV parks shall comply
with the following development standards :
a . Lots or spaces and other improved areas shall be outside of the aquatic
management area and its buffer. Roads, utilities , and trails may encroach on
the buffer or aquatic area as provided elsewhere in this section . The project
as a whole shall not adversely impact the FWHCA.
b . The common boundary between a required buffer and the adjacent property
shall be identified using signs or alternative methods determined by the
Director to provide adequate identification to the buffer and the FWHCA.
Page 11
ATTACHMENT B
c . Buffer areas shall be designated as open space and preserved to the extent
possible .
16 . Chemicals Application or Storage : Chemical applications are not permitted within
FWHCAs unless expressly approved as part of a farm plan , forest practices
application or for the control of invasive or noxious plant species . In cases where
approved chemical applications occur as part of a forest practices application or farm
plan , proper reporting procedures shall be followed . Chemical storage shall not be
permitted within a aquatic management area or its buffer .
17 . All development in tidal/saltwater submerged lands shall mitigate impacts to eel grass
and kelp beds . If eel grass or kelp is known or suspected in the vicinity, then an
aquatic vegetation survey is required identify the location of eel grass or kelp .
H . ACTIVITIES WHICH REQUIRE A MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT IN TERRESTRIAL
MANAGEMENT AREAS
All major new development projects that are associated with known locations Terrestrial
Management Areas will require the submittal and County approval of a Habitat
Management Plan ( HMP) . In the case of bald eagles, an approved Bald Eagle Management
Plan by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife meets the requirements for
a HMP . This sub-section is not intended to apply to aquatic species as provisions in the
aquatic management areas are intended to provide protection for those species .
I . HABITATS AND SPECIES OF LOCAL IMPORTANCE -- LISTING & DELISTING IMPORTANT
HABITATS & SPECIES
1 . Locally significant species are those which are not state listed as threatened ,
endangered or sensitive , but which live in Mason County, and the species is special
importance to the citizens of Mason County for cultural or historical reasons , or the
county is a critically significant portion of their range . Mason County is a critically
significant portion of the range of a species when the following conditions apply :
a . The species would be extirpated from the state of Washington if it is
extirpated from Mason County;
b . The species ' population would be divided into non-viable
populations if it is extirpated from Mason County, where the
isolated populations are critical to the survival of the species;
c . The species is listed as a state monitor species and Mason County
is a significant portion of the range of the species and significant
reduction or extirpation of the species from Mason County would
result in changing the status of the species to that of state
endangered , threatened , or sensitive ;
2 . Locally significant habitats are those habitats in which significant species live , or
which is of special importance to the citizens of Mason County because they have
been determined to contribute to the variety of habitats or diversity of species .
3 . Regulations prepared to protect locally important habitat and species shall enable
and support the economic development of Mason County and the use of resource
lands and resources industry, shall enhance the affordability of housing , and
otherwise promote the achievement of other goals in the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan .
Page 12
ATTACHMENT
4 . The process for listing or delisting an important habitat or species in Mason County
shall be an amendment to this section of the Interim Resource Ordinance . This
action may be initiated by request of the State Department of Fish & Wildlife ,
affected Tribe (s) , County staff , or interested citizens . Any such request shall be
in writing and shall include :
a . The common and scientific names of for species under
consideration ;
b . Habitat location on a map (scale 1 : 24, 000) ;
c . The reasons for the request, including :
( 1 ) declining or increasing population ,
( 2 ) sensitivity to habitat manipulation .
d . Habitat management recommendations , including potential uses and
restrictions of the habitat areas, seasonally sensitive areas, and other
guidelines necessary for the protection of the nominated species ,
e . Other supporting documentation , including an analysis which weighs the
non-environmental impacts of the proposal , addressing economics and land
use , against the benefits of the proposed listing .
5 . The written request and supporting data may be evaluated by a qualified wildlife
biologist or equivalent professional selected by the County .
6 . In addition to the above , the County shall consider the following factors when
evaluating the request :
a . The specificity and scientific validity of the information about the
nominated species needs and behaviors ;
b . The sufficiency of habitat areas currently available to sustain the species
over time ; and
c . The versatility of the proposed habitat area to sustain species other than
the one being nominated for local species of importance designation .
J . APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS
1 . Upon the receipt of an application for development, the Director shall determine
whetherthe requirements of this section apply. The Director may consult with affected
Tribes or state agencies in determining that the subject property is shown to be
documented habitat for federal or state listed endangered , threatened or sensitive
species .
2 . Boundaries : The procedures for formal determination of regulated Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Area boundaries are as follows :
a . Aquatic Management Areas : The boundary for aquatic management areas
shall be the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) .
b . Terrestrial Management Areas : The boundary of terrestrial management
areas may be determined using published databases , resource agency
personnel , consultation with affected Tribes , and/or by a qualified
environmental professional based upon site specific assessment and species
presence .
