HomeMy WebLinkAboutMEP2020-00012 HMP Castle Buffer Restoration Project - MEP Application - 5/25/2020 f �
MASON COUNTY Mason County Permit Center Use:
T� COMMUNITY SERVICES MEP 2020 -OW I a
Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health Date Rcvd
615 W.Alder St.—Bldg.8,Shelton,Wa 98584
Phone:(360)427-9670 ext.352 ♦ Fax:(360)427-7798
❑ MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT:$115
® MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT WITH HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN:$1500
❑ CONDITIONAL USE: $2000
Mason County Resource Ordinance(Chapter 8.52 MCC)
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION
The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas and is
under the authority of Chapters 36.32, 36.70A, 39.34, 58.17, 76.09, 84.33, 84.34 and 90.58 RCW.
PLEASE PRINT
1. PROPERTY OWNER
Name: John Castle
Mailing Address: PO BOX 511
Work Phone: Email Address: pastaIdente@hughes.net
Home/Cell Phone: 360-490-18$5 Fax#:
If an agent is acting for the property owner during the permit process, complete#2.
2. AUTHORIZED AGENT
Name:
Mailing Address:
Work Phone: Email Address:
Home/Cell Phone: Fax#
3. PROJECT SITE
Site Address: 5832 SE Arcadia Road Shelton, WA 98584
Parcel#: 220304000010 Legal Description: TR 1 of SE
Directions to Site: Head south on Hwy 3 and take a left onto SE Arcadia Rd.
Head out aprox 6 miles to Castle Road. Turn left onto S Castle Road. Follow stright back to the lake.
Attach a site plan showing the following: Lot Dimensions,Flood Zones,Existing Structures,Fences,
Water Lines,Driveways,Drainage Plans,Shorelines, Septic System,Topography,Proposed
Improvements,Easements,North Arrow, and Scale. Also draw a separate topography diagram.
Rev.March 1,2018
( 1
4. State which section requires permit:
❑ Long Term Commercial Forest, Chapter 8.52.060 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas,Chapter 8.52.130
❑ Mineral Resource Lands, Chapter 8.52.090 ❑ Geologically Hazardous Areas,Chapter 8.52.140
❑ Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas,Chapter 8.52.120 ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas, Chapter 8.52.150
❑ Erosion Hazard Area, Chapter 8.52.160 ® Fish& Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,Chapter
❑ In-Holding Lands,Chapter 8.52.070 8.52.17o HMP/Restoration Plan Submitted
❑ Wetlands, Chapter 8.52.110
5. Identify current use of the property with existing improvements:
The existing property has a SFR, detached shop and driveway improvements. The majority of the
property is undeveloped having a semi improved access road in the unemproved areas.
Remaining area on site is vegetated or within the Lake.
6. Identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be used, construction methods,
principle dimensions, and other pertinent information (attach additional sheets, if needed):
The permit is being submitted as a part of a proposed buffer restoration plan to restore
a portion of a Type F Streams 150 foot buffer. This application is necessary to correct a violation.
7. Describe why the action requiring this permit cannot be avoided.
Permit is being submitted as part of an effort to correct a code enforcement violation for
clearing native vegetation (trees) within a Type F Stream buffer.
8. Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area(circle one)? Yes No
Alteration of buffer conditions will be those required to replant native vegetation.
9. Identify any surface water on or adjacent to property(circle one):
Saltwater Lake Stream Pond Wetland Drainage Ditch
10. Identify existing septic/sewer connection (circle one): If septic is located on project site, include records.
Connected to Septic Connected to Community Septic
11. Identify existing water supply(circle one): Public Water Supply Well
11. Type of Job(circle one):
New Add Alteration Repair Demolition Other: Stream Buffer Retoration
Print Name Signature Date
Rev. March 1, 2018
' MASON COUNTY Mason County Permit Center Use:
tit
,4! COMMUNITY SERVICES MEP a DID - QDUL�-,
Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health Date Rcvd
615 W.Alder St.—Bldg.8,Shelton,Wa 98584
Phone:(360)427-9670 ext.352 ♦ Fax:(360)427-7798
❑ MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT:$115
❑ MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT WITH HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN:$1500
❑ CONDITIONAL USE: $2000
Mason County Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17.01 MCC)
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION
The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas and is
under the authority of Chapters 36.32,36.70A, 39.34,58.17, 76.09, 84.33, 84.34 and 90.58 RCW.
PLEASE PRINT
1. PROPERTY OWNER
Name:
Mailing Address:
Work Phone: Email Address:
Home/Cell Phone: Fax#:
If an agent is acting for the property owner during the permit process, complete#2.
2.AUTHORIZED AGENT
Name:
Mailing Address:
Work Phone: Email Address:
Home/Cell Phone: Fax#
3.PROJECT SITE
Site Address:
Parcel#: - - Legal Description:
Directions to Site:
Attach a site plan showing the following: Lot Dimensions,Flood Zones,Existing Structures,Fences,
Water Lines,Driveways,Drainage Plans, Shorelines,Septic System,Topography,Proposed
Improvements,Easements,North Arrow,and Scale. Also draw a separate topography diagram.
Rev.August 2017
4. State which section requires permit:
❑ Long Term Commercial Forest,Chapter 17.10.060 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas,Chapter 17.01.090
❑ Mineral Resource Lands,Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Landslide Hazard Area,Chapter 17.01.100
❑ Aquifer Recharge Area,Chapter 17.01.080 ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.102
❑ Erosion Hazard Area,Chapter 17.01.104 ❑ Fish&Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,Chapter
❑ In-Holding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062 17.01.110
❑ Wetlands,Chapter 17.01.070
5. Identify current use of the property with existing improvements:
6. Identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be used,construction methods,
principle dimensions, and other pertinent information(attach additional sheets, if needed):
7. Describe why the action requiring this permit cannot be avoided.
8. Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area(circle one)? Yes No
9. Identify any surface water on or adjacent to property(circle one):
Saltwater Lake Stream Pond Wetland Drainage Ditch
10. Identify existing septic/sewer connection(circle one): If septic is located on project site, include records.
Connected to Septic Connected to Community Septic
11. Identify existing water supply(circle one): Public Water Supply Well
11. Type of Job(circle one):
New Add Alteration Repair Demolition Other:
cl� JO-W OL3—tic, rd/(7�du
P t Name Signature Da e
Rev.August 2017
Habitat Management /
Restoration Plan
Castle Buffer Restoration Project
TAX PARCEL #
22030-40-00010
PROJECT ADDRESS
5832 SE Arcadia Road,
Shelton, WA 98584
PREPARED FOR
John Castle
pastaldente@hughes.net
PREPARED BY
CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING
477 PARPALA RD.
NASELLE, WA 98638
509-942-9309
ryan@craterluc.com
5/25/2020
-CWER-MD_.USE
Ryan E. Crater Date CONSULTING
Principal Consultant and Ecologist
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction & Summary......................................................................................1
Chapter2. Methods ..............................................................................................................3
Chapter3. Site Vicinity .........................................................................................................4
Chapter 4. Site Conditions ...................................................................................................5
4.1 Development ......................................................................................................5
4.2 Current Use ........................................................................................................5
4.3 Historical Use .....................................................................................................5
4.4 Streams (DNR) ...................................................................................................5
4.5 Wetlands (PHS/NWI) .........................................................................................6
_. 4.6 Vegetation ..........................................................................................................6
4.7 Soils ...................................................................................................................7
4.8 Listed Species Information (USFWS, WDFW, NOAA) ......................................7
■ 4.8.1 USFWS ESA Species .........................................................................7
® 4.8.2 WDFW Priority Habitat Species ..........................................................7
• 4.8.3 NOAA Fisheries Species ....................................................................7
Chapter 5. Proposed Project.................................................................................................8
5.1 Project Description .............................................................................................8
5.2 Project Sequencing ............................................................................................8
5.3 Project Timing ....................................................................................................9
- 5.4 Performance Standards .....................................................................................9
■ 5.4.1 Invasive Species .................................................................................9
■ 5.4.2 Monitoring ...........................................................................................9
5.4.3 Maintenance ......................................................................................10
■ 5.4.4 Contingency ......................................................................................10
■ 5.4.5 Vegetation Planting ...........................................................................10
■ 5.4.6 Plant List and Estimated Costs .........................................................10
5.5 Project Impacts ................................................................................................11
• 5.5.1 Listed Species and Critical Habitats .................................................11
• 5.5.2 Direct Effects .....................................................................................12
• 5.5.3 Temporary Direct Effects ..................................................................13
• 5.5.4 Indirect Effects ..................................................................................13
• 5.5.5 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................13
Chapter 6. BMPs and Mitigation ........................................................................................14
Chapter7. Conclusions ......................................................................................................15
7.1 Take Analysis ...................................................................................................15
---- 7.2 Determination of Effect ............... ...............15
......................................................
Chapter 8. References & Resources .................................................................................16
i
Tables
Table 1. Summary of Associated Regulations from Applicable Agencies .............................1
Table 2. Summary of Critical Areas On-Site...........................................................................2
Table 3. Summary of ESA Species On-Site ...........................................................................2
Table 4. Summary of Subject Parcel .....................................................................................2
Table 5. Summary of Planting Plan ........................................................................................2
Table6. Site Information ........................................................................................................4
Table 7. Plant Survival and Cover Benchmarks ....................................................................9
Table8. Plant Costs .............................................................................................................11
Figures
Figure 1. Recent Aerial Imagery of the Site ...........................................................................5
Figure2. Stream and Culvert..................................................................................................6
Figure3. Cleared Area ...........................................................................................................6
Appendices
Appendix A. Site Vicinity Map
Appendix B. USDA NRCS Soil Type Map
Appendix C. NWI Map
Appendix D. 303(d) Map
Appendix E. DNR Stream Map
Appendix F. WDFW PHS Map
Appendix G. USFWS Species Info
Appendix H. NOAA Fisheries EFH Info
Appendix I. Historical Site Photos
Appendix J. Current Site Photos
Appendix K. Site Topography Map
Appendix L. Critical Areas Site Map
Appendix M. Preliminary Planting Map
Appendix N. Vegetation Management Plan
Appendix 0. Native Plants and Seed Sources
Appendix P. Landscaper Bid
ii
I
Appendix Q. MCC Resource Ordinance -Best Management Practices
Appendix R. Qualifications
iii
CASTLE HABITAT MANAGEMENT/RESTORATION PLAN—CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,MARCH2020
Chapter 1 . Introduction & Summary
Crater Land Use Consulting(CLUC) has been contracted by John Castle to conduct a Habitat Management
Plan (HMP)for the restoration of Type F Stream buffer clearing at 5832 SE Arcadia Road, (Mason County
parcel number 22030-40-00010). The proposed project is for the planting of 600 trees within the cleared
area on-site.
The general purpose of this HMP is to comply with Mason County's regulations regarding development
within a regulated Critical Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) for a Type F stream and
to identify the presence of fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species on or near the subject property.
This report endeavors to address impacts and propose reasonable mitigation measures to offset any effects
associated with the previous stream buffer clearing that occurred on the property. Standard mitigation
measures are proposed to be implemented in accordance with Mason County Code(MCC)as well as other
non-prescriptive mitigation measures that are listed as part of this report. Impact avoidance measures and
management recommendations have been developed so that the proposed project will result in a net gain
of shoreline ecological functions and critical habitat.
Table 1. Summary of Associated Regulations from Applicable Agencies
REGULATION
MCC Title 8—Environmental Policy
MCC Title 8.52—Resource Ordinance
MCC Title 8.52.170(Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas)
RCW 90.48—Water Pollution Control
As per MCC Title 8.52.170, mitigation for the proposed project includes:
■ The establishment of buffer zones.
■ Dense replanting of the cleared area.
This report is designed to identify the presence of potentially regulated streams and prescriptive buffers. In
this report are conclusions and recommendations regarding the following:
• Site description, brief project description and areas of assessment;
■ Background information, research, delineation, and identification of regulated critical areas and
5.45fish and wildlife habitat on-site and within the project vicinity.
■ Existing conditions site maps of the subject property detailing critical areas identified on-site with
standard buffers and setbacks;
■ Site plan with location of the proposed buffer enhancement;
■ Documentation of avoidance and minimization measures;
• Best management practices;
■ Supplementary information necessary for regulatory review.
The tables on the next page summarize the findings of this Habitat Management Plan. Please note that
measurements listed are approximate.
11Page
CASTLEiT MANAGEMENT I RESTORATIONMARCH0
Table 2. Summary of Critical Areas On-Site
FEATURE NAME CATEGORY AREA PRESCRIPTIVE BUFFER AREA SIZE
ON-SITE BUFFER ON-SITE
Stream Type F 846 feet long 150 feet 208,169 sq.ft.
4.78 acres
Forbes Lake L1UBH 3 acres n/a to project n/a to project
Freshwater Emergent PEM1C 0.9 acres n/a to project n/a to project
Wetland
Freshwater
Forested/Shrub PSSC 0.5 acres n/a to project n/a to project
Wetland
Table 3. Summary of ESA Species On-Site
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS SOURCE FOR DETERMINATION OF
LISTING EFFECT
Fisher Pekania pennanti Proposed Threatened USFWS IPaC may affect,not likely to
adversely affect
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus Threatened USFWS IPaC may affect,not likely to
marmoratus adversely affect
Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Threatened USFWS IPaC may affect,not likely to
strigata adversely affect
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened USFWS IPaC may affect,not likely to
adversely affect
Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened USFWS IPaC may affect,not likely to
adversely affect
Puget Sound Chinook Oncorhynchus Threatened NOAA Fisheries may affect,not likely to
Salmon tshawytscha adversely affect
Table 4. Summary of Subject Parcel
ITEM APPROXIMATE TOTAL AREA %OF TOTAL PARCEL AREA
Parcel#322702-3-019-2008 675,570 sq.ft. 100%
15.51 acres
Cleared Area Within Buffer 67,318 sq.ft 9 93%
1.54 acres
Internal Access Roads 16,136 sq.ft. 2.39%
0.37 acres
Table 5. Summary of Planting Plan
PLANT COMMON NAME PLANT SCIENTIFIC NAME #PLANTS
Western Red Cedar Thuja plicata 140
Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 460
2 Page
CASTLE HABITAT MANAGEMENT i RESTORATION PLAN-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,MARCH 2020 E
Chapter 2. Methods
On December 17, 2019 Crater Land Use Consulting investigated the parcel for the presence of regulated
critical areas not already identified by outside sources. The site was walked to identify potential fish and
wildlife habitats that would be regulated under MCC Title 8.52.170 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas) and state and federal agencies.
