Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2014-000005, DDR2014-00043 and SHR2014-00014 Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 10/29/2014 Mason County Department of Planning Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279 Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670 December 18, 2014 Notice of Decision Case: SHR2014-000141 DDR2014-00043, and VAR2014-00005 Applicant: Barghausen Consulting Engineers. Parcel No. 32224-50-00025 Notice is hereby given that Barghausen Consulting Engineers, who is the applicant for the above-referenced Mason Count Shoreline Substantial PP Y Development Permit and Variance SHR2014-00014, a Development Regulations Variance DDR2014-00043, and Resource Ordinance Variance VAR2014-00005, has been ranted the three Variance. The request was reviewed on October g q i 14, 2014 by the Mason County Hearing Examiner and approved pursuant to the Mason County Title 17.50 Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations, specifically for Residential Development and Variance standards; the Development Regulations setback regulations; and the Resource Ordinance fish Et wildlife habitat conservation areas standards. The proposal was not subject to SEPA review. This is a final Count decision. No further appeals to the Count are available. f y f PP y Appeal of this decision may be made to the State Shorelines Hearing Board as regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal process. Time Limit for Action. Per the Mason County Code Title 15 - Development Code - No permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of more than five years. If actual construction of a development for which a permit has been granted has not begun within two years after the approval, the Hearing Examiner shall review the permit and upon a showing of good cause, may extend the initial two year period by permit for one year. Otherwise, the permit terminates; PROVIDED that no permit shall be extended unless the applicant has requested such review and extension before the Hearing Examiner PRIOR to the expiration date. Work on approved project must begin by January 2017. This permit expires January 25, 2020. If you have questions or require clarification on these issues,please contact Allan Borden,Senior Planner with Mason County Dept.of Community Development at 360-427-9670 x365. w — x s �z STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (360) 407-6300 RECEIVED JAN 0 5 2014 December 30, 2014 426 W: CEDAR ST: Allan Borden Mason County PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 Subject: Mason County Permit SHR2014-00014 Tom Barghausen- Applicant Incomplete Shoreline Variance Permit Dear Mr. Borden: On December 24, 2014,the Department of Ecology (Ecology)received the Mason County decision on the subject Shoreline Variance Permit for a reduced shoreline setback from the existing bulkhead and west property line for a proposed new residence located at 10801 NE Northshore Road, Belfair, on the Hood Canal shoreline. By law, Ecology must review all Variance Permits for compliance with: • The Shoreline Management Act(Chapter 90.58 RCW) • Ecology's Variance Permit approval criteria(Chapter 173-27-170 WAC) • The Mason County Local Shoreline Master Program After reviewing Variance Permits for compliance, Ecology must decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove them. Our Decision: We have determined that the permit filing was incomplete and therefore cannot be evaluated by our department as a"complete submittal", as defined in Chapter 173-27-130 WAC. The following items are needed to complete it: The submittal did not include exhibits 19 through 22. In addition, the Case Index is incomplete and only references the first 16 exhibits. Please provide the additional documents so that Ecology may begin its review of the proposal. Thank you. The development described in this permit MAY NOT LEGALLY BEGIN until this permit has been completed and properly evaluated by Ecology. ,a C�a What Happens Next? According to WAC 173-27-130(5), this permit is void until the information identified above is received by Ecology. The list of items required for a complete permit filing is set forth in WAC 173-27-130(3). The minimum information required on permit site plans and vicinity maps is set forth in WAC 173-27-180. Please send us the requested materials on or before January 29, 2015. If we do not receive the needed materials by this date we must return this incomplete permit to you. Please send the requested materials to: Rick Mraz Washington Department of Ecology Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Southwest Regional Office PO Box 47775 Olympia, WA 98504-7775 If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me at(360) 407-6221. Sin / 5 Rick Mraz PWS Wetland and Shore 1 ialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program cc: Tom Barghausen, Washington Federal Savings STATE w ��'L 1889 A y STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (360) 407-6300 February 12, 2015 RECEITVED FEB 2 0 2015 426 W. CEDAR_S_T. Barghausen Consulting Engineers Attn: Tom Barghausen 18215 72nd Ave S Kent, WA 98032 Re: Mason County Local Permit SHR2014-00014 Washington Federal Savings—Applicant Filed Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditioned Shoreline Variance Permit Dear Mr. Barghausen: On December 24, 2014, the Department of Ecology (Ecology)received the Mason County decision on your Shoreline Variance Permit to construct a single-family residence within the required shoreline setback for Hood Canal. By law, local governments must review all SDPs for compliance with: • The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) • Ecology's Substantial Development Permit approval criteria(Chapter 173-27-150 WAC) • The Mason County Local Shoreline Master Program. Local governments, after reviewing SDPs for compliance, are required to submit them to Ecology. Your approved application for a revised SDP was received by Ecology. By law, Ecology must review Variance Permits for compliance with: • The Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) • Ecology's Variance Permit approval criteria(Chapter 173-27-170 WAC) • The Mason County Local Shoreline Master Program. After reviewing Variance Permits for compliance, Ecology must decide whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove them. Our Decision: Ecology approves your Variance Permit,provided your project complies with the conditions required by Mason County and the following Ecology conditions: • The new residence shall be setback per the dimensions on Exhibit 24. No projection of the structure may extend into the shoreline setback. 0 Washington Federal Savings February 12, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Please note, however,that other federal, state, and local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit. What Happens Next? Before you begin activities authorized by this permit, the law requires you to wait at least 21 days from the date of this letter, which is the "date of filing." This waiting period allows anyone (including you) who disagrees with any aspect of this permit to appeal the decision to the state Shorelines Hearings Board. You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin the activities authorized by this permit. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We recommend that you contact the Shorelines Hearings Board before you begin permit activities to ensure that no appeal has been received. They can be reached at (360) 664-9160 or http://www.eho.wa.gov. If you want to appeal this decision, you can find appeal instructions (Chapter 461-08 WAC) at the Shorelines Hearings Board website above. They are also posted on the website of the Washington State Legislature at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac. If you have any questions, please contact Rick Mraz at (360)407-6221. Sinc , Pe J Lund, Unit Supervisor orelands and Environmental Assistance Program By certified mail: 7013 1710 0002 3967 8551 cc: Allan Borden, Mason County I 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Barghausen Consulting FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS Engineers, Inc. OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION. ✓ Resource Ordinance Variance 6 (VAR2014-00005), Development Regulation 7 Variance(DDR2014-00043) and Shoreline Variance 8 (SHR2014-00014) 9 10 INTRODUCTION 11 The applicant has applied for a Resource Ordinance shoreline buffer variance, a 12 Shoreline Master Program shoreline setback variance, a development standard side yard 13 variance and a development standard front yard variance in order to construct a 1,500 square foot, two-story single-family residence on the 1,530 waterfront portion of a 0.94 14 acre lot that is bisected into upland and waterfront portions by North Shore Road, 11 miles west of Belfair. The waterfront portion of the lot borders Hood Canal. The 15 Resource Ordinance variance is to reduce a 35 foot buffer to Hood Canal to 0 feet. The 16 Shoreline Master Program variance is to reduce the shoreline setback from 15 feet to 0 feet. The development standard variances are to reduce the front and western side yard 17 setbacks from the required 25 and 20 feet respectively to 0 feet. All variance applications are approved, but the proposed setback to the shoreline is increased in order to minimize 18 view impacts to the adjoining property to the northeast 19 ORAL TESTIMONY 20 Mr. Alan Borden stated that the staff report includes Exhibits 1 through 16. This is a 21 request for three variances: A resource ordinance variance, a development regulations variance, and a shoreline variance. The subject property is an undeveloped property 22 between North Shore Road and an existing concrete bulkhead on the shoreline. The other portion of the subject property is located up the slope on the north side of North Shore 23 Road and accesses a septic system that has been designed for this property. He noted that 24 the variances are all based on proposed setbacks for a proposed structure. The Staff Report is based upon the proposed setbacks. 25 Mr. Borden noted that Exhibit 6 shows a close-up of the property with the proposed residence, which shows a setback of zero from the bulkhead, zero from the southwest Variances P. 1 Findings. Conclusions and Decision property line, approximately 20 feet from the property to the northeast and zero from I North Shore Road. An email sent by Mr. Barghausen (representing the applicant) to Mr. 2 Borden on Thursday, 10/9/2014 (Exhibit 17) includes an 11 X 17 site plan showing the footprint of the proposed structure and the setbacks. This site plan demonstrates a 3 conceptual footprint and some of the attributes that are on the property such as the bulkhead, retaining walls already existing, proposed septic system, etc. Mr. Borden 4 noted that the existing retaining walls would have to be modified to accommodate the building. Part of Exhibit 17 is a comment from Mr. Barghausen regarding the staff report 5 recommendation dealing with additional plantings. Mr. Borden stated that Mr. 6 Barghausen was concerned with the requirement to do vegetation plantings and wanted to change that condition. 7 Mr. Borden stated that the staff report goes through each variance criteria and, using the 8 proposed setbacks, the application meets the criteria. He noted that he was contacted by the owner of the property adjacent to the east side of the subject property regarding 9 making comments during this hearing and said this got him to thinking about making 10 modifications to the proposal, which he would discuss after public comments. There is likely no proposal that could comply with all setbacks. The property is too small for even 11 a storage shed to meet the setbacks. Even with common line setbacks to the two existing properties, the residence on the east side is 14 feet from their bulkhead. The residence on 12 the west side is about 15 feet from the bulkhead, and also has a second story deck that overhangs that setback. The proposed structure is a 750sgft footprint on two stories. 13 There was concern that the proposed structure does not minimize view impacts, and Mr. 14 Borden considered requiring altering the floor plan to minimize view impacts. 15 According to Mr. Borden, the conditions noted in the staff report include erosion control, re-vegetating disturbed areas, prevention of the degradation of water quality, that the 16 provisions of the Geotech study should be followed, the restoration of native plantings 17 per the habitat management plan should be followed, as well as monitoring provisions. 