The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMEP2018-00016 Selfors Shoreline Access Parking Area - HMP Habitat Managment Plan - 6/25/2018 2cIg coo I Lp RECEIVED AUG 2 8 2018 615 W. Alder Street Habitat Management Plan Selfors Shoreline Access Driveway/Parking Area North Bay For: John & Lisa Selfors PO Box 644 Vaughn,WA 98394-0644 Prepared by: BioResources, LLC Kim Schaumburg Fisheries biologist, University of Washington, 1981 10112 Bay View Rd. KPN Vaughn,WA,98394 (253) 884-5776 or 225-2973 Email: kimberly035(&centurytel.net June 25,2018 � L Table of Contents 1.0 Project Location.................................................................... .......... 3 2.0 Project Description........................................I................................... 3 2.1 Conservation Measures&Mitigation...................................................... 4 2.2 Best Management Practices.................................................................. 4-5 3.0 ESA Species and Habitat Information..................................................... 5-6 4.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions....................................................... 6 4.1 Project Area.................................................................................... 6-7 4.2 Proposed Project Site......................................................................... 7 5.0 Effects of the Action.......................................................................... 7-10 5.3 Cumulative Effects............................................................................ 10 6.0 Conclusion...................................................................................... 10 6.1 Take Analysis.................................................................................. 10 6.2 Determination of Effect....................................................................... 10-11 7.0 References...................................................................................... 12-14 Attachments 1. Vicinity Map........................................................................................ 15 2. Site Plan.................................................................................. ........ 16 3. Site Photograph..................................................................................... 17 4. Site Photograph..................................................................................... 18 5. Site Photograph.................................................................................... 19 6. Site Photograph................................................................................... 20 7. Driveway permit.................................................................................. 21 8. Mitigation Buffer Enhancement Plan.......................................................... 22-24 Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 2 1.0 Project Location Section 28,Township 22N, Range 01 W. 5659 E State Route 302, Belfair WA 98528 Latitude 47.36166 N Longitude -122.80656 W(Attachment 1) Tax Parcel #12228-44-90024 2.0 Project Description This Habitat Assessment Report has been submitted on behalf of John and Lisa Selfors as required by the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance(CAO) in order to remedy a civil violation on their North Bay shoreline property. As per Mason County Case#ENF2017- 00181,the violation is described as: clearing associated with re-establishing a small area on the waterfront for one parking space. The applicants removed approximately (approx.) six, mature red alder trees. Additionally,the applicants are proposing to remove one additional red alder that is located in or along the footprint of their proposed parking area.Note: the parking area will also serve as an access driveway off State Route (SR) 302. The existing single-family residence is located on the east side of SR 302, approx. 235 feet from the shoreline at the proposed project site. State Route 302 cuts through the applicant's parcel, running north to south, leaving them a narrow(approx. 45' to 60' by 110')strip of property on the shoreline (Attachments 2-6). Road maintenance on SR 302 over the years has negatively impacted the site's historical driveway and parking area, which an attached document reveals was permitted in 1974 (Attachment 7). The shoreline at the site also supports an existing rock bulkhead, which is functioning but needs to be reset and augmented with approx. fifty percent new rock. The applicants have initiated the permit process for the bulkhead's repair. The adjoining waterfront properties are both bulkheaded with rock, as much of the shoreline in the area was likely bulkhead when SR 302 was installed. The proposed driveway/parking area will be twenty-five by twenty-eight feet(25' x 28'). The area will be lightly graded and then covered with large minus gravel. Approximately 14 cu/yds of gravel will be installed. Work will be completed in approx. one day, during daylight working hours normal to a rural neighborhood. Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 3 2.1 Conservation Measures & Mitigation 1. Best Management Practices(BMPs)to be strictly adhered to. 2. All manmade debris to be removed from the site following project completion. 3. Native vegetation will be planted in approx. 2400 square foot(sf)area on the north half of the applicants' shoreline area with the exact species and location to be at the applicant's discretion. 2.2 Best Management Practices BMPs In order to maintain the present water quality of North Bay during project construction, Best Management Practices will be implemented. BMPs are defined as physical, structural, and/or managerial practices that prevent or reduce the pollution of water (WDOE).The following source control BMPs,which are detailed in the WDOE's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington(2005),will be implemented for long-term protection of water quality at the site: I.Temporary and Permanent Seeding—BMP C120. Seeding is intended to reduce erosion by stabilizing exposed soils. •The optimum seeding windows for western Washington are April 1 through June 30;and September 1 through October 1. Seeding that occurs between July 1 and August 30 will require irrigation until 75 percent grass cover is established. Seeding between October 2 and March 30 is not recommended for this project. •Mulch is always required for seeding. Mulch can be applied on top of the seed or simultaneously by hydroseeding. It is recommended that only organic mulch be used for this project. No fertilizer is recommended, due to the close proximity of the streams. *Local suppliers or the local conservation district should be consulted for their recommendations because the appropriate mix depends on a variety of factors, including location, exposure, soil type, slope and expected foot traffic. Meadow seed mix may be appropriate for use in this project as it is recommended for areas that will be maintained infrequently or not at all and where colonization by native plants is desirable. Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 4 Meadow Seed Mix %weight %purity % germination Redtop or Oregon bentgrass(Agrostis alba 20 92 85 or Agrostis oregonensis) Red Fescue(Festuca rubra) 70 98 90 White dutch clover(Trifolium repens) 10 98 90 The following additional BMPs shall be used to insure that water quality is not degraded during and after construction: 1. Equipment will be cleaned and checked for leaks, offsite and daily, before commencing work. 2. Gravel rock will be clean before being installed. Spill Prevention Control Measures In addition to BMPs,the following Spill Prevention Control measures shall also be followed: 1)the contractor will supply the site with a portable bathroom so that solid or liquid waste will not become a source of stormwater pollution. 2)The contractor will be responsible for alerting the appropriate authorities in the event of a hazardous spill. 3) The contractor will be able to perform basic control, containment, and/or confinement operations within the capabilities of the resources and personnel protective equipment available. In other words, small spills, such as paint or oil, shall be promptly and fully collected and disposed of at a suitable disposal site. In the event of a significant spill, a fish kill, and/or if fish are observed in distress the Washington State Department of Ecology(800.258.5990)and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's Area Habitat Biologist, Margie Bigelow (360.427.2179), will be notified immediately. 3.0 ESA Species and Habitat Information In the proposed project area, there are four species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) as threatened species.The bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus), streaked horned lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata), and yellow-billed cuckoo(Coccyzus americanus)are listed as threatened and critical habitat has been designated for the former three species.The proposed project area is not critical habitat for any of these species. Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 5 In the proposed project area,there are nine species listed under the Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)as either threatened or endangered. The humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae), Bocaccio(Sebastes paucispinis), and leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea)are listed as endangered,while the Puget Sound Chinook salmon(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), green sturgeon(Acipenser medirostris), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus), and Southern Resident killer whale(Orcinus orca) are listed as threatened. Critical habitat has been designated for the Chinook salmon, Puget Sound Steelhead, Southern