Visual observations were made using stationery and walking survey techniques to determine what stream
channels were located on-site and if any special habitat features or signs of fish and wildlife activity were
present. CLUC identified one (1) stream on the property.
3 1 P a g e
CASTLE HABITAT MANAGEMENT 0
Chapter 3. Site Vicinity
The Castle property (subject parcel) is located at 5832 SE Arcadia Road, Shelton, WA 98584 (parcel
#22030-40-00010) in Section 30, Township 20N, Range 2W. It is 15.51 acres in size and is located
southeast of Shelton, in unincorporated Mason County on a peninsula surrounded by Hammersley and
Totten Inlets. Three (3)acres of the subject parcel (on the east side) are covered by Forbes Lake,which is
39 acres in total.
The subject parcel is zoned 11 -Residential-Single Family 12 and is in an area of mixed uses. It is bounded
by seven (7) similarly zoned Residential properties to the north, and one (1) residential property to the
south. There is one (1) undeveloped lot directly north of the property as well, in addition to a large
undeveloped parcel owned by Green Diamond to the west. East of the property is also zoned Resource-
Designated Forest Land. In the greater immediate vicinity, Designated Forest Land zoned lots dominate
west and south of the property while residential lots prevail north and west of Forbes Lake. See Appendix
A for site vicinity map.
Table 6. Site Information
SITUS ADDRESS 5832 SE Arcadia Road,Shelton,WA 98584
TAX PARCEL# 22030-40-00010
SECTION/TOWNSHIP/RANGE Section 30,Township 20N, Range 2W
JURISDICTION Mason County
ZONING 11 -Residential-Single Family 12
PARCEL SIZE 15.51 acres
PARCEL SHAPE Rectangular
SITE CONDITION Developed.Lot contains: 1708 sq.f.t SFR,2 detached garages(840 sq.ft.and 1008 sq.
ft),driveway,internal access road,cleared area west of the stream.
TERRAIN Approximately 5-20%slopes,with several flat areas.Steepest slopes around stream.
ELEVATION Approximately 23 to 26 feet within the proposed project area.Elevation is determined by
Garmin GPS triangulation.
WATERBODIES ON-SITE Wetlands/Waterbodies—Yes(3—Forbes Lake L1UBH,PEM1C,PSSC)
Streams—Yes(1 Type F)
WRIA 14-Kennedy Goldsborough
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE(HUC) 171100190604-Mill Creek
EPA LEVEL IV ECOREGION 2f Central Puget Lowland
4 1 P a g e
Chapter 4. Site Conditions
4.1 Development
The current state of the subject property is partially developed with rural residential uses. Existing
development is contained within the area between the stream (west) and Forbes Lake/wetlands (east).
Development includes a 1708 sq.ft SFR, 2 detached garages (840 sq. ft. and 1008 sq. ft), a driveway, and
internal access roads. Aside from current development and the cleared area being mitigated under this
project, the remaining areas of the parcel exist in a natural state.
4.2 Current Use
Residential (zoned 11 - Residential -Single Family 12).
Figure 1. Recent Aerial Imagery of the Site
oraa h
V AI
j L>a j
1
T ttS.r i i .i 1
' ;�\ ��•; y7.ti1 �Y•J y{ice;;�~ •�••�„` +�4,,.
-Google Earth September 2019
4.3 Historical Use
Google Earth historical imagery reveals that initial land clearing within the stream buffer was performed
sometime between April and October of 2011. Additional clearing activities are visible over the next seven
years,to October of 2018. The subject parcel does not appear to have been cleared after October of 2018.
Cleared areas have been allowed to revegetate since that time. See Appendix I to view historical imagery.
4.4 Streams (DNR)
DNR stream type maps indicate the presence of a Type F stream running through the property (see
Appendix E). Field reconnaissance confirmed the presence of this stream within the subject property.
5 1 P a g e
CASTLE HABITAT MANAGEMENT/RESTORATION PLAN—CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,MARCH 2020
Observations of the Figure 2. Stream and Culvert
stream conditions were
used to confirm that the
stream is indeed a Type 1'
F. Visual observation
was made using
stationery and walking »j
survey techniques to
determine what stream - . . r .,
channels were located
on-site and if any special
habitat features or signs E
of fish and wildlife activity
were present. The on-site y
portion of the stream is
uu
846 feet long, ; ~
meandering from the
north in a southwesterly '= -
direction. The stream has
a prescriptive buffer of
150 feet, which was
calculated and mapped -CLUC Photo December 2019
using GIS (ArcMap). The
buffer has a total area of 4.78 acres (208,169 sq. ft.), of which 1.54 (67,318 sq. ft), or approximately 32%
was previously cleared and now needs replanted.
Figure 3. Cleared Area
-CLUC Photo December 2019
4.5 Wetlands (PHS/NWI)
The National Wetland Inventory map showed three (3) mapped wetlands within the subject parcel (see
Appendix C). The largest is Forbes Lake (L1UBH), which is 39 acres in total (approximately 3 acres are
located within the subject parcel.) None of the listed wetlands will have any bearing on this project as they
are all well over 300 feet from the proposed project site.
° PSSC—0.9 acres within parcel -approximately 350 feet east of project site at its closest point.
6 1 P a g e
CASTLE HABITAT MANAGEMENT/RESTORATION PLAN-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING, MARCH 2020
° PEM1 C—0.5 acres within parcel -approximately 420 feet east of project site at its closest point.
• L1 UBH—3 acres within parcel-approximately 480 feet east of project site at its closest point.
4.7 Soils
The NRCS soil survey of Mason County indicates the presence of two (2) mapped soil types on-site (see
Appendix B).
° Bellingham silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
° Cloquallum silt loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes
4.8 Listed Species Information (USFWS, WDFW, NOAA)
CLUC has identified listed species and habitats that may potentially occur within the project vicinity and
subject parcel. This data indicates that the project will occur within the general range of six(6)endangered
or threatened species, one (1) designated essential fish habitat (1), and two (2) priority habitat areas. See
Appendices F, G, and H for more information.
4.8.1 USFWS ESA Species
After consulting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC) database it was determined that this project potentially impacts 5 resources managed or regulated
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including five(5)threatened species(see Table 3 in Chapter 1).There
are no listed critical or proposed critical habitats within the subject parcel or immediate vicinity. No listed
species were observed on-site during the field work. The immediate project site was not observed to be
ideal habitat for any of the IPaC listed species.
4.8.2 WDFW Priority Habitat Species
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat Species (PHS) map (Appendix
F) did not indicate the presence of any threatened or endangered species associated with the subject
parcel. Two priority habitats (wetlands)were listed on-site, though they and their buffers are not within the
project vicinity.
4.8.3 NOAA Fisheries Species
The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries map database(Appendix H)listed the
subject parcel within the Chinook Salmon/Coho Salmon/Puget Sound Pink Salmon Species Management
Unit for Essential Fish Habitat(EFH). See Table 3 in Chapter 1 for more information. No listed species were
observed on-site during the field work. The immediate project site was not observed to be ideal habitat for
any of the listed salmonid species.
7 1 P a g e
RESTORATIONCASTLE HABITAT MANAGEMENT I CRATER LAND USE MARCH 2020
Chapter 5. Proposed Project
5.1 Project Description
The proposed project is for the restoration of the previously cleared stream buffer.The proposed restoration
is intended to restore native vegetation within the cleared area of the stream buffer to the greatest extent
possible. Plantings will help restore any lost habitat features and their associated functions and values.The
outcome of the proposed plantings will be to achieve a dense canopy of Western Red Cedar(Thuja plicata)
and Douglas Fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)above the existing understory species which are already naturally
reemerging.
Work will include planting 600 trees within 1.54 acres (67,318 sq. ft). There will be 140 Western red cedar
and 460 Douglas Fir. They will be spaced 10-foot on center (see Appendix M for a planting map). If the
species listed within this report aren't available, substitutions must be similar in nature providing the same
habitat benefit as those proposed. Best Management Practices will be guided by and done in compliance
with Appendix C of the Resource Ordinance(Chapter 8.52 of Title 8 Environmental Policy of the MMC) and
following recommendations laid out in this report. Appendix C does mention that 2-3 gallon sized plants
should be used. In consultation with Mason County(Planning Department) is was stated that the standards
for plant size in Appendix C can be thought of as BMP's rather than strict requirements. If alternative sizes
can achieve the desired outcome then would ok. Due to the high cost of planting even 1 gallon sized plants
over such a large area (See Appendix P)this report proposed planting three (3)year old seedlings. These
trees are smaller in size, but are more cost effective for the landowner to take immediate action to replant
the area as well as achieving the same desired result over the long term. Appendix C of the Resource
Ordinance is attached to this report as Appendix Q.
5.2 Project Sequencing
A. CLUC will measure and mark where each tree will be placed.
B. A qualified plant installation specialist will source,procure,and plant the trees under the supervision
of CLUC. CLUC will monitor for invasive and nonnative species within the enhancement area,
surface preparation for planting, and inspect the plants. No tilling of the ground will occur. Holes for
each tree will be dug individually.
C. CLUC will complete an As-Built Installation Plan for submission to the county.
D. Client will monitor growth and adhere to best management practices outlined within this report.
E. CLUC will perform an annual site visit in the late summer of monitoring years 1, and 2, and provide
a monitoring report to the county no later than October 1 of that year. CLUC will suggest needed
corrections and adjustments to the plan based on survival of planted species determined in each
Monitoring Report.
F. CLUC will provide final site inspection and Monitoring Report to Mason County by October 1 of
year 3.
8 1 P a g e
CASTLE aB MANAGEMENT RESTORATION aCONSULTING, "WRCH 2020
5.3 Project Timing
All trees will be planted within a five day period between November and March of 2020. Ideal planting time
for trees is early spring and early fall. Cooler and wetter weather is preferred to avoid shock for the young
trees.
5.4 Performance Standards
In addition to the Best Management Practices found in Appendix C of the Resource Ordinance,the following
performance standards below are targeted for the proposed enhancement identified within this report.
These performance standards are necessary for the evaluation of success achieved in implementing the
proposed enhancement.
Table 7. Plant Survival and Cover Benchmarks
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3
TREE SURVIVAL 100 100 -
%TREE COVER - - 20 percent
5.4.1 Invasive Species
Invasive vegetation will be removed from the restoration area and continue to be removed as they are
established. Washington State-listed or county-listed noxious weeds observed in any area of the mitigation
site must be eradicated with no part of the plant remaining. Non-native species will include less than 10%
cover in the mitigation area during the monitoring period.
5.4.2 Monitoring
CLUC, or other persons qualified to evaluate the buffer enhancement, shall implement the Vegetation
Management Plan. Upon installation of vegetation, CLUC or another qualified person(s)will create an as-
built plan to submit to Mason County within 60 days of completing the work. The as-built plan should
establish at least five (5) photo points on-site that portray the planting area from each side of the property.
These points should be maintained and used to capture the vegetation's growth over the three (3) year
monitoring period for inclusion in the yearly monitoring report. The as-built plan may include a brief letter
that consists of a summary of actions and associated maps and pictures, and other information deemed
necessary by Mason County.
Following the installation, a monitoring report shall be provided via email to the Mason County Planning
Department no later than October 1 of monitoring years 1,2, and 3. Enhancement work should be reviewed
by CLUC or another a qualified person(s)to ensure that the enhancement area is healthy and meeting the
Performance Standards listed in this report, and those standards found in Appendix Q of this report.
Conditions shall be documented with photographs taken at established photo points on-site and provided
with the report. It is suggested that monitoring occur in late summer or early spring as these are the ideal
time of year to assess the health of the plantings.
Three years post planting,a review of the vegetation within the buffer enhancement area shall be completed
and a final Monitoring Report provided to Mason County and the Department of Ecology. The compliance
documents should be a determination of success regarding vegetation coverage, health and sustainability.
This assessment will include (but is not limited to): observations of species survival; replacement of
vegetation since planting; a summary of actions completed to support the success of the native vegetation
over the long term; and records of actions such as irrigation, mulching, or fertilizer use.
9 1 P a g e
CASTLE HABITAT MANAGEMENT 1RESTORATION PLAN-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING, MARCH 2020
5.4.3 Maintenance
Maintenance of the enhancement area should consist of all actions necessary to promote survival of the
planted native vegetation. Actions may include irrigation during the dry season, mulching, fertilizing and
similar measures. Broadcast fertilization, however, will not be used.
Client will also limit the use of herbicides or pesticides particularly near the areas of fruit or shield producing
shrubs or trees prior to application. This will help ensure the availability of healthy foraging habitat for
associated wildlife species. Use of insecticides will also be limited within the enhancement area. Insects
play an important role on many ecological levels, especially as food source for wildlife.
5.4.4 Contingency
After the first year, if mortality of the installed vegetation exceeds 10%, all dead materials will be replaced
at a 1:1 ratio. If mortality is related to an inappropriate species for the site conditions, adjustments to the
Plant Schedule may be made to replant with a species more likely to survive.
For additional contingency information see Appendix C of the Resource Ordinance (Appendix Q of this
report).