18 Mr. Borden acknowledged that most slopes in the area are over 40 percent. The critical areas ordinance allows building on steep slopes. The staff report includes a description 19 from the engineering study, which noted that many slopes in the area are in excess of 60 percent, especially those close to North Shore Road. Based on this study,the groundwater 20 seepage associated with the toe of the slope does impact the ability to clear and grade on 21 the steep slopes. 22 Applicant 23 Mr. Barghausen of Barghausen Engineers, Inc. represents Washington Federal Savings, the owner of this lot. He stated that he has walked the site and has coordinated all of the 24 services that they used with this application. He prepared two large-scale exhibits to 25 illustrate all the constraints that affect the one-plus acre lot. Most of the lot is on the west side of North Shore Rd. and the slope is closer to 60 percent. There is a history of slides on the uphill road of North Shore Rd. In this proposal they are proposing to utilize the Variances p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision existing area that had been used in the past as a yard instead of going to the steep 1 northern side of the lot. Concrete retaining walls are already in existence. The walls may 2 possibly have been built by the County but they are very old and Mr. Barghausen is not sure of their history. What they are left with is a very tiny building area between the 3 right-of-way for North Shore Rd. and the shoreline high water mark. This is a small area with irregular dimensions. The only larger trees are on the east side. He stated that the 4 proposed building site is the only logical place to put any structure. Due to current ordinance and code, they don't have a feasible waterfront building area that would have 5 been available under the prior codes. They must utilize this legal building lot with an 6 existing cleared tiny area. From the bank's perspective, they are not proposing to build a house at this time. They just wan t to get through the title process that will give them 7 reasonable use of the property. Since they cannot do the things that were allowed in the old days they are trying to come up with some small usable building pad, and they have 8 assumed a two-story house because it can have a smaller footprint. 750sgft seems like a reasonable size. They needed to make room for a septic tank and they have a pending 9 application for approval for a septic system. He noted that it has taken a year or year-and- 10 a-half of work to get to this point. None of the existing site constraints were caused by the applicant. He states that there was clearly development on the two adjoining 11 properties that would be considered in violation today, and there are many other examples in the area of this type of deviation. 12 According to Mr. Barghausen, part of the approval process was to have a habitat 13 management study completed. Their conclusion was that the proposed plan would have 14 the least impact on the site as long as they followed conditions. Mr. Barghausen noted that he believes that the conditions should be in line with what the habitat management 15 study proposed. Exhibit 18 is a recommendation to delete conditions seven through nine, which all relate to additional plantings suggested by the staff, and replace it with the 16 conditions presented by the habitat management study. He stated that they were not 17 aware that there were neighbors concerned with their views and that the would like to hear what they have to say. The applicant is just trying to establish reasonable use for 18 this property. 19 Public Testimony 20 Kristen French, legal counsel for Janine Shepherd, the owner of the property immediately 21 adjacent to the east, presented an Opposition Notebook, entered as Exhibit 19. They are concerned that there is a failure to satisfy variance criteria with this request. She went 22 through the notebook briefly to describe the items included in the notebook. These include letters of objection from neighbors, a series of photographs, which illustrated the 23 concerns of her client, a parcel map and assessor records, and a review of the habitat management plan. She noted that two neighbors, Bill Carter and Patricia Lund, provided 24 letters stating their objections to the proposal. Using the contents of the notebook to 25 illustrate her points, Ms. French noted the following: Variances p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision The beige house on the site next to the subject property to the west is also owned I by Washington Federal Savings. The site of this adjacent home has been owned in 2 common with the subject site, and historically purchased as a set of three, along with the subject waterfront site and its associated upland section. They have been 3 owned and utilized as a single parcel at the time the bank financed the property. Ms. French suggested that this proposal appeared to be an attempt to increase 4 commercial profit as opposed to a good faith effort for investment and development. Now that the bank owns the property they are afraid that there is an 5 illegal attempt to make financial gain by manipulating the property. The trustee's 6 deed shows how the applicant came into possession of the parcel and the residential unit was acquired at the same time as the subject property. She stated that this 7 indicates the need for the variances from applicant's own actions since the property was owned and financed as a single site initially and the applicant acknowledged in 8 their materials that the subject site was used as recreational yard site. 9 Ms. French cited a 2006 preliminary report from the County regarding 10 development of the property. Lot 39 is the existing built property, and lot 40 is the subject property. At the county planner's pre-inspection the upland was identified 11 as a potential possible building site, and it was noted that the waterfront site was unlikely to be used as building site. She provided a photograph of the upland 12 portion of the subject property and stated that they do not believe it is conclusively unbuildable. The applicants have not demonstrated that the upland parcel is a non- option. The Geotech report indicates that the sub surface conditions are equivalent 14 in both the upland and waterfront sections. They believe that the applicant statement that the lower level is the only feasible building site is not supported. 15 The ease of building on an upper or lower slope should not be a factor when considering a variance. 16 There are no permit records that they have found for the existing bulkhead but they 1 have noted a substantial crack in the bulkhead. 18 With regard to the applicants claim that the neighborhood properties not following 19 setbacks and guidelines, there has been no reference to the history of these buildings as to whether or not they were permitted, what year they were built, etc. 20 She stated that just presenting the examples is not sufficient. 21 They had a review of the habitat management plan that raised several concerns 22 included in the opposition package. The Resource Ordinance and the Shoreline Master Program are designed to protect habitat and natural shoreline. In the Bill 23 Carter letter, he states that he has seen those trees actively used by bald eagles. They are afraid that the small stand of substantial mature trees will be removed. 24 They are concerned with the lack of mitigation from the applicant's habitat report. 25 The existing overwater deck has some substantial shading issues, which their reviewing biologist was surprised had not been addressed in the original report. Their biologist was concerned that the survey of the beach was conducted in April Variances p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2014 at low tide and that the dimensions of the area surveyed were not noted with I qualitative data. There were conclusory statements regarding storm water which 2 they don't believe can be appropriate made in advance of a storm water plan. There is concern that the habitat management plan lacks sufficient detail with regard to 3 replanting. 4 There is concern that an owner of one of the adjacent properties is in the military 5 and they do not know if he has been notified. 6 There is an aesthetic component to their concerns. Ms. French entered photos as Exhibits 20, 21, 22. Exhibit 20 is a rendition of the site with the proposed structure 7 looking from her client's property across the subject property. Exhibit 21 contrasts that with what her client now has as a view. Exhibit 22 shows what it would look 8 like if the trees were removed. 9 Janine Shepherd testified that her property borders the subject property to the east and 10 shares an easement stairway. She purchased her property in 2005. She has kept abreast of ongoing efforts to maintain the ecosystem on Hood Canal and has done her best to 11 keep informed on technical issues. She stated that she knows that the proposed site development would negatively impact her view and would negatively impact the value of 12 her property. She believes that the request for variances by the applicant is purely financially motivated. A viable building site exists on the up side of the lot. The applicant 13 should not be allowed to violate the shoreline mandates. The variances are not warranted 14 and do not conform to natural resource management. While current homes are built closer, these were built before the shoreline management was activated. She stated that a 15 smaller building would be in accordance with this set back, but does not meet the applicant's bottom line, which is purely financial. The goal of the shoreline setback is to 16 protect the Hood Canal shoreline. The staff report seems to have glossed over the variables. She noted that her house is a total of 509sgft on two stories and she is set back 1 15 feet from the shoreline. 18 Ms. French noted that the adjoining lot appears to be graded into the hillside so it is 19 difficult to know what the initial topography had been prior to development. In terms of site coverage, although she recognizes that the uplands are part of the lot, the subject site 20 would still would not meet impervious surface guidelines if built as planned. 21 Staff Rebuttal 22 Mr. Borden said he contemplated modifications of the footprint after completion of the 23 staff report. He has a proposal that he submitted as Exhibit 23 (Memorandum from Allan Borden, October 14, 2014), which is a site plan with modified dimensions. This includes 24 a map and description which superimposed a footprint on one of Barghausen's 25 illustrations. This proposal shows a building with setbacks as follows to make less view obscuring: Shoreline setback of 6 feet at west and 10 feet at east; West at 5 feet; East at Variances p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 10 feet; Road at zero. He did not have the exact square footage but estimates it to be 1 approximately 650 to 700sgft. utilizing some more of the eastern side of the property. 2 Mr. Borden noted that with this footprint, there would be approximately 14 feet from the 3 applicant's roofline of the house on the east to the bulkhead. The bulkhead on the Shepherd property is slightly in set towards her house. He stated that he attempted to 4 situate it so the building would be moved further away from Ms. Shepherd's property to be less obstructive. There will still be some blockage but it is less. Although it does not 5 meet the setbacks completely, it comes closer. The development variance would still have 6 to be reviewed because even with this footprint there would be the need. With regard to the property on the west side he has not studied view impacts and with regard to the trees 7 not all of them will have to be removed. The trees are fairly close together and some of them can be limbed to maintain privacy on the Shepherd side. 8 Ms. Shepherd stated that she did not realize that they would come back with the reduced 9 plan and while she appreciated the changes for her view, she does not think that it should 10 impact whether or not they get the variances. She indicated the photo that showed her house next to the beige house, and noted the proximity of the back of her house to the 11 deck on the beige house that overhangs the water. She noted that if the deck overhanging the water on the beige house remains and they build on the subject lot, eliminating its use 12 as a yard for the beige house, that deck will be used. Due to the overhang and proximity of the deck to her property line, it will be as if people on the deck are in her yard with 13 her. 14 Mr. Borden stated that he had no knowledge regarding the deck of the beige house 15 overhanging the water. 