Resident killer whale, leatherback turtle, Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish, and green sturgeon. Puget Sound is designated critical habitat for the chinook,the Southern Resident killer whale, and Puget Sound/Georgia Basin rockfish. The proposed project area is critical habitat for the Chinook,killer whale,and rockfish (nearshore). In addition, Mason County has a Species of Importance list and a Priority Species list, and the WDFW publishes a Priority Habitats and Species list(PHS) and a Species of Concern (SOC) list.The PHS list includes habitats, species, and species groups considered to be priorities for conservation and management.The project site is categorized as one of those habitat types--Marine/Estuarine Shoreline. WDFW data revealed that three other species of anadromous salmonids on the State's PHS list may be found within the proposed project area: the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta),the Puget Sound coho salmon(Oncorhynchus kisutch), and the Puget Sound/Coastal cutthroat(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki).The Puget Sound coho salmon is also an ESA listed Species of Concern. Species of Concern are not species that are being actively considered for listing under the ESA by the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service)or FWS. They have been identified as Species of Concern because of concerns or great uncertainties regarding biological status and threats. Additionally, a WDFW GIS forage fish map(WDFW 2018) for the area indicates that the proposed project site is a documented spawning beach for surf smelt. 4.0 Environmental Baseline Conditions 4.1 Project Area The environmental baseline represents the existing set of conditions, to which the effects of the proposed action are then added. The proposed project site is in Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA) 14, on Case Inlet in Mason County. The site is located on a residential lot with approximately 110 feet of frontage on North Bay adjacent to SR 302. Properties to the north, south,and east of the proposed project site are developed and support single-family residences on acreage.As previously noted,much of the shoreline in the area that fronts SR 302 has been previously armored with rock. Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 6 In addition,the majority of the fresh and marine waterbodies in Kennedy/Goldsborough Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA) 14 suffer from water quality issues.North Bay and Case Inlet in the vicinity of North Bay are listed on the state's 2016 Water Quality 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for the following parameters: dissolved oxygen, temperature, and PCBs. It can be assumed that the existing environmental conditions in the area have been degraded by development, deforestation, hard armoring, shellfish aquaculture, and other anthropogenic changes that accompany urbanization. Organic and inorganic pollutants from commercial,urban, and residential runoff pose a serious threat to Puget Sound's most important abiotic habitat feature—water. 4.2 Proposed Project Site Field investigations were conducted in April and June of 2018, and the project area was surveyed visually on foot. Presently,the shoreline area of the applicant's parcel is dangerous to access, as there is no on-site parking area or driveway. Lack of on-site parking necessitates finding a parking area by the side of the road(which means having to make a long and precarious walk back to the site on a narrow strip of gravel with traffic speeding past on SR 302). The parcel is moderately vegetated with native species, including several large trees. Non-native, invasive species including English ivy, Scotch broom, and Himalayan blackberry were observed. Runoff from SR 302 has created a small depression near the north end of the property, adjacent to the highway.The depression was observed to be filled with water in April but was dry when the author revisited the site in June. The applicants stated that WSDOT has promised to address the issue. 5.0 Effects of the Action TEMPORARY DIRECT EFFECTS Temporary direct effects that maybe caused by the proposed project include: ]) Noise. 