5.4.5 Vegetation Planting (Construction and Specifications)
All plant materials used for the enhancement actions will be nursery grown stock from a reputable local
source. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will be allowed. Plant material provided
will be typical of their species or variety; if not, they will exhibit normal densely developed branches and
vigorous, fibrous root systems. Plants will be sound, healthy, free from defects and all forms of disease and
infestation.
The proposed buffer restoration (Appendix M) is an estimate of the area to be revegetated and is not a
survey. Deviation of the plant spacing, and conceptual location is reasonable for implementation of the
planting plan in the field.All alterations in location, species,and spacing shall be recorded by the installation
team and qualified specialist for compliance reporting purposes and in the preparation of an as-built plan.
Alternative species require pre-approval by a qualified specialist and/or regulatory staff at Mason County.
All planting should occur during the winter dormancy period. The optimal time for planting is from February
to March, though planting can begin as early as November. To ensure optimal survival, and that the plants
do not dry out after installation, temporary irrigation measures may be necessary.
5.4.6 Plant List and Estimated Costs
Mr. Castle purchased the proposed plants to be used to revegetate the buffer from Manke Lumber. CLUC
did procured a bid from Alpine Excavation and Landscaping for the project to complete the restoration work,
which totals $8,630.00 (see Appendix P). An estimated cost breakdown for plants, installation, and
monitoring services is provided in Appendix N. This information can be used to obtain a final cost estimate
for bonding purposes, if required by Mason County.
101Page
MANAGEMENTCASTLE HABITAT RESTORATION
Table 8. Plant Costs
PLANT COMMON SCIENTIFIC #PLANTS PLANT SIZE TYPICAL COST TOTAL COST
NAME NAME PER PLANT
Western Red Thuja plicata 140 Three Year $
Cedar Seedling
Pseudotsuga Three Year
Douglas Fir menziesii 460 Seedling $
TOTAL COST $271
5.5 Project Impacts
This section describes anticipated permanent and temporary impacts associated with the project and the
proposed minimization measures to address these impacts. It is important to note that measures were taken
to avoid, reduce, and minimize impacts associated with this project; however, some impact to critical areas
buffers are unavoidable due to the nature of the project. Impact avoidance and minimization was practiced
to the furthest extent possible.The analysis of impacts and determination of effects in this report are based
on prior experience with other applicable projects and review of relevant literature. Critical area and buffer
impacts likely to result from the project are listed here and are discussed in the following paragraphs.
5.5.1 Listed Species and Critical Habitats
CLUC has identified species and habitats that may potentially occur within the project area. Table X in
Chapter 1 lists the species and the sources for the information, including WDFW, NOAA, and PHS. This
data indicates that the project will occur within the general range of six (6) endangered or threatened
species, one (1) designated essential fish habitat(1), and two (2) priority habitat areas.
Terrestrial Species Evaluation_
Fisher(Pekania pennantl), Marbled Murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus), Streaked Horned Lark
(Eremophila alpestris strigata), Yellow-billed Cuckoo(Coccyzus americanus).
The subject parcel is not listed as critical habitat for any of the terrestrial species. None of these
listed terrestrial species were observed on-site during fieldwork on December 17, 2019. Transitory
presence of any of these species is possible,though not likely. No nesting sites,dens or other signs
of habitation were observed.
There were no suitable habitat features that are typically associated with mature forest ecosystems
observed on the property. These features are, but not limited to wide areas of mature trees greater
than 100-200 years of age, large standing snags of similar age class and an intact and mature
multi-level forest canopy ecosystem. The existing forest ecosystem on site is fragmented, though
it is generally healthy with existing native vegetation moving towards that of a complex forest
ecosystem. If the prescribed critical area buffers are retained and enhanced as proposed in this
report, the existing ecosystem will be allowed to persist and proceed forward in a natural
succession.
During fieldwork it was noted that there is no suitable habitat for the listed species within the
immediate project area,which currently lacks any trees or other substantial forms of vegetation, let
alone the level of mature forest ecosystem that species like the fisher or the marbled murrelet
typically require. Both yellow-billed cuckoos (associated with open deciduous woodlands covering
111Page
�� < � �w�� &.� $�•� f �r}t,.,�,u�. .��1'xFiy��f a'.ayfi ��;�";' �g��`,�'� `k � �ir���s�. ..i � �� .��'many acres) and streaked horned larks, (associated with prairies and open, undeveloped coastal
habitat) are not likely to be found within the project vicinity based on current conditions.
Due to a lack of suitable habitat, these species are not expected to occur within the immediate
proposed project area in a fashion that will cause a direct impact. The proposed project area lacks
any vegetation suitable for quality habitat. The proposed buffer enhancement features are intended
to compensate for existing "net-loss" of ecological functions due to clearing activities on-site and
will provide a net-gain of habitat compared the site's current condition. Based on this assessment
determination of effect for these species is as follows: may affect, not likely to adversely affect.
Aquatic Evaluation:
Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus), Puget Sound Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
Bull trout were not observed on-site during fieldwork on December 17, 2019. Their habitat includes
complex river, stream, lake reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments that have
features such as large wood, side channels, pools and unembedded substrates. Bull trout may
have a presence in waters associated with the project site. Despite this, a lack of suitable habitat
features in the vicinity of the project may preclude bull trout from a strong presence in the area. In
addition, no critical habitat for the species is listed in the project area and there will be no impacts
to the aquatic environment from the proposed project, therefore a negligible impact is expected on
any potential bull trout in the vicinity. Based on this assessment, determination of effect for this
species is as follows: may affect, not likely to adversely affect.
The subject parcel is designated by NOAA Fisheries as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Chinook
salmon, Coho salmon, and Puget Sound pink salmon. Of these species, Puget Sound Chinook
(PSC) are also protected under the ESA. No PSC were observed on-site during fieldwork on
December 17, 2019. PSC are reproductively isolated from other con-specific Chinook populations
outside of the sound, and in accordance with NMFS 1991 policy(56 FIR 58612)and the ESA, they
are considered an"evolutionarily significant unit"(ESU).A 1996 joint NMFS-USFWS policy (61 FIR
4722) designates the Puget Sound Chinook as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS). (See
Appendix H for a map of listed habitat locations within the project vicinity.)
Chinook fry freshwater residence patterns include two general types, both which involve rivers(See
Appendix E for a map of DNR identified streams within the Action Area):
— Ocean-type: migrate immediately after emergence or after a few months in the river. They
typically reside within an estuary for a few weeks before migrating downstream, rapidly
exiting the estuary and heading out to sea.
— Stream-type: spend one full year in the river before migrating downstream, when they
rapidly exit the estuary and head out to sea. At sea for 1-5 years, they will feed offshore.
Though Puget Sound Chinook and other salmonid species could potentially be found on-site,there
will be no impacts to the aquatic environment from the proposed project, therefore a negligible
impact is expected. Based on this assessment, determination of effect for these species is as
follows: may affect, not likely to adversely affect.
5.5.2 Direct Effects
It is the opinion of this report that the proposed buffer restoration actions will likely improve the overall
stream functions on-site and provide for greater protection of associated critical habitat. The proposed
buffer restoration plan will return the cleared area within the stream buffer back to its original condition prior
121Page
CASTLE HABITAT MANAGEMENT i RESTORATION PLAN-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,MARCH 2020
to being cleared.These efforts will support and maintain existing habitats and ecological functions for a net
gain in habitat.The project's potential direct effects to the stream and associated buffers will overwhelmingly
be positive.
5.5.3 Temporary Direct Effects
Temporary direct effects caused by the proposed project include:
• Sedimentation from minor earthmoving activities (digging holes) associated with the installation of the
proposed project. Sedimentation will be temporary and minimal.
5.5.4 Indirect Effects
Indirect effects are those effects reasonably certain to result from the proposed action at a later time.
Possible indirect effects from the proposed project include:
• Cumulative impacts over the long term planning period for similar like actions.
5.5.5 Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are defined as "those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal
activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the action subject to consultation,"
(50 CFR 402.02). Cumulative impacts are difficult to access. Continued growth and urbanization is likely to
detrimentally impact fish and wildlife resources.
This single project is not expected to have a cumulative effect.
131Page
Chapter 6. Best Management Practices
Minimization measures and BMPs will be utilized during project activities to avoid impacts to listed species
and their habitat. Conservation measures will focus on minimizing soil erosion, spills, and impacts to
existing vegetation in the project area. The following mitigation measures will be undertaken in conjunction
with the proposed project in addition to those prescriptive mitigation measures imposed through MCC
Resource Ordinance:
• Marking of critical areas buffers prior to planting activities.
•All existing native vegetation in the area be preserved.
•Any equipment will be cleaned and checked for leaks off-site daily before commencing work.
• Establishment of proper construction access.
• Control of surface flow within the work areas and containment of sediment within the work areas.
•The contractor will prepare a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures(SPCC) Plan for this project.
Any potential spills will be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not contaminate the surrounding
area. Adequate materials and procedures to respond to unanticipated weather conditions or accidental
releases of materials (sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons, etc.) will be available on site. The SPCC Plan
will also ensure the proper management of oil, gasoline and solvents used in the operation and
maintenance of construction equipment and that equipment remains free of external petroleum-based
products prior to entering the work area and during the work, and for making any necessary repairs prior to
returning the equipment to operation in the work area.
•An emergency spill containment kit must be located on site along with a pollution prevention plan detailing
planned to fuel, materials storage and equipment storage. Waste storage areas must be prepared to
address prevention and cleanup of accidental spills.
• The contractor will supply the site with a portable bathroom if the site's existing (SFR) bathroom cannot
be accessed to ensure that solid or liquid waste will not become a source of stormwater pollution.
• Routine inspections of the erosion control measures will be conducted daily during construction to ensure
the effectiveness of the measures and to determine the need for maintenance or additional control
measures.
• Silt fences will be constructed in relevant areas to protect the stream when/if necessary.
• Disturbance will be limited to the smallest area feasible for each phase of the project.
• Planting procedures will be designed to minimize the opportunity for erosion to occur or sediment-laden
water to enter downstream areas.
•Work will be in compliance with all other local, state and federal regulations and restrictions.
141Page
CAST LE HABITAT MANAGEMENT/RESTORATION PLAN-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING MARCH 2020
Chapter 7. Conclusions
The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this
project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally
exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions
in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our
proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based
on an interpretation of information currently available to us, and are made within the operation scope,
budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty expressed or implied is made. In addition, changes in
government codes, regulations,or laws may occur. Due to such changes,our observations and conclusions
applicable to this site may need to be revised wholly or in part.
The proposed buffer enhancement features are intended to compensate for existing"net-loss"of ecological
functions due to clearing activities on-site and will provide a net-gain of habitat compared the site's current
condition.
7.1 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 regard to the proposed project and the existing development activities, it is
extremely unlikely that any"take"will occur. Previously listed best management practices will further ensure
the likelihood that no"take"will occur.
7.2 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 and reviewing the proposed project and site, it is the
opinion of CLUC that the proposed project will have an insignificant impact on the previously discussed
Endangered or Threatened species, given the previously discussed mitigation measures and best
management practices are implemented. While the proposed project is not likely to impact an individual
Endangered or Threatened species in the immediate project area, it is also not likely to adversely affect or
jeopardize the continued existence of those species or their designated critical habitat if they were
documented within the area.
151Page
CASTLE HABITAT MANAGEMENT/ OR - CONSULTING,
Chapter 8. References & Resources
Binkley, D., and Greene, S. 1983. Production in Mixtures of Conifers and Red Alder. The
Importance of Site Fertility. In IUFRO Symposium on Forest Site and Continuous
Productivity. Edited by R. Ballard and S.P. Gessel. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rpt.
PNW-163, Portland Oregon.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service document
FWS/OBS-79/31. 84 pp. Washington, D.C.
Hicks, B.J., Hall, J. D., Bisson, P.A., & Sedell, J.R. (1991) Responses of Salmonids to Habitat
Changes. In W. R. Meehan, Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management of Salmonid
Habitat. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society.
Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 2nd Edition, 2018. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of
Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.
Newcombe, C.P., Jensen, J.O.T. (1996) Channel Suspended Sediment and Fisheries:A
Synthesis for Quantitative Assessment of Risk and Impact. Bethesda, MD: American
Fisheries Society.
NOAA Fisheries. 2020. Find a Species. Internet report: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-
species.
Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon, 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing.
Vancouver, British Columbia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC).
Internet report. URL: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. National Wetlands Inventory. Online Resource.
www.fws.gov/wetlands/(2020).
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2017. Washington State Coastal Atlas Map. Internet
report. URL: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. SalmonScape. Internet report. URL:
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2014. FPARS ARCIMS mapping
application. Internet report. URL: http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/appl/fpars/viewer.htm
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Natural Heritage Program, 2018. Retrieved
from NHP April 1, 2020. URL: https-,//www.dnr.wa.gov/natural-heritage-program
161Page
CASTLE HABITAT MANAGEMENT RESTORATION PLAN-CRATER 1 .,USE CONSULTING, 2020
50 FR 402.02, Wildlife and Fisheries Chapter IV—Joint Regulations(United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior and National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce); Endangered Species
Committee Regulations (October 1, 2012).
56 FR 58612, Policy on Applying the Definition of Species Under the ESA to Pacific Salmon
(November 20, 1991).
57 FR 45328, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened
Status for the Washington, Oregon, and California Population of the Marbled Murrelet
64 FR 14308, Threatened Status for Three Chinook Salmon ESU in Washington and Oregon and
Endangered Status for One Chinook Salmon ESU in Washington (March 24, 1999).
64 FR 58190, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened
Status for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States (November 1, 1999).
70 FR 52630, Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for 12
Evolutionary Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington, Oregon,
and Idaho (September 2, 2005).
78 FR 61506, Designation of Critical Habitat for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked
Horned Lark (October 3,2013).