3 . Permit information : When a Mason Environmental Permit is required under this
section , it is the applicant's responsibility to provide all necessary and accurate data
to the County for its review . This information will include a field delineation by a
Page 13
ATTACHMENT
qualified professional (biologist, hydrologist, soil scientist, and/or other expert as
circumstances warrant) . Formal boundary determination is the responsibility of the
County .
a . When sufficient information exists from the County's natural resource
inventory or other sources , the Director may waive the requirement of a field
delineation , provided a qualified professional has reviewed and approved
such information as reliable . .
b . When requested by the applicant, or an affected party, the County may
perform the data collection , at a fee , in lieu of direct action by the applicant .
c . Where Mason County performs a formal determination at the request of the
applicant pursuant to subsection b above , it shall be considered a final
determination unless contested by the applicant or other affected party.
d . Where the applicant has provided the information in support of a permit for a
formal determination by the County of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area boundary , the Director shall verify the accuracy of, and
may render adjustments to , the boundary determination in compliance with
the provisions of this ordinance .
4 . When a Mason Environmental Permit is required , the permit shall be obtained from
the County using the administrative review process in this chapter prior to undertaking
regulated activities in a FWHCA or its buffer.
5 . In addition to any other requirements , permits shall only be granted if:
a . The proposed activity avoids adverse impacts to regulated FWHCA, or takes
affirmative and appropriate measures to compensate for impacts . Mitigation
sequencing should follow the avoidance , reduction , and compensation
analysis , in that order of preference , and
b . The proposed activity is consistent with an approved Habitat
Management Plan , if such a plan is prepared ; or
c . The proposed activity is approved as a variance or reasonable use
exception under this chapter , if applicable .
6 . FWHCA permits shall not be effective and no activity thereunder shall be allowed
during the time provided to file and process a permit appeal .
K. HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN (HMP) REQUIREMENTS
A habitat management plan shall be prepared for regulated uses or activities which are located
in a priority habitat or within 1 /4 mile of a sensitive , threatened , or endangered species point
location (den or nest site) . The following describes the requirements of a Habitat Management
Plan ,
A HMP shall consider measures to preserve and protect the wildlife habitat and shall consider
effects of land use intensity, buffers , setbacks , impervious surfaces , erosion control and
retention of natural vegetation .
This report shall identify how the impacts from the proposed use or activity will be avoided or
mitigated through habitat mitigation which meets the purposes of this ordinance . The
Management Recommendations for Washington 's Priority Habitats and Species (1991 ) , as
now or hereafter amended , and consultation with a habitat biologist from the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife and affected Tribe (s) and shall be the basis for the report.
Page 14
ATTACHMENT
The Habitat Management Plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall be
approved in writing by the Director . It shall contain but not be limited to the following
information :
1 . A map (s) prepared at an easily readable scale , showing :
a . The location of the proposed site ;
b . The relationship of the site to surrounding topographic and built features ;
c . The nature and density of the proposed use or activity;
d . Proposed building locations and sizes ;
e . A legend which includes :
(1 ) A complete and accurate legal description and total acreage of the
parcel ;
(2) Title , scale , date , and north arrow;
(3) Certification by a qualified biologist.
f. Existing structures and landscape features including the name and location
of all water bodies .
g . Location of priority habitat types or priority species point locations .
2 . A report which contains :
a . A description of the nature , density and intensity of the proposed use or
activity in sufficient detail to allow analysis of such land use change upon
identified wildlife habitat;
b . An analysis of the effect of the proposed use or activity upon fish and wildlife
species and their habitats , identified within the Priority Habitat and Species
Program as defined in this ordinance which includes species and habitats of
local importance .
c . A plan which explains how the applicant will avoid , minimize or mitigate
adverse impacts to fish and/or wildlife habitats created by the proposed use
or activity. This explanation must address the management goals , policies
and recommendations presented in this ordinance . Monitoring of mitigation
shall be required when appropriate or necessary for effectiveness . Mitigation
measures within the plan may include , but are not limited to :
( 1 ) Establishment of buffer areas ;
(2) Preservation of critically important plants and trees ;
(3) Limitation of access to habitat area ;
(4) Seasonal restriction of construction activities ;
(5) Clustering of development and preservation of open space ;
(6) Sign marking habitats or habitat buffer areas ;
(7) Title notice or plat dedication warning statements ;
(8) Conservation easements .
3 . Review comments by a habitat biologist from the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and affected Tribe (s) shall be included in the HMP when
available . If the HMP recommends mitigation involving federally listed threatened or
endangered species , migratory waterfowl or wetlands , the U . S . Fish and Wildlife
Service shall receive a copy of the draft HMP and their review comments shall be
included in the final report .
This is provided that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife , affected
Tribe (s) and , if required , the U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service respond in writing to the
Director with review comments or a request for additional information within 15 days
from the date of issuance of a draft habitat management plan . If review comments or
a request for additional information is not received in the prescribed time frame , the
Page 15
ATTACHMENT B
tribal , state and/or federal review comments on the habitat management plan shall not
be required for completion of the HMP . The Director shall have the authority to
approve habitat management plans or require additional information .
L . RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS SECTION
Specific relief from the requirements of this section may be obtained on a case-by-case basis by
applying for a variance ( Section 17 . 01 . 150 ) or a reasonable use exception ( Section 17 . 01 . 120 ) .
SECTIONIESTABLISHMENT
DESIGNATEDN , SUBSECTION C . 1 . , TO READ AS FOLLOWS .
1 . Designated resource lands and critical areas are bounded and defined , in part, as
shown on the following official maps of Mason County, which together with all
explanatory materials contained thereon , are hereby made a part of this Chapter .
These maps will automatically be updated as new data becomes available .
a . " Mason County Long -Term Commercial Forest and Inholdings Map "
b . "Water Type Reference Maps of Mason County" , Department of Natural
Resources, Types I , II , III , IV , and V Waters Only .
c . " Mason County Soil Survey Map " , United States Department of
Agriculture ; Series 1951 , No . 9 .
d . " Mason County Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Map "
e . " The Flood Insurance Study for Mason County " , U . S . Federal Emergency
Management Agency
f . " National Wetlands Inventory " , U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service , and all
Mason County Maps referencing wetlands .
g . The approximate location and extent of critical fish and wildlife habitat
areas as displayed in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ' s
(WDFW ) Priority Habitat and Species ( PHS ) Program database .
h . Kelp and eelgrass beds , identified by the Department of Natural Resources
Aquatic Lands Division and the Department of Ecology, including but not
limited to locations of kelp and eelgrass beds compiled in the Puget Sound
Environmental Atlas .
i . Herring and smelt spawning times and locations outlined in WAC 220- 110-
240 through 220- 110-260 and the Puget Sound Environmental Atlas .
Each map shall state the source or sources of scientific and other methodologies used in the
determination of boundaries , and all maps shall be individually stored and available for review at
the Mason County Department of Community Development, except for the Priority Habitat and
Species Program data , which is available to the public from the WDFW .
Page 16
ATTACHMENT B
SECTION . .
PROCESS , SUBSECTION . . , TO READ AS FOLLOWS .
1 . Developments lying within one or more designated critical areas may be required by the
Director to submit a Special Study or Plan that assures the proposed development does not
degrade the functions and values of those critical areas . Those studies include :
a . Wetland Delineation Report under Section 17 . 01 . 070
b . Wetland Mitigation Plan under Section 17 . 01 . 070 and 17 . 01 . 200 I .
c . Aquifer Recharge Area Report under Section 17 . 01 . 080
d . Geological Report under Section 17 . 01 a 100
e . Habitat Management Plan under Section 17 . 01 . 1 10
SECTION4 : AMEND SECTION17 , 01 . 240 DEFINITIONS , I
THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS .
Commercial and recreational shellfish areas : All public and private tidelands or bedlands suitable
for shellfish harvest , including commercial and recreational shellfish areas, and including any
shellfish protection districts established pursuant to chapter 90 . 72 RCW
Conservation Futures : As provided in section 84 . 34 . 220 RCW , conservation futures are the rights
in perpetuity to future development which may be acquired by the county on any open space land ,
farm and agricultural land , and timberland which are so designated under the provisions of chapter
84 . 34 RCW and taxed at current use assessment as provided by that chapter . Revenue for this
purpose is provided by an optional levy on assessed valuation of all taxable property within the
county .
Habitats and Species of Local Importance : Habitats of local importance include , a seasonal range
or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association , and which , if altered , may
reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term IWAC 365 -
190-030 ( 9 ) ] ; Species of local importance are those species that are of local concern due to their
population status or their sensitivity to habitat manipulation
Major New Development : Major new development includes and is limited to all activities which
require subdivision, short subdivision , or large lot subdivision approval , mobile home park or RV park
approval , grading permit approval , or building permit approval , provided that this does not include
repair , remodel , or alteration of existing buildings which do not increase the foot print of the
building by more than 10 % .
SECTION 5 : AMEND SECTION 17 , 01 . 240 DEFINITIONS , BY
REPLACING THE EXISTING DEFINITION WITH THE FOLLOWING
DEFINITIONS .
Streams : Those areas where surface waters flow sufficiently to produce a defined channel or bed .
A defined channel or bed is an area which demonstrates clear evidence of the passage of water
and includes, but is not limited to , bedrock channels , gravel beds, sand and silt beds and defined
channel swales. The channel or bed need not contain water year round . This definition is not meant
to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices or other entirely artificial
watercourses, unless they are used by salmon or used to convey streams naturally occurring prior
to construction . For regulatory purposes under this Chapter once streams are identified , the streams
are typed following DNR Water Types 1 -5 (WAC 22216 -030 ) .
Page 17
ATTACHMENT
Danger Tree : A tree with a high probability of falling due to a debilitating disease , a structural defect,
a root bass more than 50 % exposed , or having been exposed to wind throw within the past 10 years ,
and where there is a residence or residential accessory structure within a tree lengh of the base of the
trunk, or where the top of a bluff or steep slope is endangered . Where not immediately apparent to the
review authority, the danger tree determination shall be made after review of a report prepared by an
arborist or forester.
Page 18