2) Water pollution from incidental release of fuel, oil, or other contaminants. *The main source of construction noise will be the operation of heavy equipment. The project site is located next to a state highway, so it is expected that the noise from heavy equipment will not be more excessive than noise normal to the neighborhood. *Potential soil or water pollution from accidental release of fuel, oil, or other contaminants is another possible temporary direct effect. As previously noted, Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 7 Spill Prevention Control measures and BMPs will be implemented during the proposed project. DIRECT& INDIRECT EFFECTS The installation of a 25' by 28' (700 sf)access driveway and parking area is expected to have the following direct and indirect effects: •The gravel driveway/parking area will be pervious to water and will promote the infiltration of surface flows to groundwater, where it is filtered and later(slowly) released through subsurface flows. *The parking area will attract vehicles,which are a source of pollutants. Because this area of the applicant's parcel is isolated by SR 302 from their SFR, it is expected that no vehicles will be parked at the site for longer than a few hours. *The parking area will prevent someone from getting hit by a vehicle while trying to access the site on foot. The installation of native vegetation and the removal of non-native vegetation at the site is expected to have the following direct and indirect effects: *Native vegetation will provide a more stable and diverse habitat for wildlife. •Native vegetation will provide leaf matter and insects for aquatic life in North Bay. *Native vegetation will more effectively intercept runoff(from SR 302, in particular) and promote the infiltration of surface flows to groundwater, where it is filtered and later(slowly)released through subsurface flows. The primary benefits of this process are: Increased slope stabilization (along a stretch of shoreline that is documented to be unstable). Less turbidity and siltation in North Bay. Fewer dissolved organic and inorganic pollutants such as nitrates and phosphates, and hydrocarbons(gasoline and oil)and heavy metals such as copper,zinc, lead, nickel, and cadmium from road runoff entering Puget Sound. •Non-native invasive vegetation removal curtails the spread of existing noxious weeds at the site. Scotch Broom (Cytisus scoparius) is listed as a Class B invasive weed by the state's Noxious Weed Control Board,while Himalayan blackberries (Rubus armeniacus)and English or Atlantic ivy(Hedera helix or hibernica) Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 8 are listed as Class C and are particularly detrimental as they impede the growth of larger vegetation and have a poor root systems, making the slope vulnerable to erosion.Note: Class B Class noxious weeds are designated for mandatory control in regions where they are not yet widespread. In regions where a Class B species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level. Control is not mandatory in Mason County at this time.A Class C weed is defined as non-native plants that are already widespread in Washington State.Counties can choose to enforce control, or they can educate residents about controlling these noxious weeds. Wildlife habitat function will be limited for the first several years following the proposed removal of a mature alder and the other alders that were removed from the shoreline buffer without a Mason County permit, as the newly installed replacement trees and shrubs will require time to grow and become established. However,the temporary reduction in the site's habitat function will be offset by the removal of non-native, invasive vegetation. The fact that it is impossible to quantify the amount of new non-native, invasive vegetation that has colonized nearby areas as a result of seeds from existing non-native, invasive vegetation at the site, does not diminish the value of noxious weed removal. The non-native, invasive species at the site are on the State's Noxious Weed list because they spread rapidly and displace native vegetation. English ivy is particularly damaging in Western Washington as it displaces or causes the eventual demise of native trees and other native vegetation. In general, English ivy primarily impacts ecological communities by displacing native ground flora, weakening and/or killing host trees and providing opportunity for invasion by other nonnative species(USDA 2010). Although ivy can thrive in the dense shade under the forest canopy, it seems to need high light conditions in order to flower and set seed. In the Pacific Northwest forests, ivy usually climbs trees in an attempt to reach light. Its growth on trees creates unfavorable conditions including susceptibility to toppling and blow down. Once the trees topple or the canopy collapses, an area becomes vulnerable to colonization by other invasive plant species that are not shade tolerant.The removal of ivy at the site will preserve the remaining existing native trees that are otherwise doomed to be killed (directly or indirectly) or weakened by ivy. In 1994 the Ivy Removal Project was organized to develop control strategies for invasive Hedera helix in Forest Park, a 5400 acre urban forest preserve within Portland, Oregon. Initial methods for removing ivy from trees involved cutting the vines around the trunk's lower portion and stripping them away,then pulling ground ivy within a three foot radius around the tree. A field research study undertaken by Nancy Broshot and Amanda Durkee into the growth patterns of Hedera helix found that ivy growing