79 FR 2014, Final Rule to Revise the Code of Federal Regulations for Species Under the
Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fishery Service (April 14, 2014).
79 FR 59992, Determination of Threatened Status for the Western DSP of Yellow-billed Cuckoo
(October 3, 2014).
79 FR 71373, Designation of Critical Habitat for the Western DPS of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo
(December 2, 2014).
81 FR 2016, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat
for the Marbled Murrelet(August 4, 2016).
171Page
Appendix A.
Site Vicinity Map
SITE VICINITY
r c
71
OEM-
•- j t!�i 7 �,i+ fir t ���f ram,
• ai I��ar
� �.,ate � u �����IL9� ,a✓ 'r�s7 ��,.--�--�'.l�.��;
• ,'!r, � IIIII�iII! � � � M�rrj.,ra,_�9�CiEgftli ,t/�"� t�v,,r w,.���
• I ea`
Sources:Mason County GIS(Street Centerlines,Parcel Boundaries),Statewide NAIP 2017 3ft 4band Imagery 0 0.25 0.5 1Miles
Client: John Castle Parcel#: 2203040-00010 Address: 5832 SE Arcadia Rd. Site Visit: 12/17/2019
Legend
Subject Parcel
Mason County Parcel Boundaries
Mason County Roads CRATER LAND USE
IN CONSULTING
Appendix B.
USDA NRCS Soil Type Map
USDA NRCS Soil Type Map https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
t
Y� y
Mason County,Washington(WA645)
Mason County, Washington (WA645) ® 2 �
Map Acres )
Percent
Unit Map Unit Name in of AOI
Symbol AOI
N
Be Bellingham silty 3.3 22.1%
clay loam, 0 to 3
percent slopes
Cc Cloquallum silt 7.5 50.9%
loam, 5 to 15
percent slopes
W Water 4.0 27.0%
Totals for Area of 14.7 100.0%
Interest
Appendix C.
National Wetlands Inventory Map
National Wetland Inventory Map
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine
Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetlaw,
® Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub
Wetland
® Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
u A.
rti
Ilk �» t
^ vy y.� y't-:� ,��v i � a. •�,�,n°�'i'._`J�'i111J•.+- �/ Sa
Appendix D.
303(d) Map
Washington State Department of Ecology
303(d) Water Quality Atlas
https://fortress.wa.qov/ecV/waterquaIitVatlas/map.aspx
- � w
w An �
a
Ui
C.)
u d
E'
m � -
Water
Category 5 - 303d
Category 4C
Category 4B
Category 4A
Category 2
Category 1
Appendix E.
DNR Stream Map
Washington State Department of Natural Legend
Resources Stream Type Map - Type F Stream
- Type N Stream
hftps://fpamt.dnr.wa.gov/default.aspx
•
i
i
Appendix F.
WDFW PHS Map
Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Priority Habitat Species (PHS)
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/
Common Name Scientific Name Dricrity Area Display Feature Full Record
Resolution Type
Freshr:ater Emergent Show Full
Null Aquatic Habitat AS MAPPED Area
lyetland{.l, Record
Freshwater
o u
Forested; Show'Shrub Wetland Null Aquatic Habitat AS MAPPED Area Full
Record
1
E
S r.
PHS Plus Public
• Sec es and Habitat Pants
Spec.,es and Habftat Lams
-Spec es and Habitat Polygons As Mapped
SensEtne Spears and Habrtal Occurrences Masked to Sectan or Townshq
Appendix G .
USFWS Species Info
4/19/2020 Species Profile for Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus)
U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service
ECOS
ECOS / Species Profile
Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus)
Range Information lCandidate Info IFederal Register JRecovery JCritical Habitat ISSA(Conservation Plans(Petitions
JBiological O inp Ions Life History.
Taxonomy: View taxonomy in ITI
Listing Status: Threatened and Experimental Population, Non-Essential
General Information
Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus)are members of the family Salmonidae and are char native Washington,Oregon,
Idaho,Nevada,Montana and western Canada.Compared to other salmonids,bull trout have more specific habitat
requirements that appear to influence their distribution and abundance.They need cold water to survive,so they are
seldom found in waters where temperatures exceed 59 to 64 degrees(F).They also require stable stream channels,clean spawning and rearing gravel,
complex and diverse cover,and unblocked migratory corridors.Bull trout may be distinguished from brook trout(Salvelinus fontinalis)by several
characteristics:spots never appear on the dorsal(back)fin,and the spots that rest on the fish's olive green to bronze back are pale yellow,orange or
salmon-colored.The bull trout's tail is not deeply forked as is the case with lake trout(Salvelinus namaycush).Bull trout exhibit two forms:resident and
migratory.Resident bull trout spend their entire lives in the same stream/creek.Migratory bull trout move to larger bodies of water to overwinter and then
migrate back to smaller waters to reproduce.An anadromous form of bull trout also exists in the Coastal-Puget Sound population,which spawns in rivers
and streams but rears young in the ocean.Resident and juvenile bull trout prey on invertebrates and small fish.Adult migratory bull trout primarily eat
fish.Resident bull trout range up to 10 inches long and migratory forms may range up to 35 inches and up to 32 pounds.Bull trout are currently listed
coterminously as a threatened species.
The species historical range included Alaska,California,Idaho,Montana,Nevada,Oregon,Washington.See
below for information about where the species is known or believed to occur.
Population detail
The following populations are being monitored:Bull Trout
Current Listing Status Summary
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profileispedesProfile?sld=8212 1/38
4/19/2020 Species Profile for Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus)
Date
Status Listed Lead Region Where Listed
Threatened 06-10- Pacifi U.S.A.,conterminous,(lower 48 states)Additional species information
1998 Region
(Regime)
Experimental 12-09- Pacifi Clackamas River subbasin and the mainstem Willamette River,from Willamette Falls to its points
Population,Non- 2009 gggion of confluence with the Columbia River,including Multnomah Channel
Essential (Region 1)
» Range Information
c apary
Current Range +
.a. CQ U.S.A.,conterminous,(lower 48 states)
Zoom in!Some species'locations may be small and hard Yanoowa
to see from a wide perspective.To narrow-in on locations,
check the state and county lists(below)and then use the Seattle i
zoom tool.
Want the FWS's current range for all species?Click here to
download a zip file containing all individual shapefiles and Portiand
metadata for all species.
*For consultation needs do not use only this current range
map,please use IPaC.
Salt Lake
city
r
c
• U.S.A.,conterminous,(lower 48 states)
Listing status: Threatened
o States/US Territories in which this population is known to or is believed to occur:Idaho,Montana,Nevada,Oregon,Washington
o US Counties in which this population is known to or is believed to occur:View All
https://ecos.tws.gov/ecp0/profile/spedesProfile?sld=8212 2138
4/1 912 02 0 Species Profile for Bull Trout(Salvelinus confluentus)
03/06/2012 77 FIR 13248 13251 5-Year Status Reviews of 46 Species in Idaho,Qgon,Washington,Nevada,Montana, • Five Year Review
Hawaii,Guam,and the Northern Mariana Islands:Notice of initiation of reviews;-MugS1 Notice,Information
for information. Solicitation
07/01/2004 69 FR 39951 39952 Draft Recovery.Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull Trout • Recovery Plan
lRalvalinnc rnnflimntiml rlrafl r)nrumant
Showing 1 to 8 of 8 entries < Previous 1 Next >
Five Year Reviews
Show to • entries
Date Title
11/13/2015 2015 Bull Trout 5-year Review ,
Showing 1 to 2 of 2 entries < Previous 1 Next >
No Delisting Documents currently available for this species.
»Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat Spatial Extents
�aya y
r.
Population(s)
' ,'_4 Q U.S.A.,conterminous,lower 48 states "^ _
vancower
, I
https://ecas.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile?sld=8212 7138
4/19/2020 Species Profile for Fisher(Pekania pennanti)
U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service
ECOS
ECOS / Species Profile
Fisher (Pekania pennant1)
Range Information ICandidate Info IFederal Register(Recovery(Critical Habitat ISSA
(Conservation Plans (Petitions IBiological Opinions (Life History.
Taxonomy: View taxonomy in ITIS
Listing Status: Proposed Threatened
General Information
Long body; looks stockier than most other mustelids because of its long fur. Dark brown above and below. Broad head has
grayish cast; pointed snout; small ears. Bushy tail. Male larger than female.
The species historical range included California, Oregon,Washington.See below for information about where the
species is known or believed to occur.
Current Listing Status Summary
Date
Status Listed Lead Region Where Listed
Proposed Pacific Southwest Region (Region West coast DPS Additional species
Threatened 8) information
» Range Information
https:/Iecos.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile?sld=3651 1/8
4/19/2020 Species Profile for Fisher(Pekania pennanti)
Current Range + a yam,
et West coast DPS —
Vancouver
(+� Northem Rocky Mountains DPS 0 •-------
Zoom in! Some species'locations may be small ""few
and hard to see from a wide perspective.To
narrow-in on locations, check the state and
county lists(below)and then use the zoom tool.
Want the FWS's current range for all species? ,
Click here to download a zip file containing all �am.r UNITED
ha-:.a,�a Ut,nh �ler d,. STATES
individual shapefiles and metadata for all san dseo
species. ;ltt ,
* For consultation needs do not use only this � .
current range map, please use IPaC. o;
• West coast DPS
Listing status: Proposed Threatened
o States/US Territories in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: California, Oregon,Washington
o US Counties in which this population is known to or is believed to occur:View All
o USFWS Refuges in which this population is known to occur:
» Candidate Information
No Candidate information available for this species.
No Candidate Assessments available for this species.
Candidate Notice of Review Documents
Show to • entries
https.I/eros.fws.gov/er-pO/profile/spedesProfile9sld=3651 2/8
4/19/2020 Species Profile for Marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus)
U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service
ECOS
ECOS / Species Profile
Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
Range Information(Candidate Info IFederal Register lBecovery.(Critical Habitat ISSA lConservation Plans '
lPetitions(Biological O ini n (Life History
e
Taxonomy: View taxonomy in I I `'
Listing Status: Threatened
General Information
The marbled murrelet is a small,chubby seabird that has a very short neck.During the breeding season it
has dark brown to blackish upperparts and a white belly and throat that are greatly mottled.During the winter
the upperparts become grey,dark marks form on the sides of the breast and a white ring develops around
the eye.Males and females are similar in appearance and size.Juveniles are similar to the adult winter
plumage,but with dusky mottling on the underparts.Vocalisations include a sharp keer'or low kee'.
The species historical range included Alaska,California,Oregon,Washington.See below for information
about where the species is known or believed to occur.
Current Listing Status Summary
Status Date Listed Lead Region Where Listed
Threatened 10-01-1992 Pacific Region(Region) U.S.A.(CA,OR,WA)
» Range Information
Current Range +
Calgary
Q U.S.A.(CA,OR,WA)
Vancower
4 7_
https://ecos.tws.gov/eepO/profile/speciesProfile?sld=4467 1/17
4/1 912 0 2 0 Species Profile for Marbled murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus)
Zoom in!Some species'locations may be small and
hard to see from a wide perspective.To narrow-in on
locations,check the state and county lists(below)and
then use the zoom tool.
Want the FWS's current range for all species?Click
here to download a zip file containing all individual p°,,,,,r UNITEC
sha efiles and metadata for all species.
S TATE°
psan
Francisco
For consultation needs do not use only this current ,
range map,please use IPaC. ��e°�:.< .,
• U.S.A.(CA,OR,WA)
Listing status: Threatened
o States/US Territories in which this population is known to or is believed to occur:California,Oregon,Washington
o US Counties in which this population is known to or is believed to occur:View All
o USFWS Refuges in which this population is known to occur: Billy Frank Jr.Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge,Cape Meares National
Wildlife Refuge,Willapa National Wildlife Refuge
» Candidate Information
No Candidate information available for this species.
No Candidate Assessments available for this species.
Candidate Notice of Review Documents
Show 10 entries
Date Citation Page Title
11/15/1994 59 FR 58982 59028 ETWP;Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species.
11/21/1991 56 FR 58804 58836 ETWP;Animal Candidate Review for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species;56 FR 58804 588 "
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile?sld=4467 ' 2/17
4/1 912 0 2 0 Species Profile for Streaked Homed lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata)
U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service
ECOS
ECOS / Species Profile
Streaked Horned lark Eremo hila alpestrisZd
a M
strigata)
Range Information ICandidate Info IFederal Register j ecovery(Critical Habitat ISSA
lConservation Plans(Petitions jBiological Opinions(Life History
Taxonomy: View taxonomy in TIS
Listing Status: Threatened
Where Listed: WHEREVER FOUND
General Information
Horned Larks are small, long-bodied songbirds that usually adopt a horizontal posture.They have short,thin bills, short necks, and
rounded heads. The shape sometimes broken by two small"horns"of feathers sticking up toward the back of the head. Male Horned
Larks are sandy to rusty brown above,with a black chest band, a curving black mask, and head stripes that extend to the back of the
head.The face and throat are either yellow or white. Females have similar head and breast patterns but are less crisply defined.
References cited in Species Profile
• Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2015. Horned Lark.All About Birds. http://www.allaboutbirds.orq/guide/Horned Lark/id
• Godfrey,W. E. 1986.The birds of Canada. Rev ed. Natl. Mus. Nat. Sci. Ottawa.USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.2012.
North American Breeding Bird Survey 1966-2010 analysis. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usga.gov/bbs/specl10.html
• Partners in Flight. 2012. Species assessment database. http://rmbo.org/pifassessment/Database.aspx
• Pearson, S. and B.Altman.2005. Range-wide Streaked Horned Lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata)Assessment and Preliminary
Conservation Strategy.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/spedesProfile?sld=7268 1/12
4/19/2020 Species Profile for Streaked Homed lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata)
The species historical range included Oregon,Washington. See below for information about where the species is
known or believed to occur.
