Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRLC2001-00106 Construct Fence in Wetland - RLC Inspections - 10/11/2001 MASON COUNTY RESOURCE LANDS & CRITICAL AREA§ CHECKLIST 'PLEASE PRINT . $70.00 Fee Re wired 42012-13-00000,42012-23-00010 Applicant: T �j�'l� l 1 ��- Parcel No. 42012-24-00000,42012-31-00010 Applicant Address: 457)W.-N11:11 n t SS City: -4 + St Wk Zlp��`��� 34 Legal Description: R Cc Phone: (�W1 4afo-I i51 _ Owner Name (if different from applicant: OCT 01 (!nVS-_7y_0Z_T MCCD - PLANNING Purpose of Pre-Inspection: aVIft-41 -1�r Use of Building: t- i1 Do any of the following exist on or within 200 feet of the property: saltwater lake river/stream pond wetland seasonal runoff slope Dirac ions to Site: e,;L)T 0� �u /0l 7 War �rr r(-��C.� �t7 i�lZp,� �B-BL LJ Please illustrate in the box below the proposed building site in relation to property lines, significant natural features, slope grade and direction and topography (or include on separate sheet): North Arrow f ttic , lo bt, pla_uo Qruuli v pellp� C� �� Parcels . This checklist is designed to assist an applicant: for a Building Permit, On-Site Sewage System Site Evaluation and Disposal Permit, Access Permit, Land Modification Permit, Boundary Line Adjustments, Land Segregations, Hazardous Waste Permit, or Shoreline Permit in determining whether their property is affect by regulations under the Mason County Interim Ordinance (77-93). This checklist is an important opportunity for identifying early in the permit process whether there will be any environmental regulations affecting the proposed development. If the information is incomplete, then Mason County must disclaim any errors resulting from deficiencies in the original application. Pre-inspection reports remain valid only until development changes occur in the vicinity which affects the lot evaluated in this inspection. Applicant Signature: / % / Date: Return application to: Department of Community Devel opm ant,Planning Division 411 N 5th/PO Box 279 ;Shelton, WA 98584MCI (360)427-9670 Please make checks or money orders payable to Meson County Treasurer When completed, this form becomes pert of the permit application. ��j15/QI M Please illustrate below the proposed building site in relation to critical area & property lines: Departmental Review (For Office Use Only) Planning Department Findings: PypN'S'ATFp� MASON COUNTY MC N Planning Department >_ o N = P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 7 N y y (360)427-9670 OJ e�p 1864 Resource Lands & Critical Area Site Evaluation October 31 , 2001 PORT OF SHELTON 450 W. BUSINESS PK RD SHELTON WA 98584 Case No.: RLC2001-00106 Parcel No.: 420121300000 Project Description Construct fence in wetland. Dear Applicant: As part of this department's review of your permit application, a Resource Lands and Critical Areas (RLC) site inspection was performed on your property. Below you will find comments made regarding the proposed development and its critical values. This information is based on County and State regulations as they exist to date. These regulations may change and may affect the requirements for development of the subject property. Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 577 if you have questions. .Ely, Rick Mraz Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department 10/31/01 1 of 3 RLC2001-00106 Resource Lands & Critical Area Site Evaluation 10/31/01 Case No.: RLC2001-00106 Comments A field inspection of the subject property was conducted on 10/18/01 with the following results. The primary focus of the inspection was to evaulate resource-related restrictions and/or permit issues concerning a proposal to construct a fence in wetlands and/or their buffers. The parcels in question contain a large ponded wetland/lake vegetated primarily with Spiraea, Pond Lily, Willow, and Sedge. A field inspection of the subject property was conducted on 10/18/01 with the following results. The area evinced hydrology in the form of ponding and saturated soils. Soil chroma was dark and mottled. This area meets the criteria for a Category II wetland per the provisions of the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93. The Resource Ordinance requires undisturbed vegetative buffers from wetlands. The size of the undisturbed buffer depends on the category of wetland. Category II wetlands require a 100' undisturbed vegetative buffer. Construction within the buffer and/or wetland shall require a Mason Environmental Permit, a Restoration Plan prepared by a qualified biologist, and adequate mitigation. As a condition of any permit allowing alteration of wetlands and/or wetland vegetation areas (buffers) the County will require that the applicant engage in the restoration, creation, or enhancement of wetlands and their vegetation