within 1.8 Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 9 meters of a tree was significantly more likely to grow towards the tree than in a random direction or away from the tree (p=0.006). Existing protocol was adapted to these findings by increasing the ground removal zone to a six foot radius around the base of the tree. Because many of our workers are unaccustomed to the metric system, feet were used to clarify the distance. The removal protocol was given the moniker"lifesaver"to create a strong visual image of the tree bole being at the center of the six foot ivy free ring. This new protocol was first used in the summer of 1996 with annual monitoring conducted where the modified protocol was employed. Many trees given a"lifesaver in 1996 and subsequent years still did not have ivy regrowing up the trunk in the summer of 2002. 6.0 Conclusion 6.1 Take Analysis Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of endangered or threatened species, "take"being defined in Section 3 as to harass, harm,pursue, hunt, shoot,wound, trap,capture, or collect listed species, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. "Harm" is further defined as a significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed species by"significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, and sheltering"(50 CFR 222.102). "Harass"is further defined as an intentional or negligent act which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering(50 CFR 17.3). In regards to the proposed project, it is extremely unlikely that any"take"will occur.The previously discussed conservation measures will further insure the likelihood that no "take"will occur. 6.2 Determination of Effect A determination of May affect, not likely to adversely affect is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species or their critical habitat are expected to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant. After reviewing the appropriate data and survey information, I have concluded that the proposed project will have an insignificant impact on the previously discussed Endangered or Threatened species or species on Mason County's Species of Importance and Priority Species lists, or the WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species list if the previously discussed conservation measures are implemented. In my most honest and professional opinion, while the proposed project may impact individual Endangered or Threatened species in the project area, it is not likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the continued existence of those species or their Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 10 designated Critical Habitat or habitat. The determination of effect for each of the listed species is: 1. Puget Sound chinook and their designated Critical Habitat No effect. 2. Puget Sound Steelhead No effect. 3. Leatherback turtle and their designated Critical Habitat—No effect. 4. Humpback whale—No effect. 5. Southern Resident Killer whale and their designated Critical Habitat---No effect. 6. Bull trout and their designated Critical Habitat No effect. 7. Marble murrelet and their designated Critical Habitat No effect. 8. Green Sturgeon and their designated Critical Habitat—No effect. 9. Puget Sound Rockfish No effect. 10. Streaked horned lark and their designated Critical Habitat No effect. Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 11 7.0 References Literature Google Earth. 2017. Aerial Imagery. Internet report. URL: https://www.google.com/earth/ Angell,T.and K.C. Balcomb III. 1982.Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Diedrich, Sandy and Broshot,Nancy. 2003. Hedera helix: Effectiveness of Removal Protocol Adapted to Field Research Data. Internet Report. URL: www.portiandoregon.gov/parks/article/289068 Leigh, Michael. 1996. Grow your own native landscape: a guide to identifying, propagating, and landscaping with Western Washington native plants. Washington State University Cooperative Extension/Thurston County, Olympia, WA. National Geographic. 2002.Field Guide to the Birds of North America.National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. pg. 226. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Distribution of Threatened and Endangered Species. Internet report. URL: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Bocaccio rockfish. Internet report. URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/bocaccio.htm National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Canary rockfish. Internet report. URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/canary.htm National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Bocaccio rockfish. Internet report. URL:http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/si2ecies/fish/velloweye.htm NOAA Fisheries. 2005. Fisheries agency lists Puget Sound killer whales as endangered. Internet report. URL: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2533.htm Mason County. 