Current Listing Status Summary
Status Date Listed Lead Region Where Listed
Threatened 11-04-2013 Pacific Region(Region 1) Wherever found
» Range Information
Victoria
Current Range
It — Q Wherever found — Seatle
Zoom in! Some species'locations may be small
,Na;hingtt n
and hard to see from a wide perspective.To
narrow-in on locations, check the state and county
lists(below)and then use the zoom tool.
Want the FWS's current range for all species? r
onamdti
Click here to download a zip file containing all and
individual shapefiles and metadata for all species.
For consultation needs do not use only this t ;.#
current range map, please use IPaC.
• Wherever found
Listing status: Threatened
o States/US Territories in which this population is known to or is believed to occur: Oregon,Washington
https://ecos.tws.gov/ecp0/profile/spedesProfile?sld=7268 2/12
4/19/2020 Species Profile for Yellow-billed Cuckoo(Coccyzus amencanus)
U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service
ECOS
ECOS / Species Profile
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
Range Information JCandidate Info IFederal Regis Pr J$gcgvpry,]Critical Habitat 1$$g lConservation Plans i i n Qjglggjc Opinions 1Life History `
Taxonomy: Yew taxonomy is ITIS
Listing Status: Threatened
r �
General Information
Yellow-billed Cuckoos are fairly large,long,and slim birds.The mostly yellow bill is almost as long as the head,thick and slightly downcurved.They have a flat
head,thin body,and very long tail.Wings appear pointed and swept back in flight.Yellow-billed Cuckoos are warm brown above and clean whitish below.Their
blackish face mask is accompanied by a yellow eyering.In flight,the outer part of the wings flash rufous.From below,the tail has wide white bands and narrower black ones.
References cited in Species Profile
• Cornell Lab of Ornithology.2015.Yellow-billed Cuckoo.All About Birds.gip://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Yellow-billed Cuckoofid
• Hughes,Janice M.2015.Yellow-billed Cuckoo(Coccyzus amencanus),The Birds of North America Online(A.Poole,Ed.).Ithaca:Cornell Lab of Ornithology;Retrieved from the Birds of North
America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/418
• Laymon,S.A.1998.Yellow-billed Cuckoo(Coccyzus amencanus).In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan:a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California.California
Partners in Flight.h QJAArw ,prbo.org(ca1pif/htmldocs/npada v-2.html
• Partners in Flight.2012.Species assessment database.=p://rmbo.org/pifassessment/Database.aspx
• USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.2012.North American Breeding Bird Survey 1966-2010 analysis.tMpjb68 LmbL-RmYLCs1;igSgov1bbS[;ipeGlO.html
The species historical range included Arizona,California,Colorado,Idaho,Montana,Nevada,New Mexico,
Oregon,Texas,Utah,Washington,Wyoming.See below for information about where the species is known or
believed to occur.
Current Listing Status Summary
Date
Status Listed Lead Region Where Listed
Threatened 11-03- Southwest Western DPS:U.S.A.(AZ,CA,CO(western),ID,MT(western),NM(western),NV,OR,TX(western),UT,WA,WY(western)),Canada(British Columbia
2014 &gjQp (southwestern);Mexico(Baja California,Baja California Sur,Chihuahua,Durango(western),Sinaloa,Sonora)Additional species information
(EggL402).
»Range Information
ao..y
Current Range aF
v.Kow.r
Q Westem DPS:U_S.A.(AZ,CA,CO(western),ID,MT(western),NM(w k(,, : a uahua,
Zoom in!Some species'locations may be small and hard to see from a wide
perspective.To narrow-in on locations,check the state and county lists offs.
(below)and then use the zoom tool. , "..d,
https:/Iecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sld=3911 J 1/10
4/1 912 02 0 Species Profile for Yellow-billed Cuckoo(Coccyzus americanus)
Want the FWS's current range for all species?Click bets to download a zip `o°O°
.wYo�
file containing all individual shapefles and metadata for all species. s e �,UNITED vett~t3
For consultation needs do not use only this current range map,please uses:. L 4� " K;'�, STATES
a t�a,K °wa.aoyw� i
°wcm
HNabn
• Western DPS:U.S.A.(AZ,CA,CO(western),ID,MT(western),NM(western),NV,OR,TX(western),UT,
WA,WY(western));Canada(British Columbia(southwestern);Mexico(Baja California,Baja California
Sur,Chihuahua,Durango(western),Sinaloa,Sonora)
Listing status: Threatened
o States/US Territories in which this population is known to or is believed to occur:Arizona,California,Colorado,Idaho,Montana,Nevada,New Mexico,Oregon,Texas,Utah,Washington,
Wyoming
o US Counties in which this population is known to or is believed to occur:View All
o USFWS Refuges in which this population is known to occur:Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge,Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge,Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge
...Show All Refugga
o Countries in which this population is known to occur.Canada,Mexico,United States
»Candidate Information
No Candidate information available for this species.
No Candidate Assessments available for this species.
Candidate Notice of Review Documents
Show to • entries
Date . Citation Page - Title
11/21/2012 77 FR 69993 70060 Review of Native Speces That Are Candidates for Listing as Ends gered or Threatened,Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions;Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions
10/26/2011 76 FR 66370 66439 Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened,Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions;Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions
11/10/2010 75 FR 69222 69294 Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened,Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions;Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions,Proposed Rule
11/09/2009 74 FR 57804 57878 Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Enda gered or Threatened;Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions,Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions
12/10/2008 73 FR 75176 75244 Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened,Annual Notice of
Findinnc nn R—iihmittPd Petitinnc Annual r)perHntinn of Prnnrecc nn I m inn Artinnc PrnnnsPd Rifle
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecpo/profile/spedesProfile?sld=3911 2/10
Appendix H .
NOAA Fisheries EFH Info
NOAA Fisheries
https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/application/efhmapper/index.htm1#
HUC Species/htanagernent Lifestage(s) Management
Show Link Name Unit Found at Council FMP
Location
Chinook Salmon, Coho Pacific
Puet Sound Salmon, Puget Sound Pink I Pacific Coast
Salmon
Salmon Plan
4
26
4
_1Z
Query Results
Degrees, Minutes, Seconds: Latitude = 47011'42" N, Longitude = 12301'26" W
Decimal Degrees: Latitude = 47.20, Longitude = -122.98
The query location intersects with spatial data representing EFH and/or HAPCs for
the following species/management units.
HAPCs
No Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) were identified at the report location.
EFH Areas Protected from Fishing
No EFH Areas Protected from Fishing (EFHA) were identified at the report location.
4/19/2020 title
EFH Data Notice: Essential Fish Habitat(EFH) is defined by textual descriptions contained in the fishery management plans developed by the
regional Fishery Management Councils. In most cases mapping data can not fully represent the complexity of the habitats that make up EFH.
This report should be used for general interest queries only and should not be interpreted as a definitive evaluation of EFH at this location. A
location-specific evaluation of EFH for any official purposes must be performed by a regional expert. Please refer to the following links for the
appropriate regional resources.
West Coast Regional Office
Alaska Regional Office
Query Results
Degrees, Minutes, Seconds: Latitude = 47011'42" N, Longitude = 12301'26" W
Decimal Degrees: Latitude = 47.20, Longitude = -122.98
The query location intersects with spatial data representing EFH and/or HAPCs for the following species/management units.
EFH
Show Link HUC Species/Management Unit Lifestage(s) Found Management FMP
Name at Location Council
Puget Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, Puget® Pacific Coast 1. Sound Sound Pink Salmon All Pacific Salmon Plan
HAPCs
No Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) were identified at the report location.
EFH Areas Protected from Fishing
No EFH Areas Protected from Fishing (EFHA) were identified at the report location.
Spatial data does not currently exist for all the managed species in this area. The following is a list of
species or management units for which there is no spatial data.
**For links to all EFH text descriptions see the complete data inventory: open data inventor -->
hftps:/twww.habitat.noaa.gov/application/efhmapper/index.html# 1/2
4/1 912 0 2 0 title
Spatial data does not currently exist for all the managed species in this area. The following is a list of
species or management units for which there is no spatial data.
**For links to all EFH text descriptions see the complete data inventory: open data inventory -->
Pacific Coastal Pelagic Species,
Jack Mackerel,
Pacific (Chub) Mackerel,
Pacific Sardine,
Northern Anchovy - Central Subpopulation,
Northern Anchovy - Northern Subpopulation,
Pacific Highly Migratory Species,
Bigeye Thresher Shark - North Pacific,
Bluefin Tuna - Pacific,
Dolphinfish (Dorado or Mahimahi) - Pacific,
Pelagic Thresher Shark - North Pacific,
Swordfish - North Pacific,
West Coast Salmon,
All species and stocks
https:lAvww.habitat.noaa.gov/application/efhmapperrindex.htm1# 2/2
Appendix I .
Historical Site Photos
• • • - . • • • • - • • •
;,ice'"""� ',� � �� :`- �-,.'rc 1,��,.�=�'�' - •
d j4i.'�"_ci r�;/`�,�r'��+-,�,'::;»+d*'v'Y�•c s`'"�='".• '..� �Y, :,1+ •,�'��y+��� i� I...l.`��?'r � 'i s'' t
.�. 1 � i � jai `��r S Ii L• It
t'
• - •- 11 11•
lTw
x
�f � ♦;N�`+»�'' 4�'� ,�t ski
` • 1 • ••- 1
s
f
Appendix J .
Current Site Photos
r
� " _ 1
TT
r
a3, ,
k
' R
a r
.r � � a,rY• � �� .� r I.,.
*'xe
4
,t My
� 1 0
N.
7G7�.va;f�l,-M��
Yy `
YI
VIA ,
s
T
�x
� � a
b
I .Y
yy r
�I
Stream and Culvert
04
17
Ail
��cqY,•� �it�� "4Rk�,.4�� " a' '3� ��+� �-✓ �.L y ASS.. � tY .e;. -- ..c.�
r �+�
S:
M `
e
s
♦ Sir
N ��` � � �' r '1♦F� t':' �,Iy� �s�!I„ 4 ��f �3 r �9W�Y r.qv�j�
Ir
'�,� Y ,�" �` '�.�. iir �y � ��.,� 'q- j� .-t' I riA• Mid
r
A 4
31 V'
i
ti ;, .• - y�'.t.,,i�� , ibr - .R•z4 �x fi "r. j t4y4y�?.:,
42
a
Appendix K.
Site Topography Map
SITE TOPOGRAPHY
t ►
' N
Sources:Mason County GIS(10'Contours,Parcel Boundaries),Statewide NAIP 2017 3ft 4band Imagery 0 75 150 300eet
Client: John Castle Parcel#: 22030-40-00010 Address: 5832 SE Arcadia Rd. Site Visit: 12/17/2019
Legend
Subject Parcel
Stream On-Site
Mason County 10'Contours CRATER LAND USE
Mason County Parcel Boundaries CONSULTING
Appendix L.
Critical Areas Site Map
CRITICAL AREAS SITE MAP
"l
Sources:Mason County GIS(10'Contours,Parcel Boundaries),Statewide NAIP 2017 3ft 4band Imagery 0 75 150 30Feet
Client: John Castle Parcel#: 22030-40-00010 Address: 5832 SE Arcadia Rd. Site Visit: 12/17/2019
Approximate Area sq.ft. acres Legend
Parcel 675,570 15.51 Subject Parcel "` Internal Access Roads
150'Stream Buffer 208,169 4.78 -Stream On-Site 0 Culverts
Replanting Area 67,318 1.54 150'Stream Buffer Mason County 10'Contours
P 9 CRATER LAND USE
Internal Access Roads 16,136 0.37 Buffer Mitigation Area =Mason County Parcel Boundaries (�' CONSULTING
Appendix M .
Preliminary Planting Map
PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN
.........
♦..................♦
........♦......♦♦♦..
.......♦......♦....
....;AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
..............
♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦u u♦♦.♦♦♦..
♦♦♦ ....Mi. u....♦♦.
♦ ♦. ♦.♦....♦.. AAAAAAA
♦♦u♦.u.. ♦♦........♦.♦ ♦....♦
.....u.♦ ♦.u.......u.. ...♦♦♦
♦.....♦A ♦....♦ ... .. A♦♦♦♦
.u.♦♦♦ A.♦..♦♦♦
♦.♦u. ♦....u♦♦
♦AAA 4♦......♦♦♦
.A ♦♦.♦.♦♦u♦♦
♦♦ ♦.♦.♦♦♦♦♦
♦.1.A♦...♦ ♦♦♦
♦..♦........
. A u.....
♦u.♦♦......
....♦....♦.♦♦
♦♦♦...♦.♦..♦♦♦
......♦...♦.♦♦
♦♦....♦♦.♦.♦♦♦
...♦......♦♦♦♦
♦........♦♦♦♦
♦.......♦♦♦♦
♦♦.....♦♦♦♦
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
Sources:Mason County GIS(Parcel Boundaries) 0 25 50 100eet
Client: John Castle Parcel#: 22030-40-00010 Address: 5832 SE Arcadia Rd. Site Visit: 12/17/2019
Legend
Plant Species jAmount O Buffer Mitigation Area Stream On-Site
Western Red Cedar(Thuja plicata) 1140 ♦ Western Red Cedar Culverts
Douglas Fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)i460 . Douglas Fir Mason County Parcel Boundaries
i CRATER LAND USE
TOTAL 600 Internal Access Roads '�' CONSULTING
Appendix N .
Vegetation Management Plan
Appendix O.
Native Plants and Seed Sources
NATIVE PLANT AND SEED SOURCES 2019 Spring revisionly
r
(r_ ` This information is provided as a resource by the Washington Native Plant Society
4 and does not imply an endorsement. For more information,suggested additions,or
data changes, please contact WNPS at 206-527-3210 or wn s wn s.or .The
WASHINGTON NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY contacts listed here are include details from a survey descri in types o plant
�•1 material stocked,forms plants are available in,and the focus of the firm.
