The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHMP Habitat Managment Plan - 1/3/2025 2220217 MASON CO WA 01/0317025 03 52 PM MISC ISITEMEIIRI, RLFX 1#205`146 Recl Fee $3``13 50 Pages ``11 Name and Return Address: �c— �� 5 SE- A OTc,�nac` Document Title(s) } 1. 1 `�•h,�� I�J�C'�1�o �',�C ir1� 1�V\ 2. Reference Numbers(s)of Documents Assigned or Released ADDITIONAL REFERENCE WS ON PAGE Grantor(s) T 2. ADDITIONAL GRANTORS ON PAGE Grantee(s) ` 2. ADDITIONAL GRANTEES ON PAGE Legal Description (abbreviated form:i.e.lot,bl(ck,plat or section,township,range,quarter/quarter) ADDITIONAL LEGAL IS ON PAGE Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number(s) Ll 12 O +- S { - 00(`o b cg ADDITIONAL PARCEL A'S ON PAGE THE AUDITOR/RECORDER WILL RELY ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM.THE STAFF WILL NOT READ THE DOCUMENT TO VERIFY THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE INDEXING INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN. Habitat Management Plan Parcel#42209-54-00068 XXX N Mountain View Dr Hoodsport, WA 98548 Mason County, WA Report prepared for- Alex Sterner 9237 32nd Ave SW Seattle, WA 98126 Prepared by: Rob Nagel 680 E Philura Ln Shelton, WA 98584 arctosaerial@gmail.com (425) 344-9315 (360) 229-3118 XA R(TO S. ALFIAL Environmental Consultation ) prone Imagery Project: 2022-HMP-014 January 2023 (Revised February 2023) I ARGTOS Proiect:2022-HMP-014 January 2023(Revised February 2023) A�p I�RIA1 Habitat Management Plan 42209-54-00068 XXX N Mountain View Dr Hoodsport, WA 98548 Overview This report details a Habitat Management Plan (HMP)for the above referenced property in Mason County, Washington. The purpose of this report is to address potential adverse impacts from the construction of a proposed Single-Family Residence (SFR) partially within the buffer of a non-fish bearing, perennial (Np) stream. In Mason County, Np streams require a 100ft buffer and 11Sft structure setback. This report proposes a variable stream buffer reduction of 70ft-100ft with the SFR proposed at 85ft from the stream. The total proposed development footprint within the regulated buffer area is ±342ftz. Mitigation measures have been designed to offset the potential impacts of constructing the SFR on the ecological functions and fish and wildlife habitat of the stream buffer. Measures include best-management practices for construction, noxious weed removal and planting a mitigation area of±3SOft2 with native trees, shrubs, and ferns. The objectives of this report are as follows: • Identify potential impacts of constructing the SFR within the buffer on the stream buffer's ecological functions and fish and wildlife habitat. • Determine mitigation measures that would offset those impacts and result in no-net-loss to ecological functions and fish and wildlife habitat. 1 r I f Property Description & Project Background The subject parcel is 0.27 acres in size and located in Section 09,Township 22 North, Range 4 West. An Np tributary to Lake Kokanee flows adjacent to the northwest lot line. Mason County requires a 100ft buffer and 115ft structure setback on all Np streams, which encompasses most of the subject lot. The property owner lacks a reasonable use of the lot without being allowed to build within the stream buffer. This lot is considered a legal, non-conforming lot due to its Rural Residential 5 zoning and less than 2-acre parcel size. Therefore, the County only requires a Habitat Management Plan to propose a stream buffer reduction, and not a Resource Ordinance Variance. 2 ARCTOS Project:2022-HMP-014 January 2023(Revised February 2023) A I R f A E Analysis of Potential Impacts Vegetated buffers serve an important role in protecting critical public resources, as well as fish and wildlife habitat, from adverse impacts associated with development. Below are the potential adverse impacts to ecological functions associated with the construction of this proposed SFR within the stream buffer. - Loss of wildlife habitat The development footprint of the proposed SFR within the stream buffer is ±342ft2 and in a location of the stream buffer currently dominated by Scotch broom (Cytisus scoporius). The project proposes little or no new vegetation clearing within the buffer. Mitigation measures will increase the amount and quality of wildlife habitat adjacent to the development. - Erosion Removal of buffer vegetation and increasing storm water