areas in order to offset the impacts resulting from the applicant's actions. A copy of the Wetlands chapter of the Resource Ordinance is enclosed. In addition, a copy of the contents of a Restoration Plan have also been included. Other state and federal agencies also have jurisdiction in wetlands and would have regulatory concerns with any proposal that included filling in wetlands. They include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Washington Department of Ecology. These agencies may issue either a permit or an exemption for your proposal. Please contact them for further details of their regulatory reviews. An aspect of regulatory review that was not considered during the site inspection is jurisdiction under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. The ponded wetland may be listed in the SMP as a shoreline lake (see WAC 173-20-480). This designation would effect the SMP regulations on the proposal and create significant limitations on any fences that approach the shoreline buffer. No fence may be constructed into a SMP jurisdictional lake. This would constitute construction over water (and within a biological wetland), which is prohibited. In addition, a Shoreline 10/31/01 2 of 3 RLC2001-00106 Resource Lands & Critical Area Site Evaluation 10/31/01 Case No.: RLC2001-00106 Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit will be required for the placement of the fence (valued at greater that $2500) within 200' of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of the lake. The critical factor is whether the area encircled by the OHWM is greater than 20 acres. Also noted during the site inspection was evidence of Shelton Pocket Gophers (Thomomys sp.). Burrows and runs were common to the upland area west of Shelton Springs Road and east of the above-referenced wetland. Shelton Pocket Gophers are listed as Candidate Species by the state of Washington. This status effects protection of those areas with which the animals have primary association. A specific description of Shelton Pocket Gopher habitat is included for your review. Fence construction may not occur in any area containing burrows or runs. In addition to the above-referenced concerns, this area is listed as a Type II Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA). Title notification is required to support any proposed development requiring a building permit. A copy of the CARA chapter, with the title notification form, is also enclosed. Discussion considered the possibility of extended the fence to the wetland edge but not into it. This proposal would be favorable under County regulations since the actual placement of the fence into wetlands might constitute activities for which no adequate mitigation could be offered. Wildlife corridors within the wetland could be permanently impeded and the fence might prove hazardous to waterfowl or other bird life. If you have any questions or require clarification of these determinations, please contact me. 10/31/01 3 of 3 RLC2001-00106 SHIG£L YS CHERRY PARK NOW MAC'S 2 i 30 PARKM0OO 2200080 2%1 2100 1 2200 2100 V�, 140 030 oto ~N t 29w30 2200060 210 . 2190 al 130 12-OWZO 42012 11 00000 110 jr JII 2100 212100 Z200030 I00 a twovuNo SP 1403 M4N0R I 2190 2190 221111 190 1260040 220W31 t9O 200 SP /9 41 1290 040 Z200090 SP 908 0 = 2200130 2190041c 129C030� O =3 2190041 2300000 2190046 1280020 1 = 2200121 S 1/77 = 2200130 &LA 87-at © = 2200170 Q = 2200122 J 16/99 3 1300010 2300010 2400000 I v M r--- S 1/11 I� I400000 2 2 1300000 i 2- 2 2 N L S 13/22 SP /744 4 C o � 42012 00 60000 3100010 • 1 i �5 i III I 4ft00000 4160000 3100000 1 SHEL TON SPRINGS a ROAD I SR lot 0 NORTH SHEL TON INTERCHANGE 4390e1n � _ `O6<020 Washington Department of Wildlife Management Recoil mendations for Priority Species Thomomys mazama pocket Gophers Thomomys talpoides douglasi RANGE: Two species of pocket gopher occur in the genus Thomomys. The western pocket gopher(Thomomys mazama)is found from western Washington south to northern California. The northern pocket gopher(Thomomys talpoides) ranges from southwestern Canada to Nevada,Colorado and South Dakota. In western Washington,several populations that were isolated in patchily- distributed prairies have evolved into separate subspecies. Some of these subspecies populations have disappeared and at least five have become rare as a result of alteration of their habitats. WASH INGTON The status of several pocket gopher subspecies in Washington is poorly DISTRIBUTION: known. However,rare pocket gophers of Washington include five subspe- cies of the two species(which may be further separated with future research), distributed as follows: 1)Western pocket gopher(Thomomys mazama) a)T. m. couchi-one population near Shelton(Mason County) b)T.m. glacialis-Roy Prairie(Pierce