Specialty Nurseries Use Local Native Plants
Some of these growers,nurseries Definitions of native vary from one grower to the next and
and seed suppliers deal mainly in may include cultivated varieties of native species,as well
native plants.Others stock mostly as plants from hundreds of miles away. For restoration and
non-natives yet may also have a native habitat projects,it is usually best to use genetically
good selection of natives. Many specialize in plants for varied stock originating from the nearest available natural
wetlands,alpine and rock gardens,or trees and shrubs. sites. Local nurseries do not necessarily rely on local
Some will harvest seed or grow plants under contract. sources,nor is it always practical.Ask where a nursery's
Confirm before visiting. Many nurseries require an propagation stock or plants come from before selecting
appointment and may not keep regular business hours. plants for landscaping or restoration projects.
SEEDS ONLY-("*=WNPS Member Orqanization)
BFI Native Seeds" L&H Seeds Inc. Rainier Seeds,Inc.
1550 Pilgrim Street 4756 W.SR 260 P.O. Box 1064
Moses Lake,WA 98837 Connell,WA 99326 Davenport,WA 99122
509 765-6348 509-234-4433 FAX 509-234-0202 1404 Fourth Street
mbenson()bfinativeseeds.com info.lhseeds.com Davenport,WA 99122
www.bfinativeseeds.com 509-725-1235,800-828-8873
FAX 509-725-7015
rain ierseeds a().rainierseeds.com
www.rainierseeds.com
Direct Seed Sales" Native Seed Foundation Plants of the Wild(Seeds Inc.)**
PO Box 1281 P.O. Box 1191 PO Box 866
Issaquah,WA 98027 Polson,MT 59860 Tekoa WA 99033
1-888-528-9788 425 831-2076 406-274-0691 FAX 208-267-3265 509-284-2848
( ) kathv ftlantsofthewild.com
FAX 425-831-2078 info nativeseedfoundation.com www.plantsofthewild.com
directseed()msn.com www.nativeseedfoundation.com
www.directseedsales.com
Frosty Hollow Ecological Pacifica Restoration Thorn Creek Native Seed Farm**
Restoration 4625 51h Ave NW 1461 Thorn Creek Rd.
PO Box 53 Olympia,WA 98502 Genesee, Idaho 83832-9655
Langley,WA 98260-0053 360 556-4271 208-596-1116
360-579-2332 FAX 360-579-4080 gonetoseed(a)gmail.com facie a( nativeseedfarm.com
wean onwhidbey.net www.nativeseedfarm.com
https://rngr.neVresources/directory/
frostvhol lowecolog ica I restoratio n/view
Inside Passage Pacific Northwest Natives Western Reclamation,Inc.
PO Box 639 P.O. Box 3162 P.O.Box 210
Port Townsend,WA 98368-0639 Albany,OR 97321 13293 Glade North Rd.
360-385-6114 or 1-800-361-9657 541-928-8239 Fax 541-924-8855 Eltopia,WA 99330
FAX 360-385-5760 Mobile:541-974-6775 509 297-4500
inspass cnwhidbey.net pacificnwnatives(cDcomcast.net tharris()westernreclamation.com
www.insidepassageseeds.com www.pacificnwestnatives.com www.westernreclamation.com
PLANTS AND SEEDS:WHOLESALE ONLY (**=WNPS member organization)
Aldrich Berry Farm&Nursery Pacific Natives and Ornamentals Wabash Farms
190 Aldrich Rd. PO Box 23 31218 SE 4081h St.
Mossy Rock WA Bothell,WA 98041-0023 Enumclaw,WA 98022
360-983-3138 425 483-8108 FAX 425 487-6198 360 825-7051, FAX 360 825-1949
gald rich tds.com
www.aldrichberryfarm.com pacificnatives aa�verizon.net Wabash(@nventure.com
www.wabashfarms.info
Briggs Nursery Inc. Sound Native Plants Inc.** Washington Association of
4407 Henderson Blvd. Ben Alexander Conservation Districts(WACD)Plant
Olympia WA 98501 PO Box 7505 Materials Center**
206-352-5405 FAX:206-352-5699 Olympia WA 98507-7505 16564 Bradley Rd.
sales ftriggsnu rsery.com 360-352-4122
www.briggsnursery.com ben soundnativeplants.com Bow,WA 98232
www.soundnativeplants.com 360 757-1094
wacd(a)ncia.com
www.wacdpmc.orq
Firetrail Nursery Storm Lake Growers Watershed Garden Works& Retail
3107 140th Street NW Terra Sitner 2039 44th Avenue
Marysville,WA 98271 18510 SR 203 Longview,WA 98632
360 652-9021 FAX 360 652-8932 Monroe WA 98272 360 423-6456
360-794-4842
www.firetrailnursery.com terra@stormIakegrowers.com scoff@watershedgardenworks.com
www.stormIakegrowers.com www.watershedgardenworks.com
Fourth Corner Nurseries Sunbreak Nursery Wetlands&Woodlands Wholesale
5652 Saud Road. Rick Wright Nursery
Bellingham,WA 98226 5192 Aldrich Road 23423 57th Ave SE
360 592-2250 or 360 734-0079 Bellingham WA 98226 Woodinville,WA 98072
800-416 8640 360-384-3763 FAX:360-384-5030 425 338 9218, FAX 425 337 4985
sun breaknurserycom pan y a1comcast.net
FAX 888-506-1236 www.sunbreaknursery.net Wetlandwoodlands.com
sales(cilfourthcornernurseries.com
www.fourthcornernurseries.com
Judd Creek Nursery T and L Nursery Wildlands Inc.
Mail address:PO Box 13378 PO Box 1421 1941 Saint St.
Burton WA 98013 13245 Woodinville Redmond Rd. NE Richland,WA 99354
Location:20929111t'Ave. SW Redmond WA 98052 509 375-4177
Vashon Island WA 98070 425-885-5050
206-463-9641 (phone and fax) info(a TandLnursery.com wildlandsnursery a()aol.com
Lbrowne001 aecenturytel.net www.TandLnursery.com hftp://wildlandsnursery.com
rhodygarden.org/cms/iudd-creek-
nursery
Oxbow Farm&Conservation Center Thorn Creek Native Seed Farm** Windy Ridge Tree Farm
Bridget McNassar 1461 Thorn Creek Rd. PO Box 340
10819 Carnation-Duvall Rd. NE Genesee, Idaho 83832-9655 Amboy WA 98601
Carnation WA 98014 208-596-1116 360-247-8733,360-606-8581
425-788-1134 ext 4
bridget(a7oxbow.org iacietaa nativeseedfarm.com
http://www.oxbow.org/native-plants www.nativeseedfarm.com
RETAIL NURSERIES **=WNPS member organizations
B.C.'s Wild Heritage Plants Echo Valley Natives Hima Nursery,Inc.
47330 Extrom Road 18883 S. Ferguson Rd. 20629 State Rt.9 SE
Sardis, BC, Canada Oregon City,OR 97045 Snohomish WA 98296
604-858-5141 503 631-2451 425-317-8822,FAX 425-489-0222
bcwildplants(ciluniserve.com ech oval levnative aaaol.com Hima(o)himanursery.com
bcwildheritage.com www.echovalleynatives.com www/himanursery.com
Bosky Dell Natives Fancy Fronds Humble Roots Farm&Nursery LLC**
23311 SW Bosky Dell Lane PO Box 1090 2355 Osburn Cut-off
West Linn,OR 97068-9130 Gold Bar,WA 98251 Mosier OR 97040
503 638-5945 FAX 503-638- 360-793-1472 FAX 360-793-4243 503-449-3694
8047 Judith c(fancyfronds.com www.humblerootsnursery.com
www.boskvdellnatives.com www.fancyfronds.com
boskydellnatives(a)aol.com
Brandywine Nurseries Forestfarm Keeping it Green Nursery
17396 McLean Rd. 990 Tetherow Road 19401 961h Ave NW
Mt.Vernon WA 98273 Williams, OR 97544-9599 Stanwood WA 98292
Erin Christensen 541-846-7269 FAX 541-846-6963 360-652-1779
360-424-3266 plants(a)forestfarm.com arlen cbwhidbey.net
ErinC@brandywinenursery.com www.forestfarm.com www.keepingitgreennursery.com
www.brandywinenursery.com
Champoeg Nursery Fraser's Thimble Farms Madrona Nursery
9661 Yergen Rd.NE 175 Arbutus Road 802 371h Ave
Aurora,OR 97002 Salt Spring Island, BC, Seattle,WA 98122-5208
503 678-6348(Phone and FAX) V8K-1A3, CANADA 206-323-8325(Phone&FAX)
www.champoegnursery.com 250-537-5788 busheriohnaearthlink.net
thimble L'Dsaltspring.com rhodygarden.org/cros/madrona-nursery
www.thimblefarms.com
Classic Nursery Friendly Natives Plants&Design Methow Natives Nursery
16215 140th Place NE 2464 Happy Valley Rd. 19 Aspen Lane
Woodinville,WA 98072 Sequim,WA 98382 Winthrop,WA 98862
425-885-5678 206 387-5943 509-996-3562
info a(�classicnursery.com lissa friendlynatives.net methownatives@meth own et.com
www.classicnursery.com www.friendlynatives.net www.methownatives.com
Cloud Mountain Farm Garden Sphere Molbak's Garden and Home
6906 Goodwin Road 3310 N.Proctor 13625 NE 175th St.
Everson WA 68247 Tacoma WA 98407 Woodinville WA 98072
360-966-5859 253-761-7936 425-483-5000
info a()couldmountainfarm.com FAX:253-752-5575 contact us(a.molbaks.com
www.cloudmountainfarm.com customerservice a()gardensphere.biz hftps://www.molbaks.com
hftp://gardensphere.biz
Deeproots Landscaping& Go Natives! Nursery" MsK Rare Plant Nursery
Nursery Don Norman Kruckeberg Botanic Garden
PO Box 522 2112 NW 199t' 20312 15th Ave NW
7975 N. Dryden Rd. Shoreline,WA 98177-2345 Shoreline,WA 98177-2166
Dryden,WA 98821 gonativesOa Qmail.com 206-546-1281
509 782-2639 FAX 509 782-9020 www.gonativesnursery.com www.kruckeberg.org/msk-nursery/
info a()deeprootslandscapes.com
www.deeprootslandscapes.com
Derby Canyon Natives** Gray Barn-Pacific Topsoils Northwest Gardener's Nursery
9750 Derby Canyon Rd, Box 385 20871 Redmond Fall City Rd. NE PO Box 12486
Peshastin,WA 98847 Redmond WA 98053 Mill Creek WA 98082
509 548-9404(Phone&FAX) 425-898-8265 360-668-8755 FAX:360-668-6095
ted aederbycanyonnatives.com sales@pacifictopsoils.com Toll free:888-633-8977
www.derbycanyonnatives.com www.graybarn.com
RETAIL NURSERIES
Plantasia Design Center& Tadpole Haven Native Plants
Natives Northwest Botanical Gardens Shirley Doolittle-Egerdahl,owner
190 Aldrich Rd 2838 Sandtrap Ct.SW 20314 197th Ave NE
Mossyrock,WA 98564-9609 Olympia,WA 98512 Woodinville,WA 98072
360 983-3138 FAX 360 983-8588 360 754-4321 425-788-6100
Evonne Peryea By appointment:click for directions
www.plantasiagardens.com growing(a tadpolehaven.com
f www.tadpolehaven.com
Olympic Nursery Plants of the Wild(Seeds,Inc.)** Valley Growers Nursery&Landscape
16507 140th Pl. NE PO Box 866 30570 S Barlow Rd, PO Box 610
Woodinville,WA 98072 Tekoa,WA 99033-0866 Hubbard,OR 97032
425 483-9254 FAX 425 485-9451 509-284-2848 FAX 509-284-6464 503-651-3535 FAX 503-651-3044
salescDolympicnursery.com Kathy(o)plantsofthewild.com vlygrwrsaweb-ster.com
www.olymoicnursery.com www.plantsofthewild.com www.valleygrowers.com
Oregon Native Plant Nursery Rogers Country Nursery& Wildflowers NW'
PO Box 886 Gardens 27442 SE 216th St.
Woodburn,OR 97071-0886 2075 Seabeck Highway NW Maple Valley,WA 98038-6337
503-981-2353 Bremerton WA 98312 206-715-4016
oregonnativeplanta()vahoo.com 360478-0288 wildflowersnwc-�gmail.com
www.kitsapcountrynursery.com www.Wildflowersnw.com
chris@kitsapeountrynursery.com
Willamette Wildlings
Pacific Rim Institute for Seattle Native Plants 80692 Turkey Run Rd.
Environmental Stewardship" Burien WA 98168 Creswell,OR 97426
180 Parker Rd. 206-956-7313 541-767-9142
Coupeville,WA 98239 info anseattlenativeplants.com natives anwillamettewildlings.com
360-678-5586 www.seattlenativeplants.com https://willamettewildlinQs.com
holly 5C pacificriminstitute.org Retail seed store:
www.pacificriminstitute.org By appointment only https://sguareup.com/market/willamettewildlings-
seed
Woodbrook Nursery**
Pacific Rim Native Plant Sky Nursery Location:5919 78th Ave. NW
Nursery 18528 Aurora Avenue N Gig Harbor,WA 98335
43359 Hillkeep Place Shoreline WA 98133 253-265-6271 FAX 253-265-6471
Chilliwack, BC V2R 1A9 206-546-4851 Cellular:253-225-1900
CANADA sky()skynursery.com wood brk a(�harbornet.com
604-792-9279 FAX:604-792- www.skynursery.com www.woodbrooknativeplantnursery.com
1891 plants @hillkeep.ca
www.hillkeep.ca
Park Place Gardens Nursery Sound Native Plants** Woods Creek Nursery
(PPGN) PO Box 7505 21008 Woods Creek Rd.