16 Applicant Rebuttal 17 Mr. Barghausen said he made modifications to the proposed changes suggested by Mr. 18 Borden. He stated that the proposed structure is a conceptual building envelope. The applicant was not aware of Mrs. Shepherd's concerns regarding her view, the trees, and 19 the deck overhanging the water on the existing house. The fact is that the possible house has not been designed yet. The reality is that a smaller footprint such as that demonstrated 20 by Mr. Borden would be a possibility. This would allow them to retain the trees if they 21 shifted the footprint over. The bank is not invested in the deck and he has no history on it. If retaining the trees and removing the deck were conditions in obtaining a building 22 permit that this would solve the issues raised by Ms. Shepherd and still allow the applicant to come up with the usable area. This deals with vegetation view and deck. As 23 to comments about the building site across North Shore Road, there is a stream in a gully coming down thq hill. The driveway was put in to install the septic field access. They 24 have dealt with building on steep slopes before but not over 40 percent. He states that 25 physically going into the hillside is more than a cost issue. There is seepage on the hillside, you have to be concerned with slides - there have been slides on that hill Variances p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision historically, the work involved digging into the side of a hill with a 60 percent slope. I building retaining walls,etc. is very difficult. It is a lot of water and very steep ground. 2 Mr. Barghausen noted that just because the lots were all maintained for single use does 3 not mean that they cannot at a later date be sold individually. The bank is not trying to make money for commercial gain, and they have already lost a lot of money on the 4 property. The bank is just trying to find that what they can do with a legal building lot. The Geotech study was done for the health department to demonstrate that they could do 5 a septic on that upper lot. He noted that if the Hearing Examiner had questions regarding 6 the studies he would respond. Mr. Barghausen submitted his proposed modifications (Exhibit 24). 7 Mr. Borden stated that in Mason County on state Route 106 there are lot of lots similar to 8 the proposed site that have a small waterfront lot portion on one side and across the road 9 a very steep slope above. EXHIBITS 1 l All exhibits identified in"Case Index" attached to the October 14, 2014 Staff Report. were admitted at hearing into the record, in addition to the following: l2 13 Exhibit 17 Email from Barghausen to Borden dated 10/9/2014 14 Exhibit 18 Applicant recommendation to delete conditions of approval in favor of habitat management plan 15 Exhibit 19 Opposition Notebook 16 17 Exhibit 20 Opposition photo rendition of impact to Shepherd 18 Exhibit 21 Current Shepherd view 19 Exhibit 22 Rendition of properties with trees removed 20 Exhibit 23 Staff proposed increase in shoreline setback 21 Exhibit 24 Applicant's proposed increase in shoreline setback 2; FINDINGS OF FACT 24 25 Procedural: l. Applicants. The applicant is Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Variances p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 2. Hearing. A hearing on the applications was held on October 14, 2014 at 2 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners meeting room. 3 Substantive: 4 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicants have applied for a Resource 5 Ordinance, a shoreline variance and two development standard variances in order to construct a 1,500 square foot, two-story single-family residence on the 1,530 6 waterfront portion of a 0.94 acre lot that is bisected into upland and waterfront portions by North Shore Road, 11 miles west of Belfair. The waterfront portion of 7 the lot borders Hood Canal. The Resource Ordinance variance is to reduce a 35 foot buffer to Hood Canal to 0 feet. The shoreline variance is to reduce the shoreline 8 buffer from 15 feet to 0 feet. The development standard variance is to reduce the 9 front and western side yard setbacks from the required 25 and 20 feet respectively to 0 feet. The proposed building envelope is more particularly described in the site plan 10 attached to the habitat management plan ("HMP"), Ex. 16. This decision only approves a reduced building footprint as depicted in Ex. 24. 11 The property on the shoreline side of North Shore Rd. is 0.06 acre (approximately 1,530 12 square feet area)(Exhibit 6), and the property on the upland side of North Shore Rd. is 13 0.88 acre (approximately 38,333 square feet area) (Exhibit 5). There is no existing home on the property. It is currently developed with a 6 to 7-ft tall concrete bulkhead, which is 14 located at the ordinary high water mark of Hood Canal. A series of retaining walls and steps descend from the county road down to the beach level. 15 The topography of the waterfront portion of the parcel is flat for 20 feet above the 16 bulkhead, then slopes up with retaining walls 12 feet to the county road. The topography 17 of the upland parcel slopes up from North Shore Road at a 40 percent or greater ascent o over 200 feet in a 470-foot distance (Exhibit 5), with slopes apparently approaching 60% 18 along North Shore Road. See Barghausen testimony and p. 5 of staff report. The septic system drainfields are located in this area above the county road and accessed by an 19 existing vehicle route. Some landscape vegetation is located on the shore side property, 20 while the upland parcel has native tree/shrub vegetation near the county road. 21 4. Characteristics of the Area. The area is nearly 11 miles west of Belfair, W along North Shore Rd. (Exhibit 7). Development in the vicinity to the east and west is 22 comprised of single family residences mainly along the south side of the county road; few residential buildings are sited on the north side, but steep slopes with substantial 23 seepage limit past and present development for parking (Exhibit 8 & 9). The residences 24 on the saltwater shoreline south of the county road have been constructed on individual properties over the years prior to the current Resource Ordinance shoreline setback 25 standards; setbacks of the residences from the shoreline Ordinary High Water Mark vary from 0 to 15 feet(Exhibit 8 & 11). Variances p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no adverse impacts associated 1 with the proposal. The applicant's HMP and geotechnical report establish that the proposal will not adversely affect any protected environmental resources. Project opponents raised several potential issues, the most pertinent of which are addressed individually below: 4 A. Bald Eagle. A couple neighboring property owners wrote letters stating they had identified the presence of bald eagles at the project site. See Ex. 19. Although bald eagles may have been present at the site, there is no 6 evidence in the record that the waterfront portion of the site has any bald eagle nests and it is very unlikely that the HMP would miss such an 7 important site feature. The HMP, written by a qualified fisheries biologist, concluded that the proposed development was "not likely to adversely 8 affect" bald eagles. The presence of bald eagles at the project site in the past is not inconsistent with this finding. There is nothing in the record to 9 reasonably suggest that building a home at a site that has been occupied by 10 bald eagles, but not used as a nesting place, would adversely affect bald eagles'. There is no expert opinion in the record of any kind disputing the 1 opinion of the author of the HMP that bald eagle will not be adversely affected. For these reasons, the conclusions of the HMP on impacts to 12 bald eagles (not likely to adversely affect)are determinative. 1' B. Eelgrass Survey. Project opponents at the hearing and their fisheries 14 biologist noted in Ex. 19(H)that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife ("WDFW") strongly prefers that eelgrass/microalgae surveys 1; be conducted between June 1 and October 1 to ensure that the full extent of eelgrass and macroalgae can be accurately mapped. However, this 16 WDFW preference relates to surveys that are required for aquatic surveys prepared for overwater or in-water structures such as docks as part of 1 hydraulic permit and other aquatic permit review. There is no over or in- 18 water construction involved with this project and no associated permits that would be triggered by over or in-water construction. Impacts to 19 aquatic resources for this proposal are more indirect, most significantly by stormwater discharges and loss of shading and insect supply by removal of 20 shoreline vegetation. Notably, the project opponent fisheries biologist did 21 not opine in Ex. 19(H) that the level of precision for aquatic habitat required for over or in-water construction is necessary for building a 22 waterfront home, only that the level of precision suffers in comparison to the analysis typically conducted for over or in-water construction. 23 24 ' Related to the issue of bald eagles, comments were made about the loss of trees for the eagles. The conditions of approval, via adopting the HMP recommendations, 25 requires the retention of vegetation that does not have to be removed for the proposal. Most of the trees on the property are located to the east, away from the building site. Variances P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision I New docks and bulkheads can clearly have a significant impact upon 2 underlying or adjoining eelgrass and kelp. For these types of structures a detailed survey taken at the time of year recommended by WDFW is clearly necessary. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the same level of precision is necessary for the indirect effects caused 4 by the construction of a single-family home. 5 C. Deck. Project opponents were concerned about the lack of environmental 6 analysis of impacts caused by the existing deck. The applicant proposes no changes to the deck. Only mitigation for the proposed improvements 7 can be legally required. The applicant cannot be made to mitigate pre- existing impacts. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that 8 the proposed single-family home will exacerbate deck impacts to any terrestrial or aquatic wildlife. 9 1 Although the proposal will not exacerbate impacts to terrestrial or aquatic wildlife, the proximity of the proposed home to the deck could certainly 1 1 increase its use, especially given the small size of the proposed home. As noted by the adjoining property owner to the northeast, Ms. Shepherd, and 12 as confirmed in photo exhibits, the deck juts out in front of her home and people using the deck would be looking right into her home. Given that 1' the proposed shoreline and Resource Ordinance variances will encroach 14 into Ms. Shepherd's view, a condition will be imposed requiring removal of the deck to help off-site the view impacts of the variances while also 15 mitigating against privacy impacts. 16 D. View Impacts. The proposed resource ordinance and shoreline variances unquestionably encroach into the shoreline view corridor of Ms. Shepherd, 17 as demonstrated in Ex. 20 and 21. The common line setback requirements 18 of the Resource Ordinance shoreline buffers reveals that one of the purposes of the Resource Ordinance shoreline buffers is to protect 19 shoreline views for neighboring properties. Consequently, it is clear that view impacts are to be considered significant in any assessment of a 20 Resource Ordinance buffer variance. The impacts are significantly 21 mitigated by the increase in the proposed shoreline setback proposed by Mr. Borden in Ex. 23. The further decreased footprint proposed by the 22 applicant in Ex. 24 also prevents encroachment into the only significant vegetation on the site, which has both significant environmental benefit as 2; well as serving to protect the privacy of Ms. Shepherd. The removal of the existing deck would also significantly off-set view impacts to Ms. 24 Shepherd in addition to creating a strong environmental benefit. As noted 2_ in numerous past examiner dock decisions, overwater construction causes `� shading impacts that can harm both aquatic habitat as well as endangered fish by adversely affecting migratory patterns. The combination of the Variances P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision required increase in shoreline setback along with removal of the deck l reduces view impacts to insignificant levels, especially when it is considered that existing vegetation on the northeastern side of the subject property already encroaches into Ms. Shepherd's view corridor. E. Habitat Management Plan Deficiencies. Ex. 19(H) identifies numerous 4 deficiencies in the HMP prepared by Amy Lietman, a well-qualified fisheries biologist who has extensive experience in assessing impacts to Hood Canal environmental resources. Ms. Lietman correctly notes that 6 the HMP overstates the conclusions of the applicant's geotechnical report. However,the conclusions of HMP still stand up when discounted for these 7 inaccuracies. 