2018.Assessor-Treasurer Electronic Property Information Profile. Internet report. URL: http://www.co.mason.wa.us/. Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 12 Washington State Department of Ecology. 2018. Coastal Atlas. Internet report. URL: https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecv/coastalatias/Default Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. Stormwater Manual For Western Washington, Volume II, Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. WDOE Water Quality Program, Olympia, WA. 6pp. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2016. 305 (b) report and 303(d) list of impaired waters for the state of Washington. Internet report. URL: https://ecologygov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Water-improvement/Assessment- of-state-waters-303d/EPA-approved-assessment https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecv/wgamgpviewer/mgp.aspx Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Species of Concern in Washington State. Internet report. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversb/soc/soc.htm Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2018. FPARS mapping website. URL: http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/appl/fpars/viewer.htm Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board. 2018. Noxious Weed List. URL: https://www.nwcb.wa.gov/printable-noxious-weed-list United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Polluted Runoff(Nonpoint Source Pollution). 17 pp. Internet report. URL: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/MMGI/Choter6/ch6-4.html USDA Forest Service. 2006. Internet report. URL: http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/invasive plants/weeds/en lis�h-ivy.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet in Washington,Oregon, and California. Published by USFWS,Portland, OR. URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery plans/I997/970924.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.2011. Species Profile, Marbled Murrelet. Internet report. URL: http://www.fws.gov/arcata/esibirds/mm/m murrelet.html U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Guidance for Identifying Marbled Murrelet Nest Trees in Washington State. Internet report. URL: httl2://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2D97D3D8-D448-43A7-8249- E2319095 C 8C2/0/MAMUhabitatF W S.pd f U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Species fact sheet, Streaked Horned Lark, Eremophila alpestris strigata. Internet report. URL: httl2://www.fWs.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/streakedhomedlarkfinal.pdf Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 13 Washington State Department of Ecology. 1993. Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control Using Vegetation. Washington State Department of Ecology Shorelands&Coastal Zone Management Program. Publication 93-30. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1993. Vegetation Management: Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Owner. Washington State Department of Ecology Shorelands& Coastal Zone Management Program. Publication 93-31. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012.Annual Report: Marbled Murrelet. Internet report. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/species/marbled murrelet.pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012.Annual Report: Streaked Horned Lark. Internet report. URL: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/species/streaked horned lark.pdf Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. SalmonScape. Internet report. URL: http://gpps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/ Washington State Department of Transportation. 2014. BA Preparation for Transportation Projects—Advanced Training Manual—Version 4-02-2014. Internet report. URL: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AIF85352-90EO-457B-9A8C- B5103E097FAE10/BA manualpart2.12df Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 14 TIP s I 4m, Al A •L * has`, F'°�: �.� y a �'�i�, � v �z � R'6 c� # c 6 Mom+ � � *s•' �S .� s..�,r d �5 � �M i;�( ' �,.„a' �.. Fy.. ski107 , d tA illy, "�'as " r ,� '« .��+��✓:�. ��` Q, r i� �# i ° ' is a•�,�`;t� �.