139 Kidd Creek Ln Olympia,WA 98507 Monroe,WA 98272
Onalaska,WA 98570 360-3524122 FAX 360-867-0007 360-794-6823 FAX 360-805-4356
360 978-4504,360 623-0186 cathy cDsoundnativeplants.com info aa�woodscreeknursery.com
FAX 360-9784367 www.soundnativeplants.com www.woodscreeknursery.com
solutions(a)ppgn.com
www.ppgn.com
Working with Nature
Plantas Nativa LLC** Swanson's Nursery 4819—49th Ave.SW
210 E Laurel 9701 1511 Ave.NW Seattle WA 98116
Bellingham,WA 98226 Seattle WA 98117 206-419-1836
360 715-9655, FAX 360 734-6612 206-762-2443 Kimberly.leeperl2(o)gmail.com
bay(cD-plantasnativa.com gardenaa.swansonsnursery.com
www.plantasnativa.com www.swansonsnursery.com
Zenith Holland Gardens
23260 Marine View Dr. So.
Des Moines,WA 98198
206 878-7002
Zenith hollancl(Wunbox.com
www.zenithholland.com
Appendix P.
Landscaper Bid
Estimate
Name/Address
ALPINECrater Land Use Consulting
477 Parpala Rd
EXCAVATION& LANDSCAPING Naselle WA 98638
8155 Ne View Ridge Ln
Poulsbo WA 98370
(360)2042635
Date Estimate No. Project
04/04/20 292
Item Description Quantity Cost Total
Site Work Planting 140 western red cedar(thuja plicata) 1 gal, 8,630.00 8,630.00
460 douglas fir(pseudotsuga menziesii) 1 gal. on
5832 SE Arcadia Rd. as descrive on preliminary
planting plan. Ryan crater will mark the location for
each tree. "plus tax"
9.00% 0.00
Thank you for your business Total $8,630.00
Appendix Q.
MCC Resource Ordinance — Best Management
Practices
MASON COUNTY RESOURCE ORDINANCE -APPENDIX C
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLANS
DURING CONSTRUCTION
• Perform any excavation and grading work during dry weather
• Install silt fencing around the work area to prevent erosion and siltation of marine and riverine
waters.
• Minimize amount of erodible soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible.
• Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should occur offsite.
Don't store any fuel, lubricants, chemicals, or hazardous substances overnight within the project
area.
• Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain.
• Comply with all permits and requirements of the government authority or agency,
Stream Buffer Protection
Existing trees and other native vegetation within the stream buffer should again be left undisturbed
in areas outside of the proposed construction zone. Any storage or stockpiling of construction
materials associated with construction or ensuing occupancy of the residence should take place
within a designated construction zone in order to limit impacts to the buffer. The banks and
channel of the stream should not be used for foot traffic since this would damage vegetation and
increase erosion along the stream channel. Logs that currently exist within the stream channel
should not be removed or disturbed and future downed woody debris should be encouraged.
Nurse Log Placement
Overstory trees at least 4 inches diameter at breast height removed from the reduced buffer
should be placed within the protected buffer to proved nurse log habitat. The logs could be
segmented into 10-15 foot pieces to facilitate transport but would best be left as long as possible.
It is recommended that these logs be placed randomly throughout the buffer to mimic natural
distribution.
Construction Phase Best Management Practices
An increase in the amount of impervious surface is a concern whenever new buildings are
constructed. Impermeable surfaces, such as roads, rooftops and drive ways, cause more rain to
run off at accelerated rates and less water to infiltrate back into the soil (Leedy and Adams 1984).
To prevent increased erosion and impacts to water quality, runoff from the building and other
impervious surfaces may require a storm water management plan that diverts this runoff away
from the ground surface and back into the ground. Other good examples of Low Impact
Development techniques are provided in the "Low Impact Development Technical Guidance
Manual for Puget Sound" prepared by Puget Sound Action Team and WSU Extension 2005.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) need to be adhered to throughout the construction phase.
• Appropriate erosion control devices, such as silt fencing, mulch berms, and erosion control
matting should again be used if needed during all aspects of the construction phase to mitigate
potential erosion and runoff into the stream.
• The most important goal during the construction phase is to consolidate the time period in which
heavy earthmoving machinery is used. Earthwork activities should be implemented during the
driest season of the year to minimize the risk of erosion-relate impacts to the stream. Any work
requiring use of this type of equipment (such as site grading, road building, grubbing, cutting and
filling) should also be implemented over short periods or events. This should avoid continued and
prolonged disturbance of the environment with heavy equipment, as would be the case if the work
occurred over multiple and/or unconsolidated events.
• Construction activities should be confined to discrete areas of the site to minimize disturbance to
native vegetation in the buffer.
• No construction debris or supplies should be placed in existing forested areas or anywhere along
the stream bank.
• Coinciding with, or immediately subsequent to the completion of the construction work, the
restoration and stabilization of bare ground should occur. Restoration and stabilization phases
include the application of a native seed mix and landscape stabilization of any cut and filled areas.
Native species of plants should be used in transition zones between the construction area and
undisturbed native vegetation.
The suggested BMP's focus on reducing increases in impervious surfaces, preserving hydrologic
functions, and controlling potential adverse impacts to water quality.
• Clearly mark clearing limits with orange construction fencing:
• Install silt fencing at the clearing limits to prevent surface runoff, erosion , and water quality
degradation;
• Cover or mulch bare areas to prevent surface erosion
• Hydroseed disturbed areas with a slurry of native grass seed, mulch, and tackifier as soon as
possible following completion of construction and at a minimum before the onset of fall rains;
RE-VEGETATION AND PLANTING
Earthwork
No machinery earthwork will be necessary to implement this restoration plan; planting holes for
specified vegetation installation will be hand dug. No additional clearing or grading should be
required for site restoration.
Native Plantings
It is recommended that native plantings be installed within 10 foot wide restoration zones in linear
strips extending across the site parallel to the edge of the buffer to achieve the following densities:
Trees - 10' on center
Shrubs - 5' on center
Ferns - 4' on center
The general plan calls for installing single trees, or clusters of three shrubs, on approximate 10-
foot centers. Each row will alternate between 5 trees + 3 shrub clusters or 4 trees +4 shrub
clusters starting from the edge closest to the identified critical area proceeding to the edge of the
buffer. Specifically for stream ravine replanting, cedar will be the first type of tree installed within
the first row at the top of the ravine, and then incrementally changing one cedar tree to a fir
through the first six rows, with all fir trees thereafter or to the edge of the buffer whichever comes
first. Exact placement of installed materials will be up to the landscape installer, following the basic
10-foot spacing pattern prescribed. Finally, a native ground cover planting or sword fern will be
randomly installed throughout the planting row on average four-foot centers. These densities have
been selected to provide a moderately dense, structurally diverse plant community within the
restoration area. Volunteer native vegetation can be counted towards the target densities of
restoration plants. Typical native plant species that may be used with the restoration zone include:
Trees: Western red cedar(Thuja plicata) 2 or 3 gallon
Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) 2 or 3 gallon
Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) 2 or 3 gallon
Grand fir(Abies grandis) 2 or 3 gallon
Cascara (Rhamnus purshiana) 2 or 3 gallon
Cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) 2 or 3 gallon
Shrubs: nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) 1 gallon
salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 1 gallon
salal (Gaultheria shallon) 1 gallon
evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium 1 gallon
ovatum
twinberry(Lonicera involucrate) 1 gallon
snowberry (Symphorocarpus albus) 1 gallon
elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) 1 gallon
red osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera) 1 gallon
Ferns: sword fern (Polystichum munitum) 1 gallon
All planting should occur during winter dormancy. The optimum time for planting is from February
to March.
Installation
Installation of the prescribed vegetation will be performed by qualified landscapers familiar with
planting of native vegetation in natural settings. Installation will be performed only after home
construction on the property is completed to avoid damage to the plantings from construction
activities. All installed vegetation shall be marked with colored flagging to facilitate monitoring
inspections. A separate "as-built" plan will be provided by the landscaper if the planting pattern or
schedule deviates from that listed within this document.
Fertilizing
Artificial fertilizer may be applied to each planting hole in the form of"slow-release" tablets or
some other similar material. However, general broadcast fertilization MAY Not be used within the
landscape planting area.
Maintenance
Maintenance of the installations will be the responsibility of the landscape installer. Maintenance is
to include and weeding or watering necessary to ensure plant survival for up to one year after the
date of installation.
Habitat Conservation Measures
In general, proposed measures to protect habitat focus on promoting natural succession of native
plant communities and increasing structural diversity and complexity.
• Minimize clearing and conversion of forest habitats to other uses, particularly within the stream
and lake buffers;
• Retain larger conifers wherever possible; if trees are removed, use/retain large woody debris
(LWD) in native plant communities to be retained. Retained LWD can be installed vertically or
horizontally to provide habitat for woodpeckers, including pileated woodpecker.
• Retain and/or salvage downed large woody debris and western red cedar stumps;
• Thin dense, immature (sapling) red alder and underplant with native conifers to promote more
rapid natural succession to later serial phase forest types;
• Enhance native plant communities by removing invasive and non-native species, such as
Himalayan blackberry, and planting native trees and shrubs;
• Plant native shrubs and trees in the stream buffer, such as willows (Salix sp.), re-osier dogwood
(Cornus sericea); and black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata). These will increase structural
diversity and buffer functions, such as retention of organic matter and increasing shade and
thermal protection.
MONITORING THE SUCCESS OF THE PLANTING
Monitoring of the installed vegetation will be performed annually for three years following
installation. Monitoring will entail inspection of each planted specimen for survival and vigor, and
will be performed in August or September of each monitoring year. In addition, two photo points
will be established that portray the planting area from each side of the property. A brief letter report
summarizing monitoring findings will be submitted to Mason County Planning by 1 October of each
monitoring year.
Contingency
If mortality of the installed vegetation exceeds 10% for trees, 20% for shrubs and ferns, all dead
materials will be replaced a 1:1 ratio. If mortality is related to an inappropriate species for the site
conditions, adjustments to the Plant Schedule may be made to replant with a species more like to
survive.
Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following tree planting and maintained on a seasonal
basis. The information gathered will provide the following:
1. condition of reintroduced plant species;
2. the use of the site by wildlife species;
3. any disturbance caused by the development and its effect on protected zones and associated
aquatic habitat;
4. any occurrence of exotic species within the restoration zones;
5. any corrective measures that may be deemed necessary to provide desired conditions. This
monitoring will be in effect for the duration of three years. The information gathered will be
provided in an annual report and submitted to the Director of Mason County Department of
Community Development.
ON-GOING HOMEOWNER RESPONSIBILITIES
Suggested BMP focus on reducing increases in impervious surfaces, preserving hydrologic
functions, and controlling potential adverse impacts to water quality.
• Infiltrate clean runoff from impervious surfaces such as roofs using infiltration trenches to
maximize groundwater recharge. Avoid using roofing materials, such as zinc-coated products, that
could contribute metals to surface waters;
• Properly maintain septic system to avoid septic system failure;
• Landscape with native plants and use mulch and drip irrigation to reduce water consumption,
conserve water, and reduce cumulative help maintain instream flows in downstream surface
waters;
• Use low flow toilets and shower heads to conserve water and reduce water consumption;
• Avoid use of herbicides and pesticides, which may adversely affect native flora and fauna, as
well as pest species;
• Use porous pavement or gravel instead of asphalt or concrete for the driveway to reduce
stormwater runoff; use biofiltration swales or infiltration trenches to promote removal of pollutants
and promote groundwater recharge.
Home Owners Best Management Practices
Residents living by the unique stream environments have a continuing responsibility for
maintaining the conditions that provide the function of the stream.
• Soil or yard waste must not be dumped anywhere within the buffer so that it may enter the
stream.
• Runoff from the building and other impervious surfaces should be directed to sub-surface
trenching that diverts runoff away from the ground surface and back into the ground, or according
to the stormwater management plan that has been approved for the site. The erosion of soil or the
forming of channels should be prevented. These efforts will prevent increased erosion and impacts
to water quality.
• The occupants of the residence should also promote landscaping with native species.
• Landscaping around the construction zone should be compatible and blend with the native
buffer.
• Bird boxes should be built or purchased and placed on the property to promote avian wildlife.
Bird boxes can be built and placed on snags or live trees according to the bird species
requirements that may be most likely to utilize habitat at the site. Guidance on bird boxes is
available from the Mason Conservation District.
Stream Buffer Protection
• Existing trees and other native vegetation within the stream buffer should again be left
undisturbed.
• Any storage or stockpiling of materials should take place outside of the buffer in order to limit
impacts to the buffer.
• The banks and channel of the stream should not be used for foot traffic since this would damage
vegetation and increase erosion along the stream channel.
• Logs that currently exist within the stream channel should not be removed or disturbed and future
downed woody debris should be encouraged.
Functions and values of the forested area between the proposed residence and the marine
shoreline should be maintained through the following measures.
• Do not remove overstory trees (view corridors can be established or maintained by limbing the
trees to the minimum extent necessary)
• Shoreline access should be limited to a 3-foot wide path, with stairs when necessary, to
concentrate all foot traffic through a single corridor.
• Species such as English Ivy and Himalayan blackberry should be removed and prevented from
further invading the site. This can be accomplished through persistent cuttings during the growing
season.
• Sites where invasive species are removed should be replanted using native species.
Appendix R.
Qualifications
Ryan E. Crater
Principal Consultant and Ecologist
Professional Experience: 14 years
Ryan E. Crater is a professional land use planner and ecologist with a diverse background
including but not limited to land use regulations, critical area regulations, performing fish surveys,
habitat assessments, habitat monitoring, stream habitat assessments, plant surveys and wetland
delineations. Ryan also has approximately 10 years of experience as a planner reviewing wetland
delineation reports and verifying their results in the field.