8 As pointed out by Ms. Lietman, the HMP should provide more detailed information on the amount of impervious surface that currently exists at 9 the site and the amount of vegetation that will be removed. However, site 10 photographs show that the amount of impervious surface is modest and there is nothing in the record that would reasonably suggest that more 1 1 information on this issue would be of any material assistance in assessing the impacts of the proposal. Ms. Lietman suggests that County limitations 1' on the amount of impervious surface should treat the waterfront portion of the subject lot as a separate lot (which could therefore make the precise l' amount of impervious surface more relevant), but the waterfront portion of 14 the lot has not been subdivided from the upland portion of the lot. The subject lot has been segregated into two separate lots for tax purposes, but 1; tax lot segregation has no bearing on the application of impervious surface standards. 16 17 Ms. Lietman notes that juvenile bocaccio rockfish and killer whales are not addressed in the HMP and that federal regulations designate Hood 18 Canal as critical habitat for these endangered species. The applicant does not dispute this assertion. Consequently, the conditions of approval will 19 require that the HMP be revised to address impacts to killer whale and juvenile boccacio rockfish habitat impacts. 20 21 Ms. Lietman asserts that a stormwater pollution prevention plan has not yet been prepared for the proposal. The conditions of approval will require completion of the pollution prevention plan prior to any construction. 2; Ms. Lietman also asserts that the HMP lacks a planting plan and that part 24 of the planting mitigation should include a mixture of larger trees and shrubs. The applicant does not present any expert testimony disputing Ms. Lietman's opinion on this issue. The conditions of approval will require a Variances P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision detailed planning plan that includes a mixture of larger trees and shrubs to 1 be approved by staff prior to any construction. 6. Necessity of Variances. The proposed variances as modified by this decision are necessary for the reasonable use of the property. Construction on the upland side of the property (north of North Shore Road) cannot be reasonably required and as noted 4 by Mr. Borden, there wouldn't be room to build a shed if the front, side and rear setbacks applying to the waterfront portion (south of the North Shore Road) were imposed. 6 As to buildingon the upland property, project opponents are correct that the building P P PertY� P j Pp g 7 potential of this area should be addressed. However, the slopes in this area are all greater than 40% and may approach 60% along North Shore Road according to the 8 staff report. As noted by project opponents, staff have considered the upland portion to be a potential building site in a site assessment conducted in 2006. See Ex. 19(G). 9 However, this does not establish that building into these steep slopes would be a 10 "reasonable" use of the land. Indeed, the staff report notes that there is significant groundwater seepage associated with the toe of the steep slope and that this further 11 impacts the ability of property owners to safely clear and grade a building envelope in the upland area. See staff report, p. 5. Project opponents also point to a home built 12 in the upland portion of another lot in the vicinity, but it appears that the slopes are less steep on that lot. The applicant's representative, a licensed engineer, testified 13 that building into these slopes would involve significant expense. A geotechnical 14 expert opinion on the feasibility of construction in this area would certainly be very useful in this analysis2. However, in the absence of that information the 15 preponderance of evidence still establishes that the costs of building into what could be up to 60% slopes, with the associated retaining walls and other measures necessary 16 to control groundwater, would be significant if not exorbitant. 17 It is also noteworthy that the historical development pattern along North Shore Road 18 shows a reasonable expectation that development of waterfront lots is allowed. As shown in aerial assessor maps such as Ex. 9 and as demonstrated in past examiner 19 decisions, a large number of lots along North Shore Road are bisected by North Shore Road leaving small waterfront portions with development constraints comparable to 20 the waterfront portion of the subject parcel. Despite this, the vast majority of these 21 lots are developed in the waterfront portion. Further, all applications for variances to build in these areas have been approved in prior examiner decisions. As testified by Mr. Borden, similar conditions also exist with SR 106, which also bisects shoreline 2 Project opponents argue that the applicant's geotech report concludes that 24 subsurface conditions are the same on the waterfront and upland portions of the parcel. This does not address the cost and feasibility of building into the 40-60% slopes of the upland portion, which would clearly differ significantly from building on the much flatter portions of the waterfront portion of the subject parcel. Variances p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision lots leaving waterfront portions that often can't be built without variances and upland I portions with steep slopes that can't be reasonably developed. All applications for 2 variance on the SR 106 lots have been approved as well. 3 As to the impacts of setbacks on the waterfront portion of the subject lot, the site plans of the record (such as that attached to the HMP) show that there is no room to 4 building any reasonably sized structure without a variance. As ultimately modified in Ex. 24, the building footprint with the requested variances is limited to 600 square 5 feet, which would allow for a 1,200 square foot two-story home at the maximum. 6 This is far less than the 2,550 square footprint considered to be minimum reasonable use under the Resource Ordinance, see MCC 17.01.150(E). The HMP notes that 7 surrounding homes have an average of 1168 square feet, which puts the proposal at an average size for the vicinity. 8 9 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 10 Procedural: 11 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I)provides the Examiner 12 with the authority to review and act upon variance applications. 13 Substantive: 14 2. Zoning Designation. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 ("RR-5"). 1; 3. Review Criteria and Application. The variance criteria for the Resource 16 Ordinance variance (request to modify 35 foot Hood Canal setback and 165 stream buffer) and development standard variances (front and side yard setbacks) are 17 governed by MCC 15.09.057. The resource criteria for the shoreline variance (request to modify 15 foot minimum setback) is governed by MCC 17.50.090. 18 Applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 19 20 RESOURCE ORDINANCE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARD VARIANCES 21 (MCC 17.01.110(D)(2)35 foot Hood Canal Setback;MCC 17.04.223(c)25 Foot Front Yard Setback;MCC 17.04.223(d)20 Foot Side Yard Setback(for western property line)) ?2 2; MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulb dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property 24 not otherwise prohibited by county regulations. 25 4. A single-family home is authorized in the RR5 zoning district. For the reasons outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the 35 foot Resource Ordinance buffer and Variances p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision the 20 foot side yard and 25 foot front yard variances would significantly interfere I with this proposed reasonable use. 2 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the 3 variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the 4 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or 5 the applicant's own action. 6 5. The need for the variance is completely attributable to the natural features of the property, i.e. Hood Canal and steep slopes. 7 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other 8 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent 9 properties or the environment. 10 6. The property is surrounded by single-family homes, most of which are built along the waterfront under conditions very similar to that of the subject lot. As 11 determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the requested variances will not create any significant adverse impacts to adjacent uses or the environment. 12 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special 13 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum 14 necessary to afford relief. 15 7. The variance enables the construction of a modest sized home that is comparable in size to surrounding homes as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6 and 16 established in the HMP. As noted previously, the size of the home is also smaller than 17 what Mason County regulations designate as minimum reasonable use. For these reasons the proposal does not constitute a grant of special privilege. For the reasons 18 outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the variance is the minimum to afford relief. Particularly compelling is the fact that under the Resource Ordinance, MCC 19 17.01.150(E) defines a 2,550 square foot building footprint as minimum reasonable 20 use and the proposed footprint is only 600 square feet. 21 Finding of Fact No. 6 also notes that development expectations involving North Shore Road and SR 106 properties are that the waterfront portions of those properties 22 will be developed. The Conclusions of Law finding compliance with variance criteria in this decision are not dependent upon this finding of developer expectations3. 23 24 3 In any event, developer expectations on their own are not significantly probative on the issue of minimum reasonable use. Case law on substantive due process/takings 25 requires "investment-backed" expectations. The record does not contain sufficient Variances p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision However,the issue is relevant because investment backed expectations are an integral part of any assessment of substantive due process and takings analysis, which as discussed in prior examiner decisions underlies the basic principles of what constitutes a minimum reasonable use of property. MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 4 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the variances will not adversely affect the environment or adjoining uses while allowing for a reasonable use of the 6 subject property. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 7 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County 8 Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only 9 shall not justify a variance. 10 9. As previously noted, the proposed home is smaller than what MCC 17.01.150(E) 11 designates as minimum reasonable use. Consequently, the applicant currently has less than minimum reasonable use, which is construed as lacking a reasonable use. 12 Further, other than the regulations subject to the variance requests, the proposal is consistent with all applicable regulations and the Growth Management Act. The 13 criterion is met. 14 15 SHORELINE VARIANCE 16 (MCC 17.50.060,Residential Development 15 Foot Hood Canal Setback) 17 MCC 17.50.090 Variance Criteria. Variance Permits for development that will be 18 located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), except those areas designated as wetlands, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate 19 all of the following.• 20 MCC 17.50.090(1): That the strict application of the bulb dimensional or 21 performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program; 22 10. As determined in Conclusion of Law No. 4, the variance is necessary for 23 reasonable use of the home. 24 25 information to conclude whether the subject lot has been sold at prices that reflect waterfront value. Variances P. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision MCC 17.50.090(2): That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the 1 variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the county regulations, and not,for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; 4 11. As determined in Conclusion of Law No. 5, the need for the variance is 5 created by Hood Canal and steep slopes. 6 MCC 17.50.090(3): That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent 7 properties or the shoreline environment; 8 12. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the variance will not adversely 9 affect any other activities,properties or the environment. I MCC 17.50.090(4): That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the I I minimum necessary to afford relief; 12 13. As determined in Conclusion of Law No. 7, the criterion is met. Although the concept of"minimum reasonable use" is only defined in the Resource Ordinance, 13 in the absence of any similar definition in the shoreline master program the Resource 14 Ordinance definition is determinative in this case on principles of consistency and clarity in application of Mason County development regulations. 15 MCC 17.50.090(5): That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental 16 effect; 17 10. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, there will be no significant adverse 18 impacts associated with the variance request. Further, the proposal allows for reasonable development of the subject property. For these reasons the public interest 19 will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 20 In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative 21 impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist the 22 total of the variances should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline 23 environment. 24 11. The proposal only seeks to enable the construction of a modest sized home 25 with nominal environmental impacts. Approval of similar variances to other homes would not result in any cumulative significant adverse impacts. Variances p. 16 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Generic Permitting Criteria 1 (Applicable to all Three Variance Requests) MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review 4 proposed development according to the following criteria: 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets 6 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. 7 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. 8 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or 9 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the 10 Comprehensive Plan. 11 12. The project complies with all of the County regulations specified in the criteria above except for the regulations subject to the variance requests. No 12 subdivision of land is proposed, consistency with health regulations will be assured during building permit review and the proposal is exempt from the State 1' Environmental Policy Act. Since the proposal has no adverse impacts as mitigated, it 14 does not impact the public health, safety and welfare. Since the project promotes in- fill development and the use of existing infrastructure, it is in the public interest to 15 authorize the development. The staff report concludes that the proposal will not lower level of service standards for transportation and neighborhood park facilities 16 and there is no evidence to the contrary. 17 DECISION 18 All variance applications are found to be consistent with all applicable development 19 standards and so are approved for subject to the following conditions4: 20 1. Developer / owners shall be required to control erosion during construction. 21 Removal of vegetation shall be minimized and any areas disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts. 22 23 4 The applicants have submitted some proposed revised conditions on the premise that the staff conditions recommend 400 square feet of vegetation. Although the staff 24 report itself makes this recommendation, it is not included in the staff recommended conditions. The conditions adopted by this decision do not require 400 square feet of 25 vegetation. Variances p. 17 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2. All upland areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be 1 seeded, vegetated or given an equivalent type of erosion protection (silt fencing or 2 straw matting). 3. No degradation of water quality shall occur as a result of this project; concrete wash water shall be collected and treated as far away from waterbodies and the vegetation buffer as feasible. 4 4. The applicant / owners shall implement the recommendations for construction and best management practices addressed in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW L.L.C. dated March 2014 (Exhibit 15). 6 5. The applicant / owners shall apply for a Mason Environmental Permit to implement the restoration of native vegetation plantings addressed in the Habitat Management 7 Plan prepared by Soundview Consultants dated May 2014 (Exhibit 16). 6. The applicant shall have a Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan (Exhibit 8 14) recorded with the Deed in the Auditor's office. The Notification should indicate that development of the property is encumbered by conditions placed on it by Mason 9 County Department of Community Development under this Variance 4VAR2014- 10 00005 and that the Habitat Management Plan prepared by Soundview Consultants dated May 2014 contains required mitigation measures for future development. 11 7. The applicant shall implement all mitigation measures, native plantings, and monitoring as proposed by the Habitat Management Plan prepared by Soundview 1 Consultants dated May 2014. 8. A monitoring plan shall be enacted whereby a qualified biologist shall submit a 1' report detailing the condition of the restoration area. Monitoring of the site will 14 begin the first fall following project completion and maintained on a seasonal basis. The information gathered is included in the habitat management plan prepared by 15 Soundview Consultants dated May 2014 (Exhibit 16). This monitoring will be in effect for the duration of three years. 16 9. A survival rate of 80% of plantings is required each year during the three-year monitoring period. If survival falls below 80%, the applicant shall replant to restore 17 the required survival percentage and shall extend the monitoring report the necessary 18 period to address the replanting. 10. The existing deck shall be removed prior to any construction activity. 19 11. The HMP shall be revised to address impacts to killer whales and juvenile bocaccio rockfish as identified in Ex. 19(H). The revised HMP shall be approved by staff 20 prior to any construction activity. 21 12. The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that demonstrates to the satisfaction of staff prior to any construction activity that proposed stormwater , ) and erosion controls are sufficient to prevent any significant adverse impacts to Hood Canal water quality. 23 13. Prior to any construction activity, the applicant shall submit a native vegetation planting plan subject to approval by staff that includes a mixture of larger trees and 24 shrubs as identified in Ex. 19(H). 14. The building envelope shall be reduced to 600 square feet as depicted in Ex. 24. Variances p. 18 Findings, Conclusions and Decision I I Dated this 29 h day of October, 2014. i 5 Mason County Hearing Examiner 6 7 APPEAL 8 The Resource Ordinance and development standard variance decisions are final and may be appealed to superior court as outlined in the Washington State Land Use 9 Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. The shoreline variance request is subject to approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology and then may be appealed 10 to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board as outlined in Chapter 90.58 RCW. I I CHANGE IN VALUATION 12 Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected 13 by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 14 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. I� 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2� 24 25 Variances P. 19 Findings, Conclusions and Decision CASEINDEX Barghausen Consulting Engineers Shoreline Variance SHR2014-00014, Development Regulations Variance DDR2014-00043 and Resource Ordinance Variance VAR2014-00005 Exhibit# Date Description 1 October 14, 2014 Staff Report 2 June 11, 2014 Shoreline Variance Application 3 June 11, 2014 Resource Ordinance Variance Application 4 June 11, 2014 Development Regulations Variance Application 5 June 11, 2014 Applicants' Property Site Plan 6 June 11, 2014 Applicants' Shore Side Site Plan 7 September 2014 Vicinity Ma 8 September 2014 Site Aerial Image 9 Se tember 2014 Site Location Image 10 June 11, 2014 Subject Property Photos near shoreline & road 11 June 11, 2014 Goo le Earth image of site with notes 12 August 26, 2014 Notice of Application 13 October 3, 2014 Affidavit of Posting 14 October 3, 2014 Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan 15 March 2014 Geotechnical Engineering Stud 16 June 2014 Habitat Management Plan for Property 17 October 9, 2014 Buildable area comments by Barghausen 18 October 14, 2014 Recommended alternative conditions for permits 19 October 14, 2014 Opposition notebook prepared by K. French 20 October 14, 2014 Photo image impact to neighbor Shepherd 21 October 14, 2014 Current Shepherd view 22 October 14, 2014 Photo image subject property with trees removed 23 October 14, 2014 Staff proposed increased shoreline/ side setbacks ro osed location 24 October 14, 2014 Applicant increased shore setback, modified from Exhibit 23 Barghausen SHR RO DDR variance case index P VY VAL CASE INDEX C � �wo Barghausen Consulting Engineers Shoreline Variance SHR2014-00014, Development Regulations Variance DDR2014-00043 and Resource Ordinance Variance VAR2014-00005 Exhibit# Date Description 1 October 14, 2014 Staff Report 2 June 11, 2014 Shoreline Variance Application 3 June 11, 2014 Resource Ordinance Variance Application 4 June 11, 2014 Development Regulations Variance Application 5 June 11, 2014 Applicants' Property Site Plan 6 June 11, 2014 Applicants' Shore Side Site Plan 7 September 2014 Vicinity Map 8 September 2014 Site Aerial Image 9 September 2014 Site Location Image 10 June 11, 2014 Subject Property Photos near shoreline & road 11 June 11, 2014 Goo le Earth image of site with notes 12 August 26, 2014 Notice of Application 13 October 3, 2014 Affidavit of Posting 14 October 3, 2014 Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan 15 March 2014 Geotechnical Engineering Stud 16 June 2014 Habitat Management Plan for Property oa- Barghausen SHR RO DDR variance case index J Page 1 of 2 Allan Borden - Hearing Today < From. Tom Barghausen tbarghausenAbarghausen.com> To: "'ahb@co.mason.wa.us"' <ahb@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 10/14/2014 7:42 AM Subject: Hearing Today Attachments: 15972--Proposed conditions of approval for variances.pdf Hi Allan, I discussed your staff report with the folks at Soundview Consultants and also re-read their report. They confirmed that their only recommendation related to planting native vegetation was in relation to the existing non-native species that are on this portion of the lot today. This includes Himalayan Blackberry and English Ivy—both of which tend to take over if property is left unattended as is the case with this lot. Their recommendation is to remove these invasive species at the time of construction and replant with native species of plants and groundcover in areas that are not otherwise covered with hard surfaces (ie walks, decks). Since we don't have an actual building design yet we don't know how much land area will remain to be planted but it can't be much given the extremely limited area. Since the planting area in the future is going to be so small,and since we are only talking about native plant species vs. "wetland" plants or other more significant and intense re-vegetation plans,there is no requirement for monitoring. This kind of monitoring is usually linked to a requirement to plant significant vegetation as mitigation. In this case we are only removing invasive species and making sure such invasive species are replanted as part of a final landscaping plan. Monitoring is not required. Based on the above,we will be asking that conditions 7-9 be deleted from the final conditions of approval,and new condition 7 included which provides the direct reference to the recommendations in Section 6.2 of the Habitat Management Plan. I've copied those conditions below for your review. I wanted to let you know in advance that we are going to make this recommendation. I will be at the hearing a little before 1 so we can discuss this at that time if you think this presents a problem for staff. Thanks Allan! Tom 6.2 Habitat Management Recommendations The folla;z ing habitat mana cmenr rccc)rnrnmdatir)nN arc prm ded to protect the. marine shorclinc and fish and wMbfe hab t1t: • TI;SC measures should be installed prior to sire clearing including silt fencing should be installed around construction acti�ities prior to and m.aint.ained t.hrnuoout the construcnon period; • ;ill applicable construcrion PNIPs should lbe usi.d during land dirt ►rbi.ng acvviti .s; file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/543 CD3 D 5Masonm... 