County) c)T.m. louiei-Cathlamet area(Wakiakum County) d)T. m. tumuli-one population north of Tenino (Thurston County) 2)Northern pocket gopher(Thomomys talpoides douglasi) -Clark County near Vancouver HABITAT Pocket gophers inhabit a wide variety of habitats usually characterized by REQUIREMENTS: open vegetation types that range from lowland prairies to mountain meadows. Key elements within these habitats are a substantial growth of herbs,and relatively dry soil that is loose enough to burrow through. LIMITING FACTORS: Open,undisturbed tracts of prairie. MANAGEMENT Eliminate conifer encroachment on lands inhabited by these subspecies. RECOMMENDATIONS: Restrict development in open areas with uncompacted,dry soils where pocket gophers may occur. Avoid frequent plowing of fields used by,or enhanced for,rare gopher populations. Plowing every two to three years is detrimental to the popula- tion,while plowing every 10 years may renew the supply of non-woody plants favored by gophers. When plowing,only a portion of the habitat should be plowed in any given year. Planting alfalfa in unused adjacent areas will provide new habitat if left unplowed (Scheffer 1931). Herbicides such as 2,413 are detrimental to gopher populations(Barnes 1973), and should be avoided where rare gopher populations survive. Washington Department of Wildlife Management Recoi i mendations �;. �►- .,.. ' `� �� for s.� Priority Species p Thomomys mazama pocket Gophers Thomomys talpoides douglasi RANGE: Two species of pocket gopher occur in the genus Thomomys. The western pocket gopher(Thomomys mazama)is found from western Washington south to northern California. The northern pocket gopher(Thomomys talpoides) ranges from southwestern Canada to Nevada,Colorado and South Dakota. In western Washington,several populations that were isolated in patchily- distributed prairies have evolved into separate subspecies. Some of these subspecies populations have disappeared and at least five have become rare as a result of alteration of their habitats. WASHINGTON The status of several pocket gopher subspecies in Washington is poorly DISTRIBUTION: known. However,rare pocket gophers of Washington include five subspe- cies of the two species(which may be further separated with future research), distributed as follows: 1)Western pocket gopher(Thomomys mazama) a)T. m. couchi-one population near Shelton (Mason County) b)T.m. glacialis-Roy Prairie(Pierce County) c)T. m. louiei-Cathlamet area(Wakiaktun County) d)T. m. tumuli-one population north of Tenino (Thurston County) 2)Northern pocket gopher(Thomomys talpoides douglasi)- Clark County near Vancouver HABITAT Pocket gophers inhabit a wide variety of habitats usually characterized by REQUIREMENTS: open vegetation types that range from lowland prairies to mountain meadows. Key elements within these habitats are a substantial growth of herbs,and relatively dry soil that is loose enough to burrow through. LIMITING FACTORS: Open,undisturbed tracts of prairie. MANAGEMENT Eliminate conifer encroachment on lands inhabited by these subspecies. RECOMMENDATIONS: Restrict development in open areas with uncompacted,dry soils where pocket gophers may occur. Avoid frequent plowing of fields used by,or enhanced for,rare gopher populations. Plowing every two to three years is detrimental to the popula- tion,while plowing every 10 years may renew the supply of non-woody plants favored by gophers. When plowing,only a portion of the habitat should be plowed in any given year. Planting alfalfa in unused adjacent areas will provide new habitat if left unplowed (Scheffer 1931). Herbicides such as 2AD are detrimental to gopher populations(Barnes 1973), and should be avoided where rare gopher populations survive. If pocket gophers become a nuisance to a landowner, the Washington Department of Wildlife should be contacted to develop a plan to manage for the species at that specific site. REFERENCES: Barnes, V.G.,Jr. 1973. Pocket gophers and reforestation in the Pacific Northwest. A problem analysis. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report-Wildlife No. 155. Scheffer,T.H. 1931. Habits and economic status of the pocket gophers. USDA Forest Service Tech.Bull.No.224. KEY POINTS: Habitat Requirements: • Inhabit a wide variety of open habitats with abundant herbaceous vegetation and loose soil. Management Recommendations: • Curtail conifer encroachment into open areas. • Restrict development of open areas where gophers may occur. • Plow infrequently fields used by gophers; plow only part of a field in any given year. • Plant alfalfa in adjacent open areas not used by gophers; don't plow these planted areas. • Avoid using herbicides in areas used by gophers. • Consult with the Department of Wildlife if gophers cause problems. C: T10P2/90 RM