Ryan earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology from the Evergreen State College in 2005
and an associate degree in Environmental Science from Clover Park Technical College in 2003.
While attending Clover Park, he received formal wetland delineation training both in the classroom
and in the field. In October 2019, he completed the 2-day Coastal Training Program Course
entitled "Using the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System (2014) in Western
Washington". Ryan received additional wetland delineation training while he was a Wetland
Biologist Intern for the Washington State Department of Transportation. He has also taken
additional graduate level courses in salmonid behavior and life history from the Evergreen State
College.
All field inspections, wetland delineation determinations, habitat assessments, and supporting
documentation, including this report were prepared by, or under the direction of Ryan E. Crater.
MASON COUNTY
• COMMUNITY SERVICES
Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health
To: Whom It May Concern
From: Michael MacSems, Mason County Planning Dept
Date: August 28, 2020
Re: Mason Environmental Permit w/Restoration Plan for John and Darlene Castle
Consolation Opportunity:
Consistent with section 8.52.275.A of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, I am
sending you a copy of the Castle Mason Environmental Permit(MEP)with a Restoration
Plan by Crater Land Use Consulting. Please let me know if you have any question or
comments by September 11th.In the event that no comments are received from a
particular department or agency,within the comment window,the Planning Department
will assume that there are not any concerns. Comments can be sent to me by e-mail at:
mans s a co_Mason.vya..us.
Project Background:
John and Darlene Castle applied for a permit to short subdivide their 14.8 acre parcel into
two lots in 2019. A routine site visit determined that trees had been cut in the buffer of a
designated F-stream. The cutting was originally thought to be a violation of both the
Resource Ordinance(MCC 8.52.170) and forest practice rules, though on further
investigation the cutting was determined to be a Class I. As a result,the Castles hired
Crater Land Use Consulting to determine the extent of the damage and to write a
restoration plan. The Castles applied for a Mason Environmental Permit, as a vehicle to
review the restoration plan.
If you have any questions,please call me at ext. 571 or e-mail at mms@po_masonwa-us.
Thank you.
Contact List:
Wash Dept of Fish&Wildlife
Department of Ecology
Squaxin Tribe
Michael MacSems
From: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 1:44 PM
To: Michael MacSems; szaniewski@squaxin.us; Cook, Allison E (DFW)
Subject: RE: Castle MEP
Michael,
I have two comments on the restoration plan:
1. Three years is a pretty short period of time to determine whether the replanting will be successful. We usually
require ten years of monitoring for wetland mitigation or restoration sites. I don't know what your code
allows/requires, but if you are able to require a longer monitoring period, I would recommend that, along with
performance standards for subsequent years.
2. They should include something in the monitoring report about using herbicides to control weeds near the
stream.The Department of Ag has licensing requirements for herbicide use in or near waterways. Here's the
condition we use for water quality certifications: "Aquatic herbicides can be used or applied only by certified
applicators or persons under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, and only for those uses covered by
the certified applicator's license category.Applicators are required to be permitted under Ecology's Noxious
Weed Control Permit.Applicators shall comply with all conditions of the Noxious Weed Control Permit." You
may want to consider having them include something like this in the restoration plan.
Rebecca RAwell
Wetlands and Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology I Southwest Regional Office I desk:360-407-7273;cell:360-810-0025
300 Desmond Drive SE, Lacey,WA 98503 1 PO Box 47775 Olympia,WA 98504-7775
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
Ecology's offices are closed until further notice as we adhere to a statewide effort to slow the spread of the coronovirus.
From: Michael MacSems<Mms@co.mason.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 1:28 PM
To:szaniewski@squaxin.us; Cook,Allison E (DFW) <Allison.Cook@dfw.wa.gov>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
<re bs461 @ ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Castle MEP
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM -Take caution not
to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the link
Hello,
Here is the formal consultation request memo that I couldn't send with the restoration plan.
Rebecca, are you the right person at ECY to talk to about a stream issue?
Thanks,
1
Michael MacSems
Planner/Subdivisions and Forest Practices
360-427-9670 ext. 571
mms@co.mason.wa.us
From: Michael MacSems<Mms@co.mason.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 1:12 PM
To: szaniewski@squaxin.us; Cook, Allison E (DFW)<Allison.Cook@dfw.wa.gov>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
<re bs461 @ ECY.WA.GOV>
Cc: Michael MacSems<Mms@co.mason.wa.us>
Subject: FW: Castle MEP
Hello Allison, Rebecca, and Sarah,
I am reviewing a restoration plan for unauthorized cutting in an F-stream buffer on a trib of Mill Creek. If you have any
comments or advise on this case, please let me know by 9/11.
1 have formal consultation request memo, but due to the size of the main document, I'll have to attach it to a separate e-
mail.
Thank you.
Michael MacSems
Planner/Subdivisions and Forest Practices
360-427-9670 ext. 571
mms@co.mason.wa.us
z
(2)
The restoration plan shall meet or exceed all applicable minimum requirements for mitigation
outlined within the applicable chapter or chapters. For example, restoring a stream buffer
(FWHCA) shall require a restoration plan that meets all applicable requirements for a habitat
management plan. Where this subsection 8.52.275 and the applicable critical area chapter(s)
differ, the most restrictive provisions apply.
(3)
In preparing and approving the restoration plan, the applicant and the county, respectively, should
consult with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Natural
Resources, and the Department of Ecology as appropriate.
(4)
The restoration plan shall be prepared at the applicant's cost and shall be approved by the
director. The director may approve, reject or approve the plan with conditions. All restoration shall
be consistent with the approved restoration plan.
(B)
Monitoring. In any designated critical area where restoration has been required, the applicant, at
its own cost, shall provide for monitoring of the site by a qualified biologist or other qualified
professional, for a period of three years after completion. The applicant shall submit an annual
report to the director which discusses:
(1)
The condition of introduced or reintroduced plant species;
(2)
The condition of open water areas or other water features;
(3)
Use of the site by fish and wildlife species;
(4)
Any disturbances or alterations and their affects on the restoration;
(5)
Additional or corrective measures which should be taken to ensure the success of the restoration;
and
(6)
Other information which the director considers necessary to assess the status of the restoration.
(C)
Restoration Bond. Prior to commencing restoration of a critical area or buffer, the applicant shall
post with the director a bond or other security in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of
conformance with the conditions of the restoration plan, including corrective work necessary to
provide adequate drainage, stabilize and restore disturbed areas, remove sources of hazard
associated with work which is not completed, as well as to provide for maintenance and
monitoring. After the director determines that restoration has been completed in compliance with
approved plans and the monitoring period has expired, the bond or other security shall be
released. The county may collect against the bond when work which is not completed is found to
be in violation of the conditions set forth in the restoration plan and/or the director determines that
the site is in violation of the purposes of this chapter.
• 8.52.275 - Restoration/reparation.
SHARE LINK TO SECTIONPRINT SECTIONDOWNLOAD (DOCX) OF SECTIONSEMAIL
SECTIONCOMPARE VERSIONS
When a critical area or buffer has been impacted (by clearing, construction, or other activity)
in violation of this chapter, the area shall be restored and maintained, per a restoration plan
approved by the director, and no permit or approval or development of the property shall be
authorized or granted for a period of up to three years from completion of restoration as
determined by the director. In the event of intentional or knowing violation of this chapter, the
county may bring an action against the owner of the land or the operator who committed the
violation.
(A)
Restoration Plan.
The applicant shall submit a restoration plan prepared by a qualified biologist, plant ecologist, (1)
geologist or similarly qualified professional, as appropriate, which shall include as a minimum the
following:
(a)
Property owner name(s) and mailing address, parcel number(s), site address.
(b)
Site plan 1, drawn to scale, showing north arrow and parcel lines, and depicting site characteristics
prior to disturbance; the extent of disturbance, or permitted action requiring mitigation, including an
inventory of all vegetation cleared shall be shown;
(c)
Site plan 2, drawn to scale, showing north arrow and parcel lines, and depicting the specific
location of all proposed restoration measures. Those measures shall include:
(i)
Measures necessary to restore the critical areas or their buffers/vegetation area, including removal /
of fill, regrading to original contours, if necessary, replacement of excavated material, revegetation/
of all cleared areas with native trees and/or plants and removal of structures, or
Location of the proposed mitigation actions and ownership;
A schedule for restoration;
(e)
An annual monitoring plan to evaluate the success of the restoration and provide for amendments
to the plan which may become necessary to achieve its purpose; and
(f)
A bond or security estimate for the entire mitigation/restoration, maintenance, and monitoring
activities.
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT
August 28,2020
This is a Notice of Application as required by the Mason County Development Code 15.07.010.Notice to
be posted on site and mailed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of subject property.
Applicant Name: John and Darlene Castle
Date of Application: July 17,2020
Date of Finding of
Completeness: August 14,2020(Statutory)
Case Number(s): MEP 2020-00012
Parcel Number(s) 22030-40-00010
Location of Project: Portion of SE'/4,Section 30,Township 20.,Range 2 W.,WM.
Description of Project: The purpose of this MEP is to restore a portion of an F-stream buffer
that was cut over a period of time in violation of MCC 8.52.170.
Approvals,Actions
and Required Studies: This MEP is subject to administrative approval from the Mason County
Department of Community Development.
Public Comment
Period: Fourteen days from the date of this notice.Any comments should be directed to
the staff member listed below.
Existing Environmental
Documents: Habitat Management/Restoration Plan by Crater Land Use Consulting(2020)
County Staff Contact: Michael MacSems,360427-9670 ext 571 or mms@co.mason.wa.us
Date,Time&Place of
Scheduled Public Meeting:No public meetings required.
Timeline for Final
Action: Final action shall follow within(the standard) 120 days from date of a Finding
of Completeness(plus stays—clock stops—for preparation and review of any
required studies).
Signed By: Date:
Castle Vegetation Management Plan
(Plant List & Estimated Costs)
Project Location: Date: April 2020 Created by:
5832 Arcadia Rd.,
Mason County, WA Crater Land Use Consulting
PLANT LIST
Common Name, Scientific Name Quantity Unit/Size —Unit Price* Cost*
Western Red Cedar, (Thuja plicata) 140 3 year seedling
Douglas Fir, (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 460 3 year seedling
Subtotal: $271.00
MONITORING/INSTALLATION
Plant Installation Coordination Tree's are installed already
As-Built Installation Plan/ Initial Monitoring Report 1 each $1,200.00 $1,200.00
Monitoring Report w/Site Visit (years) 5 each $675.00 $3,375.00
Subtotal: $4,575.00
Notes:
Total Estimated Cost:1 $4,846.00
8/27/2020 Mail-Mms@co.mason.wa.us
Re: Castle MEP Follow Up
Ryan Crater <ryan@craterluc.com>
Wed 8/26/2020 5:31 PM
To:Michael MacSems <Mms@co.mason.wa.us>;
1 attachments(38 KB)
Castle Planting Plan_Final.pdf;
Hi Michael,
It is risky planting outside of the recommended planting season.Mr.Castle moved forward with that on his own without my involvement, but I
did do a quick site visit right after the trees were installed.They seemed good at that time, but were small and hard to see in the brush. I am not
sure how the trees have done over the summer, but this could be addressed with the"as-built"plan and initial monitoring report. If trees are
found to be dead...they will be marked and identified for replacement.
I noticed that I didn't include an estimate for the vegetation and monitoring, so I have attached that as supplemental information to the existing
HMP for your review. Not sure if the County will require any bonding, but if you do the attached sheet provides a cost estimate.
I would recommend at least a five(5)year monitoring plan being that the trees were only three(3)years old.You could cut it down to three(3)
years if the monitoring reports indicate a successful outcome.
I have not contracted with Mr.Castle for the monitoring work. I don't think he is aware that this needs to be done.
If you need anything else on this one on my end...let me know.
Regards,
Ryan E. Crater
Principal Planner& Ecologist
Crater Land Use Consulting
(509)942-9309
www.craterluc.com
-ryan@crateduc.com
On Wed,Aug 26, 2020 at 3:30 PM Michael MacSems <MmsRco.mason.wa.us> wrote:
Ryan,
I just read through your plan and noted that the proper planting season is clearly stated. It seems pretty risky
that they planted in summer and seems like they will have a higher mortality rate and are more likely to
get dinged for re-planting in your monitoring report. Speaking of monitoring, did they contract with you for the
monitoring? If so, I need a copy, if not, do you know what they are thinking?
Thanks,
https://owa.co.mason.wa.us/owa/#path=/maiVinbox/rp 1/3
8/27/2020 Mail-Mms@co.mason.wa.us
Michael MacSems
Subdivision, Forest Practices, Historic Preservation
Mason County Permit Assistance Center and Building and Planning Departments are currently closed to the
public. Staff are continuing to work for you either from home, in the field or in the office. To find out how we
are operating TODAY, please visit: http://www.co.mason.wa.us/community-services/building index.php.
From: Ryan Crater<ryan@craterluc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 2:24 PM
To: Michael MacSems
Subject: Re: Castle MEP
Hi Michael,
Doing well, but swamped with work. Attached is the HMP/Restoration Plan for Mr. Castle.
Not sure if you know or not already, but he had the tree's installed already.
Best,
Ryan E. Crater
Principal Planner & Ecologist
Crater Land Use Consulting
(509) 942-9309
www.craterluc.com
-ryan@craterluc.com
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 1:27 PM Michael MacSems <Mms@co.mason.wa.us>wrote:
Hi Ryan,
I hope that you are doing well. I have the MEP application for the Castle stream buffer restoration, but I'm not
finding the restoration plan. I'm not sure if you gave me one back in the spring or if we just talked about it,
but either way, I don't seem to have one. Can you send me a copy as a PDF? If not, a mailed in hard copy is
okay too.
Thanks,
https://owa.co.mason.wa.us/owa/#path=/mail/inbox/rp 2/3