10/14/2014 Page 2 of 2 • Stornawater runoff frorn dried*ar and landscape surfaces should to be properly treated prior to direct release to Hood Canal.; • Any future improvements to the shoreline area such as bulkhead replacement or addition of a dock should attempt ttf avoid impacts to habitat and species to the maximum extent practicable; • CAcinfine nev, work to existing disturbed areas, such as existing building footprint, decks, walkvmys,drivre airs,and landscaped features to the maximum exrent feasible; • C sc of ehcrnicals and herbicides should be avoided in upland areas adjacent to the bulkhead, • Plant native shrubs and groundcovers in disturbed areas to help retain soot, filter storm".mr, and increase biodivcrsiry of macroinvcrtebratcs (i.c,insects'); • Maintain and preserve non-hazardous native trey and shrub species already on-site; • Remove non-native invasire plants growing in the l=X RCA buffer, such as Engish ix-v and Himalayan blackberry,and replant these areas with native shrubs and ground covers: • Do not place clearing debris, yard waste, or trash midun the fish and wildlife buffer or on adjacent slopes, and • beep beau}'equipment and vehicles off shoreline. Thomas,A.Barghausen(P.E (President Barghausen Consulting Engineers,Inc. 18215-72n"venue South Keno Washington, 98032 1-425-251-6222(Office) 1-206-954-7947(Cell) From: Tom Barghausen Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 7:27 AM To: Tom Barghausen Subject: file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/543 CD3 D 5Maso=... 10/14/2014 � k3o �C � ew�a� w� �/ ADrow�vzsc� /�G4 ��f LGrM�cecw�Q � PdG hle^�z"�„ . �„� � h ecflwe 1 Recommended Alternate Conditions of Approval October 14, 2014 Project No. 15972 • SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE SHR2014-00014 • DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS VARIANCE DDR2014-00043 • RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE VAR2014-00005 The applicant is requesting the following changes to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth on Page 9 of the Staff Report dated October 14, 2014. 1. Delete conditions 7,8, and 9 as written. 2. Add a new condition 7 as follows: "As a condition of issuance of a building permit for the subject property, the applicant shall be required to implement all mitigation measures as outlined in Section 5.2 of the Habitat Management Pion prepared by Soundview Consultants LLC dated May 5, 2014 for the subject property". J %4ry,�,,�,,� i �yrti�Fo �f Q �e� ti� MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279 Shelton, Washington 98584 October 14, 2014 TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner FROM: Planning Staff—Allan Borden, Senior Planner RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Variance SBR2014-00014, Development Regulations Variance DDR2014-00043, and Resource Ordinance Variance VAR2014-00005 Proposal to construct a 1,500 sq. ft. two-story residence (750 sq. ft. each floor) in a 25 ft. deep by 35 ft. wide footprint within the vegetation buffer and building setback along a Type S saltwater shoreline, using Mason County Code (MCC) Chapter 17.50 Shoreline Master Program and Chapter 15.09.57 Development Code standards, a Mason County Resource Ordinance Variance (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, 17.01.110, Section G.l.c), and Mason County Development Regulations Variance to front setback standards. STAFF REPORT I. Introduction: This report evaluates a request for a variance to buffer standards to construct a 1,500 sq. ft. two-story residence (750 sq. ft. each floor) in a 25 ft. deep by 35 ft. wide footprint within the vegetation buffer and building setback along a Type S saltwater shoreline (Hood Canal),using Mason County Code (MCC) Chapter 17.50 Shoreline Master Program and Chapter 15.09.57 Development Code standards, a Mason County Resource Ordinance Variance(Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, 17.01.110, Section G.l.c), and Mason County Development Regulations Variance to front and west side setback standards,near to North Shore Rd. (Exhibit 2, 3, &4). The minimum required Conservation Area from the ordinary high water mark(OHWM) of a Type S shoreline is 35 feet, with 20-foot vegetation buffer and additional 15-foot building setback. The areas of buffer and a building setback encompasses the entire area of the subject parcel that is south of the county road. The setback distance proposed by the project is 0 feet from saltwater OHWM (bulkhead face), 0 feet from the west side property line, and 0 feet from the road or front property line (Exhibit 6). The proposed project is described and mitigation offered in the attached Habitat Management Plan (F vIP) (Exhibit 16). As part of this variance review, Staff recommends that 400 sq. ft. area of native vegetation be re-established along the south and east side of the subject parcel as a mitigation areas to address impacts to the shoreline buffer and setback area with the new proposed residence. Staff recommends conditional approval of proposed project. II. Applicant: Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Barghausen SHR DDR&RO Variance staff report 1 III. Property Location: and site address:to the west of 10801 E North Shore Rd. Belfair. Parcel Nos. 32224-50-00025 (shore area); 32224-50-00925 (upland area). IV. Date of Complete Application: June 11, 2014. V. Evaluations: A. Characteristics of the Site: The property on the shoreline side of North Shore Rd. is 0.06 acre (approximately 1,530 square feet area)(Exhibit 6), and the property on the upland side of North Shore Rd. is 0.88 acre (approximately 38,333 square feet area) (Exhibit 5). There is no existing home on the property that has a 6 to 7-ft tall concrete bulkhead. A series of retaining walls and steps descend from the county road down to the beach level. The topography of the shore side parcel is flat for 20 feet above the bulkhead, then slopes up with retaining walls 12 feet to the county road. The topography of the upland parcel slopes up from North Shore Road at a 40 percent or greater ascent of over 200 feet in a 470-foot distance (Exhibit 5). The septic system drainfields are located in this area above the county road and accessed by an existing vehicle route. Some landscape vegetation is located on the shore side property,while the upland parcel has native tree/shrub vegetation near the county road. B. Characteristics of the Area: The area is nearly 11 miles west of Belfair, WA along North Shore Rd. (Exhibit 7). Development in the vicinity to the east and west is comprised of single family residences mainly along the south side of the county road; a few residential buildings are sited on the north side, but steep slopes with substantial seepage limit past and present development for parking (Exhibit 8 & 9). The residences on the saltwater shoreline south of the county road have been constructed on individual properties over the years prior to the current Resource Ordinance shoreline setback standards; setbacks of the residences from the shoreline Ordinary High Water Mark vary from 0 to 15 feet (Exhibit 8 & 11). C. Comprehensive Plan Designation: The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. D. Zoning: The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 (RR5) per the Mason County Development Areas Zoning Map. E. Shoreline Master Program Designation: The shoreline designation along Hood Canal is Urban Shoreline Environment. VI. SEPA Compliance, Public and Agency Comment: The project is categorically exempt from SEPA per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i). Public notice of the application and hearing date was posted onsite on September 9, 2014 (Exhibit 12) and notice was published in the Shelton-Mason Journal on August 28 and September 4, 2014. An Barghausen SHR DDR&RO Variance staff report 2 Affidavit of Posting Notice was completed(Exhibit 13). The proposal required habitat management plan review and comment by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe,but no comments were received. VH. Other Permits or Approvals: A Variance from Standards applications (SHR2014- 00007,VAR2014-00005, and DDR2014-00043)were received June 11,2014 as a request for development(Exhibit 2, 3, &4). The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit and a Mason Environmental Permit for the construction of the new residential addition. The applicant will need to implement the costs of mitigation(timing of work,best management practices, and some native plantings east of the new residence)proposed in the HMP (Exhibit 16). A three-year plant monitoring program, from the time of issuance of the building permit,will be required by the County,with annual reports submitted yearly on the anniversary date of the building permit's issuance. A Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan shall be recorded with the County Auditor's Office prior to final approval of the building permit(Exhibit 14). VIH.Analysis: A. Resource Ordinance Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. The required development setback for a Type S saltwater shoreline is a vegetation buffer distance plus a 15-foot building setback from the development. That setback is often a common line in respect to existing residences and varies from a standard of 100 feet from ordinary high water mark(OHWM)to distances of existing residential development from OHWM. The minimum setback distance is 35 feet, composed of 20 feet vegetation buffer distance plus a 15-foot building setback. This minimum setback distance applies in this case under review, a proposed new residence, as the adjacent shoreline properties have residences with 0-to 15-foot setbacks from OHWM(a 2006 site pre-inspection for this property found that the shore setback for future development is very limited on this and adjacent properties). Due to the lot dimensions,the current request for a Resource Ordinance Variance locates the proposed structure within the 35-foot vegetation buffer and building setback area. This Variance review follows the requirements associated with Mason County Resource Ordinance Section 17.01.110,Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,which details stream buffer requirements, and Section 17.01.150,Variances from Standards, which establishes variance procedures and criteria Section 17.01.110.G.1.c. states that "new residential construction ...is not permitted within FWHCA or its buffer, except...as approved through a variance or reasonable use exception." Staff notes that such variance review shall be as provided in Title 15 Development Code Sec. 15.09.057. Resource Ordinance Section 17.01.110.G.1 requires that a Habitat Management Plan (HMP)be prepared in association with the proposed development that does not meet standards (Exhibit 16). The HMP shall consider construction procedures, locational measures, and proposed revegetation to preserve and protect wildlife habitat and shall identify how the impacts from the proposed use or activity will be avoided or mitigated through site or habitat mitigation efforts. Barghausen SHR DDR&RO Variance staff report 3 B. Mason County Code, Title 17.50 Zoning-Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations The Residential Development Section of Title 17.50 requires that urban shoreline development meet a shore setback of 15 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark at minimum, or at a proportional setback averaging the distance from roof eaves to the OHWM on adjacent residences. The proposal to construct a new residence is situated at the requested 0-foot setback from the bulkhead and within the existing flat building area. The request would provide an area for a two-story residence upland of the bulkhead on the property. Since the request is less than the minimum residential shoreline setback of 15 feet from OHWM, this proposal will require the applicant to apply for a Shoreline Variance (Exhibit 2). This same section requires that urban shoreline lots not have more than 60%impervious surface area. Estimated impervious surface area of the residence, deck, sidewalks, and driveway is close to 4 percent of the upland and shore side property. C. Review Standards for a Variance Title 15, Section 15.09.057 Review Standards for a variance states that no variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact regarding the variance criteria. In the submitted application,the applicant has provided their responses to the variance criteria(Exhibit ). 