run-off can speed erosion of streambanks and make them unstable. Little or no vegetation removal within the stream buffer is proposed with this project,and mitigation planting will add protections to the streambank edge. No increased risk of erosion is anticipated. - Increased disturbance from noise pollution A temporary increase in noise from construction activities is likely to occur. but activities will be limited to daylight hours, and the project is in a rural- residential area where human noises are a daily occurrence. Also, no known nesting sites or individual occurrences of priority habitats and species have been identified near the project site. - Solar input This project does not propose removal of any mature trees or construction of any over-water structures. Trees planted in the mitigation area will eventually aid in protecting the stream from excessive solar input. 3 AUTOS Project:2022-HMP-014 January 2023(Revised February 2023) AHU r �`� Mitigation Measures Gtt To avoid, minimize, and mitigate for the potential adverse impacts identified above, the following have been identified as appropriate measures for this project: Minimizing/avoiding impact The proposed project minimizes impact to the stream buffer by constructing the proposed SFR as far from the stream as feasible, and with little to no native vegetation removal within the buffer. Best Management Practices for construction Construction activities related to this project will be restricted to favorable weather conditions and best management practices for reducing disturbance and erosion of the stream buffer will be followed, including placing straw over any exposed areas and erecting silt fencing below the construction area. Any equipment used will be checked daily for leaks and all fuel, lubricant, and chemicals will be stored away from the stream buffer. Clustering of development All activities related to this project will be clustered to the extent possible without impacting more of the stream buffer than necessary. Equipment and materials will be stored away from the stream buffer when not immediately necessary for construction activities. Noxious weed removal Most of the proposed building site and mitigation area are currently dominated by invasive Scotch broom. All occurrences of Scotch broom in the vicinity of the proposed building site and mitigation area will be pulled by hand or with a weed wrench. As much root material as possible should be removed with the plant. Weed debris will be bagged and brought to the landfill. 4 A Project:2022-HMP-014 January 2023(Revised February 2023) AAI[G RI f - Mitigation area f1 A mitigation area of approximately 350ft2 adjacent to the existing, intact stream buffer will be planted with native trees, shrubs, and ferns according to the planting guidelines below. The farthest edge of the mitigation area will be defined by the proposed, reduced 70ft stream buffer line. The minimum number of native plants to satisfy this requirement is as follows: o Trees: S o Shrubs: l5 o Ferns: 22 - Variable Buffer The proposed buffer for this lot is variable to better fit the existing vegetation on the lot. The minimum buffer proposed is 70ft, but in increases to the standard 100ft for a 15ft section on both side of the lot (see the site plan below for a visual of the proposed variable buffer). Planting Guidelines for the Mitigation Area Earthwork Machinery earthwork will be restricted to the minimum necessary to implement this plan; planting holes for specified vegetation installation will be hand dug. Native Plantings Native plantings will be installed within the mitigation area parallel to the edge of the buffer to achieve the following minimum densities: Trees— 10' on center Shrubs—5' on center Ferns—4' on center The plan calls for installing single trees on 10ft centers, and single shrubs on 5ft centers. The areas between the trees and shrubs will be filled in with ferns on Oft centers. Exact placement of installed materials will be up to the landscape installer, following the basic spacing pattern described above. Installed plants must be flagged to aid in monitoring visits. 