�.: �� ° L J� Google Earth , Asa 400 Et ARIA"Roar THE BU MEAD REPNR WILL CONSIST OF THE RESEW OF 55 OF BLAUMM THE STTFS APPROX 119 OF BLJWADED SHORE M.THE EXISTING LARGE ANGUA ROD(&LffA V&BE RESET AND AJGMENTED WHERE NECESSARY USING RECYCLED LARGE ANGULAR ROCK ONE r . I � SET OF INSET ROOK BEACH ACCESS STEPS WILL BEINSTALLEDAT THE EASTMALlER SOUTH END OF THE PRUCT AND BE SHARED WITH THE AD" � ffAFWrPFWTD `ORTII B.AY b�iD PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH{PARCEL#171294.90 ),BASE AND LOWER I BE BEtaM CASSE RZET cz HALF F WWILL BE FOUR OR FNE MAN SIZED.UPPER I Q" HALF ROCK WILL BE SMPLLEP ct QIYIRKYSKLLS AND FILTER FABR WILL.BE INSTALLED BEHIND THE WEADAS REWIRED.NOTE TO MASON COUNTY'S ENGINEERING pp DEPARTMENT QUARRY SPALLS(APPROX HALF-MAN ROCK 6-TO 81 ARE THE APPROPRIATE DRA)NAGE ROCK FOR A MARINE BUMHEADASSM4LER mm 6 B ROCK OR GRAVEL'MLL BE SUCKED THROUGH THE INTERSTITIAL WACES 8 AMOC ct OF THE BU KHEAD IN SHORT ORDER BY TIDALACTION THIS C. INLL RESLLT IN THE FAILURE OF THE BUJMEAD. ° THE TOTAL VOLUME OF NEW ROCKAND QUARRY SPALLS REQUIED FOR I THIS PROJECT IS UWOWN.THE MAXIMUM VOLUME OF NEW ROCKAND QU4RRY SPALLS IS EXPECTED TO BE APPROX 50 PERCENT OF THE EXISTING. E SOME OJcR*GING VEGETATION 4MLL NEED TO BE TRIMMED TO FACILITATE I APPROX,IT CONSTRUCTION EXISiiNG LARGE WOODY DEBRIS ON THE BEACH WILL BE I SRS2 Ah LEFT ON THE BEACH,ALL MANMADE DEBRIS ON THE BEACH WLL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSED OF AT LICENSED DISPOSAL.FACILITY i i - c� I j PROPOSEDW IGATION c� I REhA�K VIOLATION pp D IN LED IN GREEN C -IONIC APPRWC234fifPPll01Nl8SFR 1 r � C� I t'T..' CC ROPHt,D �uP L E,SPAIEDIANEAFPRDouAaE. i - a y EXISTING ROCK o sutxHEAD G> E NO AaACPr to BULKHEAD fC cz I~ I bA I '` SELFORS BULKHEAD PROJECT NME P(�.>2171184 W4 SE 2V2"lWV u19retRST< z N41.38165-WI?2.8 PROJECTADSPESS: USA&jomsaFm u+>:uwamc¢.u'E 0. C M.Ap,VA p � Op _, ____ __ _............ .. Attachment 3 The tree to be removed and the access driveway/parking area (to the left of the tree). � 41 s : . T�q >a � AM •w i'"w z Y ; y ' ', +mot, .,Vz 1'*'�Ml.' IV, a„rRq ti �a �f `gi�`�"`�i ^r�� .?� '�r �� ,s,�f R� �" 8 .t';.� V•'bAEf, trey WO 00r • � �f� � may, ��w�, �_ ' n �,t.� ,wx,t�,��,+Vy�� Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 17 Attachment 4 Another view of the tree to be removed and the access driveway/parking area.Two stumps from previously cleared trees can be seen in the center of the photo. VA A41- e ; 4 r a Y i � q Iv Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 18 Attachment 5 The north end of the parking area with three more stumps of trees that were cut. " s Ax- 17� v M w a a" z w r _ , X _ 41 Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 19 Attachment 6 The proposed native planting area along the shoreline (looking up at it from the beach). mg M .� o.#r 511 a $. # �• I F 4 , 'I y f t n i k Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 20 Attachment 7 Permit for an access driveway to the applicant's shoreline area issued in 1974 to the property's previous owner. STA'1U II10111 A`f CO.I•IhIL5SI0EY C.S 2]32 AlU*anTAipv- 1. LrT+w DisEriCL No._3' cos nicrezvars F , ! ' Ira sccardarece wlcA_22CW 49 32.I60'oncl 170 aru3 or. sub}ecb'to.all the berms, RCW 47_l4.050 artd aracndmerees mirrctp,:;and corulsGions erred pravialarv.wrGtCen err printed below"o'r on riser a�orrra Y part ofi ahax Rt.47S3TON lS TfERLr L' �= Gordan �_ TTy Crft:LNTLD TO R:'Itevltt €a fi �• � 3ISA lust Soundviiv Dr t0 -ConettrpC C' 'operate and to beAch aroe ou the wat:h. al�:.�pProachoa-forlingresa�aad`�eg=e8 ' S.SA in Gov'r side o£,s'q 302 at appraxirpate V,uRhn in Mason CovhSection �8 .,Tovnahip:22'Nor Rang- 170tpp<and at HiSc'.kose-,_ - ty th reg 1 W W T! baeveea V �.' ietor and. .� wlork riare' '- _ - r f ��' Yy.,..�. a '^• ia`ev thorised.eba7.]-.b• y •f ' as attschod on sheets ls, 16, i1er�os�erl in aeeo der a`siteh�thr�Spec�;ai P w�� } �-.et�.•., ,xzlotu[ P r J '. "e•st" r Y'L'F 7 .- �. 11,z }' +V At i s } y d¢ a - , ;. * y,P,b� =q r i GAR - `n, ,k. �2 A < 'z< 'Sr^Pw ,yc . W. 4 ; J • E' �r ' re r .. No uaork shall Tie drme candor thix per yu£untzi the tar L r 3e 10 Ey a part.es to whdm sS u groiita3 Thal!-hatr�,r comsnunieated With amd received instruciiores. ban-s Fr Rt..4, sn . •..: . O,ychard T i..jig�99.2A�This per»alI shalt be v ? g r= +Irsa the wmrh her*!n eontdritiplat¢d sTea2l ham beers completed before J ,.Deted.nL 023 pLa .th3a' 28Ch f.r T, 'R a F v... 74 �r I ! % ►... 6LNceh :.:1. ,•. .• 13-Ti 2ibt oB'HrcrrivA—Y Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 21 Attachment 8 Mitigation Buffer Enhancement Plan. MITIGATION BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN Environmental Goals and Objectives The primary goal of the mitigation buffer enhancement plan is to restore native vegetation, including trees and shrubs to the shoreline at the site. To achieve this goal, vegetation will be installed that will thrive in the site specific conditions. Plants will be chosen that are drought and salt tolerant and will tolerate full sun.The installation of native vegetation at the site is expected to have the following effects: 1)Native vegetation will provide a more stable and diverse habitat for wildlife. 2)Native vegetation will provide leaf matter and insects for aquatic life in Peale Passage. 3)Native vegetation will more effectively intercept runoff(from precipitation)and promote the infiltration of surface flows to groundwater,where it is filtered and later(slowly)released through subsurface flows. Additional benefits of this process(3)are increased slope stabilization, less turbidity and siltation in Peale Passage and fewer dissolved organic and inorganic compounds(i.e. pollutants such as nitrates,phosphates,heavy metals,etc.) entering the Sound. Implementation To mitigate for the proposed project,an approx. 