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations. Staff Response:Based on the Habitat Management Plan and site plan (Exhibit 16), the southern portion of the subject property is entirely within the shoreline buffer and building setback; and Development Regulations property line setbacks. The property depth varies from 37 feet on the west side to 25 feet on the east side (Exhibit 6). The applicants'request is to construct a 1,500 sq.ft. (750 + 750) two- story residence at an 0-foot setback south to the bulkhead, 12.5 feet setback to northeast to the property line, 0-feet setback to southwest property line, and 0-feet setback to county road. They are seeking relief through the variance process to propose a reasonable-sized residence (750-sq.ft.footprint), as many of the properties in the area of Hood Canal already have. Due to the shoreline critical area buffer and setbacks encompassing much of the south side property, the Shoreline Master Program and Resource Ordinance development standards would not accommodate this residential use request without the approval of the Shoreline Master Program and Resource Ordinance Variances. Due to the slopes and existing structures adjacent to the North Shore Road easement, the Mason County Development Regulations standards would not accommodate this residential use request without the approval of the Development Regulations Variances. In addition, Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.150 Variance from Standards Section E states "In addition to the review criteria in Mason County Code Barghamen SHR DDR&RO Variance staff report 4 15.09.057, the minimum reasonable use for a residence in a residentially zoned area shall be defined by the lesser of a)40%of the area of the lot, or b) 2,550 square feet."The applicant requests that 1,500 square foot residence (750 sq.ft.footprint) be considered a reasonable use of their property, because the shoreline buffer and building setback standards, and the Development Regulations building setback standards, will not allow any further development proposals on their 0.06 acre (approximately 2,614 square feet area),property without the review of a variance. The additional variance standard from the Resource Ordinance regarding a minimum reasonable use standard will allow for additional development if the proposed variances are found to be reasonable request for the property and features on the property. The proposed residence is a suitable request for a property zoned for single-family residences. The confining property dimensions, the existence of retaining walls, required development standards, and few access points to the property limit where the proposed development can be located(Exhibit 6). The proposed residence is a two-story structure that helps to reduce the extent of the proposed structure on the property. The proposed location of new residence utilizes the existing flat area above the concrete bulkhead on the south side of the property, the only location where special engineering would not be required as would be needed for a proposed building on the north or upland side of the property. 2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not,for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. Staff Response: The subject parcels are almost an acre in total size, but the site is highly constrained by physical features. The property is bisected by North Shore Road which has a 60 foot right of way along the shoreline. Over 96 percent of the area of subject property lies northerly of North Shore Road virtually all of which is classified as a significant landslide hazard area due to slopes in excess of 40 percent. A Geotechnical Engineering Study was provided with application materials(Exhibit 15). Many areas of the lots along Hood Canal have slopes in excess of 60 percent,particularly in close proximity to North Shore Road. In addition, there is significant groundwater seepage associated with the toe of this steep slope. This fact further impacts the ability of property owners to safely clear and grade a building envelope on this very steep sloped property. The burden of hardship in the location of the new structure is specifically related to the limitations of the 25-to 37 foot property depth south of the county road: the locations of the retaining walls and stairs in respect to North Shore Rd (some of which are within the road easement and setback); the presence of saltwater on the south and southeast sides; the shoreline critical area development standards (shoreline 20 ft. vegetation buffer plus 15 ft. setback)present on much of the property; and Development Regulations front and side yard setbacks. The '� Barghausen SHR DDR&RO Variance staff report 5 building footprint will not be more than 750 sq.ft. and far less than the 2,550 sq. ft. limit called out in the Resource Ordinance variance review provision. In this variance request, the hardship is not from deed restrictions regarding the property or the applicant's own actions; the limiting lot dimensions and needed setback from the shoreline critical area and property line setbacks guide the review of the Shoreline Master Program, Resource Ordinance, and Development Regulations Variances. 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment. Staff Response: The property is zoned Rural Residential 5. A proposed single family residence is a permitted use in this zone. The proposal of a 1,500 sq.ft. two-story residence fits in with the scale of development existing in the vicinity. The applicant has provided photo pages with the application, and the images of nearby properties show residences built close to the county road easement and/or existing bulkheads (Exhibit 10);similar proposal now would require the necessary variance request(s) and any proposed overwater structures would not be allowed. A Habitat Management Plan (Exhibit 16) has been prepared and submitted for this application that identifies measures necessary to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative effects to the environment. The findings in that HMP conclude that low impacts to habitat or the use of the site by salmonid species are expected to occur. Staff would advise the applicant to provide proposed revegetation with native plant species in the area adjacent to the proposed residence that will result in improved shoreline vegetation buffer and habitat for many animal species present along this portion of Hood Canal. The proposal minimizes impacts by limiting the square footage for the new residence footprint to the 750 sq.ft.footprint adjacent to the existing concrete bulkhead, and would improve vegetation cover by removing areas of landscaping and ground ivy and restoring native plants in areas south and east of the proposed structure. As part of the mitigation, a three-year monitoring plan shall control the invasion of non-native plant species and maintain the successful growth of proposed native plantings on the parcel. 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area,and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. StaffResponse: The planned 1,500 sq.ft. two-story (750 sq.ft. each floor) residence is proposed on the limited area property (1,530 sq.ft. between the bulkhead and county road easement) and is a land use associated with the Rural Residential 5 zone. The residences on other properties in proximity to the project site are located close to the shoreline and Hood Canal critical areas (less than current standards), very close to the county road, and most have similar-sized footprint areas. The authorization of this variance request would not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area. The Baromsen SHR DDR&RO Variance staff report 6 building footprint will not be more than 750 sq.ft. and is much less than the Z 550 f sq.ft. limit stated in the Resource Ordinance variance review provision. 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Staff Response: There will be no detrimental effects to the public interest resulting from the development of a new residence; a proposed single-family residence is a permitted use in the Rural Residential 5 zone. The new residence will be sited as far back on the small-sized property as possible and minimally affect shoreline views by.residences adjacent to the east and west of the subject property, by providing a similar view line distance from their bulkhead as each adjacent residence). Mitigation measures and best management practices have.been identified in the Habitat Management Plan to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for potential impacts associated with the proposed construction within the vegetation buffer, and new native vegetation plantings will enhance the existing areas of the property between the new residence and bulkhead on the east side. 6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan,Development Regulations,Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. Staff Response: The property is zoned for residential development(the Rural Residential 5 zone). The 0.04-acre lot is a small size to accommodate residential development consistent with the surrounding area, even with a proposed septic system provided on the adjacent property to the northwest of North Shore Rd and connected to the subject property. The Shoreline Master Program and Resource Ordinance standards limit the scope ofproposed new structures on the property. The proposed two-story residence constitutes compatible development in a residentially zoned area with its smaller footprint, is a proposal that is a reasonable development request, and is a land use that is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, the Growth Management Act, and development regulations standards. The proposed new residence and associated habitat management plan have been proposed to address all environmental impacts associated with this development near the steep slopes to the north and the saltwater f sh and wildlife habitat conservation area and within its vegetation buffer and building setback to the south. Due to the limiting lot dimensions, the locations of the retaining walls and stairs in respect to North Shore Rd., and the location of the critical area vegetation buffer and building setbacks as required by existing County development regulations, the applicant is seeking variance approval to construct a modest- sized residence (1,500 sq.ft. total area on two floors) as a reasonable request associated with a residential land use on the parcel. 7. The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. [Shoreline Variance Criterion] Barghausen SHR DDR&RO Variance staff report 7 Staff Response: The construction of a modest-sized new residence is a reasonable use request. Without the variance, the applicants will be unable to continue their intended residential use of the structure, due to the locations of the retaining walls and stairs in respect to North Shore Rd., the confining dimensions of the property from the road to the concrete bulkhead, and the need for geologic special studies (Exhibit 1S). The proposed residence does extend to the shoreline bulkhead and no further extension is proposed. The public use of the shoreline area and water- . oriented activities, and the natural values of the saltwater critical area of the Hood Canal area will not be adversely affected by the development that is upland of the bulkhead. DC General Review Criteria Mason County Code 15.09.055(C) 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. Staff Response: The proposal does not conflict with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan. The planning policies in the Comprehensive Plan encourage the preservation and protection of water quality, critical areas, Resource Lands, and open space and the adoption of critical area regulations. The process for variance to critical area development standards is addressed in Resource Ordinance Section 17.01.150. The proposal shall meet the requirements of Title 6 to provide septic treatment, when the proposed residence is reviewed by the Environmental Health Department prior to building permit issuance (a proposed system is under review). 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. Staff Response: The proposed single-family residence is a permitted land use in the Rural Residential S zone; compliance with landslide hazard areas review standards will be part of the building permit review. Best management practices addressed in the Habitat Management Plan for this proposal will be implemented to ensure there is no impact to public health, safety and welfare or impacts to the saltwater critical area values. 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response: The proposed residence does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood parkfacilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. The new residence will be accessed directly from North Shore Rd. This new residence proposal does not lower the level of service for neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. 