5 A RCTUS Project:2022-HMP-014 January 2023(Revised Felxuary 2023) AAI `CMIA f Native plant species appropriate for the mitigation area include, but Nl are not limited to the following: Trees: Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Western hemlock(Tsugo heterophyllo) Big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) Western red cedar(Thujo plicata) Shrubs: Evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Salal (Gaultheria shollon) Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium) Vine maple(Acer circinatum) Ferns: Western swordfern (Polystitchum munitum) All planting should occur during winter dormancy.The optimum time for planting is from November to March. Installation Installation of the prescribed vegetation will be performed by experienced landscapers familiar with planting of native vegetation in natural settings. Installation will be performed during the fist winter planting season after approval of this plan. Installed plants will be flagged to aid in monitoring requirements. Fertilizing Due to the proximity of the mitigation area to the stream, NO fertilizer will be used during plant installation or maintenance. Maintenance Maintenance of the installations will be the responsibility of the property owner. Maintenance is to include any weeding or watering necessary to ensure plant survival for at least five years after the date of installation. 6 Qa�ce\ 41109 - 5 4- OG�6s3 01 V\oin �t>r \U_Q N M} \J ,' evw QC, ®� 167 0 _1b, ... .. t rOW I / ► 1 i I I �'.. I ..�_ ; - - I _.}. .}_ , + it 1 i � " i .. ._ � . �' - '• . , , i r , r • ; , r i I , r r r.. , t ! Ir 1 L i -i - L �`i,j�g}i 11 �6• � t I AAa 1 - Proposed SFR (#199.Sft2) ps 2 - Proposed deck (238ft2) 3 - Proposed shed (120ft2) ] S - Proposed driveway b - Existing septic system 7 - Proposed mitigation area (•350ft3) - 8 - Non-fish bearing, perennial (Np) stream 9 - Regulated 100ft stream buffer 1 10 - Regulated 115ft stream structure setback 11 - Proposed variable stream buffer (70-100ft) ARMS Project:2022-HMP-014 January 2023(Revised February 2023) U p�A cRIA1 Monitoring A baseline monitoring report will be submitted to the Mason County Planning Department when all construction is complete and mitigation measures have been implemented. This report will establish photo points and document the location and general size of installed vegetation. An annual monitoring report will also be submitted to the county for 5 years to document the success of the mitigation area. If the survival rate of installed vegetation falls below 80% in the first five years, the area will be re-planted to meet the original target densities. The reports will include photos from the photo points established in the baseline monitoring report and document any re-occurrence of Scotch broom in the vicinity of the building site and mitigation area. Summary This report details a Habitat Management Plan (HMP)for the above referenced property in Mason County,Washington. The purpose of this report is to address potential adverse impacts from the construction of a proposed SFR on a legal, non-conforming lot encumbered by the buffer of an Np stream. Mitigation measures have been designed to offset the potential impacts of constructing the SFR on the ecological functions and fish and wildlife habitat of the stream buffer. Measures include best-management practices for construction, noxious weed removal, and planting a ±35 Oft 2 mitigation area with native vegetation in an area of the stream buffer currently maintained as lawn. Proper implementation of this Habitat Management Plan will result in no-net-loss of ecological function to the stream or its buffer from the development proposed by the applicant. 8 AftC1AI Project:2022-HMP-014 January 2023(Revised February 2023) A [ L`�1 References Guard,J.(1995).Wetland Plants of Oregon&Washington.Lone Pine Publishing.240 pp.Edmonton, Alberta,Canada. Pojar,J.and A. MacKinnon.(1994),Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast(Revised Edition 2014).Lone Pine Publishing.528 pp.Vancouver, British Columbia,Canada. WDFW 2002. Integrated streambank protection guidelines.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Washington Department of Transportation,and Washington Department of Ecology. Posted on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife web site: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/00046/wdfW D0046.pdf WDFW. 2001.Over-Water Structures:Freshwater Issues.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Transportation,and Washington Department of Ecology.Posted on Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife web site: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/00052/wdfw00052.pdf 9