2400 sf area, landward of the bulkhead along the north half of the applicants' shoreline area will be planted with native vegetation. Planting will occur after the installation of the access driveway/parking area, in either the fall (after the cessation of any summer drought conditions)or early spring. One or two gallon or bare root plants will be installed. Following the installation of the plants,the area will be seeded with a native grass seed(see 2.4 BMPs). Bark or other organic mulch will be used to mulch newly installed plants and grass seed in order to minimize runoff. Following planting,Plants will be installed using best management practices. Plants will be installed randomly or in irregular patterns to mimic natural conditions. Due to the close proximity of Puget Sound, it is recommended that no herbicides or pesticides be used. At least fifty native plants and five different species will be planted. As per Mason County's Critical Areas Ordinance,to mitigate for the proposed removal of a mature Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 22 alder and the removal of approx. six other mature alders,the trees should be replaced at a ratio of 6 to 1, so the planting plan should include at least forty-two trees; however, the site is too small for the installation of 42 trees, so fifteen trees are proposed. Native vegetation will be selected and installed at the applicant's discretion.The following native species are recommended for installation at ten-foot to five-foot on-center, between the bulkhead and SR 102 in the proposed approx. 2400 sf planting area: Western red cedar(Thuja plicata), Shore pine(Pinus contorta), Sitka spruce(Picea sitchensis),willow (Salix spp.),vine maple(Acer Circinaturm), Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis), evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum), Oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor),thimbleberry(Rubus parviflorus), common snowberry(Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus), baldhip rose(Rosa gymnocarpa), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), tall Oregon-grape(Berberis aquifolium), and salal(Gaultheria shallon). Monitoring Monitoring shall occur if mandated by Mason County. Performance Standards What constitutes successful mitigation?Providing a habitat that will be functionally equivalent to one that will be lost(Zedler 1996). The creation of an ecosystem requires establishment of both structure and function. Structure can be described by the measurement of attributes such as composition and biomass at one point in time. Describing function requires the examination of complex processes that occur through time. In a mitigation context,there should be clear performance standards for both structural and functional attributes;however,while structure can readily be assessed, there are no easy methods for assessing function.Therefore,mitigation evaluation for this project will focus on structure. Measureable specific criteria for the evaluation of project success include: *Vegetation survival. *Vegetation growth. *Eradication of non-native, invasive species If monitoring is mandated: photographs will be utilized to document plant health and growth. At least two photo stations shall be established around the perimeter of the planting area at specific locations.The mitigation plantings shall meet the following performance standards, for a period of three years following installation: Year 1: 80% survival of all installed plants& 10% invasive coverage. Year 2: 75%survival of all installed plants& 10%invasive coverage. Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 23 Year 3: 70%survival of all installed plants& 10% invasive coverage. Note: the recommended performance standards have been lowered due to harsh site specific conditions, including regular exposure to salt spray. It is also possible that the planting area(in places)could be inundated by tidal waters during storm tides. If the latter occurs, resulting in the loss of plants, it may be necessary to re-evaluate performance standards and/or the feasibility of re-planting. Contingency Plan In the event that monitoring indicates project performance standards are not being met, the cause of the inadequacy or failure shall be determined and appropriate corrective measures implemented. Assurance Devices To ensure the required mitigation is completed,the applicant shall post an Installation ' Assurance Device as mandated by Mason County. The estimated costs of 50 plants and installation($450),4 cy of mulch($100), grass seed ($12)and a contingency plan(25%of plants and installation-4188) is $750.00. Selfors Habitat Management Plan Page 24