3L Conclusions: Based upon the above discussion,the proposal is consistent with the Mason County Resource Ordinance, adopted as Title 17.01. Staff finds the proposal Barghansen SHR DDR&RO Variance staff report 8 with its habitat management plan meets the variance review criteria. A decision made should include the conditions listed below: 1. Developer/owners shall be required to control erosion during construction. Removal of vegetation shall be minimised and any areas disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts. 2. All upland areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be seeded, vegetated or given an equivalent type of erosion protection(silt fencing or straw matting). 3. No degradation of water quality shall occur as a result of this project; concrete wash water shall be collected and treated as far away from waterbodies and the vegetation buffer as feasible. 4. The applicant/owners shall implement the recommendations for construction and best management practices addressed in the Geotechnical Engineering Study prepared by Earth Solutions NW L.L.C. dated March 2014 (Exhibit 15). 5. The applicant/owners shall apply for a Mason Environmental Permit to implement the restoration of native vegetation plantings addressed in the Habitat Management Plan prepared by Soundview Consultants dated May 2014 (Exhibit 16). 6. The applicant shall have a Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan(Exhibit 14)recorded with the Deed in the Auditor's office. The Notification should indicate that development of the property is encumbered by conditions placed on it by Mason County Department of Community Development under this Variance#VAR2014- 00005 and that the Habitat Management Plan prepared by Soundview Consultants dated May 2014 contains required mitigation measures for future development. 7. The applicant shall implement all mitigation measures,native plantings,and monitoring as proposed by the Habitat Management Plan prepared by Soundview Consultants dated May 2014. 8. A monitoring plan shall be enacted whereby a qualified biologist shall submit a report detailing the condition of the restoration area_ Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following project completion and maintained on a seasonal basis. The information gathered is included in the habitat management plan prepared by Soundview Consultants dated May 2014 (Exhibit 16). This monitoring will be in effect for the duration of three years. 9. A survival rate of 80%of plantings is required each year during the three-year monitoring period. If survival falls below 80%,the applicant shall replant to restore the required survival percentage and shall extend the monitoring report the necessary period to address the replanting. XI. Choices of Action. 1. Approve the Variance. 2. Approve the Variance with condition. 3. Deny the Variance(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted). Barghausen SHR DDR&RO Variance staff report 9 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Cyll Building III-426 west Cedar Street P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670-Ext 352 SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION PERMIT NO. 6auod- SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHORELINE VARIANCE* X DATE RECEIVED ^ -I LP•W 4 SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE* SHORELINE EXEMPTION The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires that substantial developments within designated shorelines of the state comply with its administrative procedures(WAC 173-14)and the provisions of the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program The purpose of this Act and local program is to protect the state's shoreline resources. The program requires that substantial development(any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $5,718.00 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the State be reviewed with the goals, polices, and performance standards established in the Master Program. Answer all questions completely. Attach any additional information that my further describe the proposed development. Incomplete applications will be returned. Shoreline Variances and Conditional uses have additional pages that shall be attached to this application. APPLICANT: Barghausen Consulting Engineers Inc -Tom Barghausen ADDRESS: 18215 72nd Avenue South (street) Kent WA 98032 (city) (state) (zip) TELEPHONE: (425)251-6222 (home) (business) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Barghausen ADDRESS: Same as above (street) (city) (state) (zip) TELEPHONE: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: General location(include property address,water body and associated wetlands—identify the name of the shoreline): 10811 N E North Shore Road proReerty lies on Hood Canal Legal description (include section, township, and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. Projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude location)-include all parcel numbers: lb Lots thirty-nine(39) Cady's Sunrise Beach Volume 4 of Plats Page 8 Records of Mason County, Washington Parcel numbers 32224-50 00024 and 32224-50-22225 Section 24 Township 22North,Ramie 03East. shoreline 2011 app.doc OWNERSHIP: Contract Applicant Owner X Lessee Purchaser (Identify) Other Owner. Washing n Federal 425 Pike Street (street) Seattle WA 98101 (city) (state) ( P) DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTON Development(identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction methods,principle dimensions,and other pertinent information): Please see attached. Use(identify current use of property with exist improvements: Please see attached. Reason for requesting development: Please see attached. ACKOWLEDGEMENT I hereby declare,to best of my knowledge and belief,the forgoing information and all attached information is true and correc /— July 15,2014 v v (applicant or authorized representative) (date) shoreline 2011 app.doc Publication Cost Agreement Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant.The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I/WE understand that I/WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I/WE understand that is MY/OUR responsibility.I/WE must submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as complete. Signature of Property Owner Date Print Name I OR _ly 15 2014 Tom Barghausen Signature of Applicant Date Print Name shoreline 2011 app.doc LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' MAILING ADDRESSES WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor. �3 shoreline 2011 app.doc Project Description Lot 39 Cady's Sunrise Beach Combined Shoreline, Resource and Development Variance Lot 39 of the plat of Cady's Sunrise Beach is a highly constrained legal parcel bisected by North Shore Road. The only physically feasible building area is on an existing flat pad located between the existing concrete seawall/bulkhead and the existing county road. The portion of the lot located northerly of North Shore Road has been determined to be unbuildable due to geotechnical,wetland, and steep slope constraints. The lot is zoned RR-5 (Rural Residential -5). The Shoreline Designation for the property is "Urban". It appears that this portion of Lot 39 was previously used for recreation in conjunction with a neighboring parcel as evidenced by the existing grass lawn and brick fireplace. The maximum building land area lying between the concrete seawall/bulkhead is 1530 square feet in size (roughly 4%of the total site area) and is irregular in shape. The entire area is located within one or more of the following setbacks as set forth in Mason County codes: • FWHCA setbacks as provided in Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110.D (Table 31 for Critical Area Habitat: o 100' buffer from OHWM (bulkhead) plus a 15' BSBL • Building setbacks in the Mason County Development Regulations 17.04.223 for the Rural Residential 5 (RR-5 zone)are: 0 25'front yard setback from county right-of-way 0 20'side yard setbacks • Shoreline Master Program setbacks as set forth in Mason County Chapter 17.50 for Residential Development(Subsection 9) o 15'from OHWM Given the above buffers and setbacks, this portion of the lot is unbuildable without approval of a variance from Mason County. After completing the survey, we have determined that a rectangular building envelope approximately 35' x 25' (approximately 750 square feet) can be accommodated within the limitations of the existing pad, but will require approval of 3 combined variances. This footprint would be large enough to accommodate a 1500 SF 2-story home. This is substantially below the maximum threshold set forth in Mason County Code 17.01.150.E (Variances—Review Standards) of 2,550 square feet or 40% of the gross lot area. The applicant has already received approval from the Mason County Health Department for a 2-party water system using the existing well associated with the adjoining lot 40 which will be able to provide water service for a house on this Lot 39. A septic system design and permit application has also been submitted for a drainfield on the northerly portion of this Lot 39 and is expected to be approved soon. Once the variance applications are approved, a single family home can be designed for the lot that fits within the approved variance envelope. The purpose of this application is to obtain approval for this "building envelope" before beginning the design of a house. The envelope shown on the enclosed site plan is conceptual. The request of the applicant is for approval of the following variances from setback and buffers for that portion of Lot 39 lying souther of North Shore Road: 1. Reduce the front-yard setback to-0-from the existing right-of-way for Northshore Road 2. Reduce the rear-yard (bulkhead) setback to -0- from the top back edge of the bulkhead along the shoreline 3. Reduce the southerly side yard setback to-0-measured from the existing property line Upon approval of a variance with the above criteria,the applicant will be able to proceed with design of a house to fit within this limited footprint. CGD MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CONEvJ UNITY DEVELOPMENT Building 111,426 W. Cedar St. P.O.Box 186 Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SHORELINE VARIANCE The purpose of a Variance Permit is strictly limited to granting relief to specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Master Program,where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the Master Program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Variance Permits for development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OIFW, except those areas designated as wetlands,may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: 1. That the strict application of the bulk,dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Master Program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program; Please see attached 2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size,or natural features and the application of the Master Program, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; Please see attached 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; Please see attached 1(3 VF',D Shoreline Variance Questions tN 1 1 21014 Page 1 of 2 426 V"', CEDAR ST. 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief, Please see attached 5. That the public interest Mll suffer no substantial detrimental effect Please see attached Variance Permits for development that will be located either waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or within wetlands,may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate,in addition to Items 1-5 above,that: 6. The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. Please see attached In the granting of all Variance Permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example,if variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment Requests for varying the use to which a shoreline area is to be put are not requests for variances, but rather requests for conditional uses. Shoreline Variance Questions Page 2 of 2 RE� I V E D justification for Combined Variance Applications JUN 1 1 2014 Lot 39 CadVs Sunrise Beach 426 "1. CEDAR ST. The authority for review and approval of a Variance by the Hearing Examiner are outlined in Mason County Code section 17.05.034. The criteria to be considered are generally the same for each of the 3 proposed variances included in this application (Resource Ordinance Variance, Shoreline Variance, and Development Regulations Variance) as enumerated in Mason County Code 15.09.057 and Mason County Code 17.50.090. The below justification is applicable to each of the 3 variances and has been prepared as a single response to all three of the applications for ease of review because of the overlapping nature of the ordinances as well as the consistency of the criteria. Criteria 1: That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by county regulations: Please see the exhibit titled "Slope Analysis Map' for reference. Lot 39 is almost an acre in size but is also highly constrained by physical features. It is bisected by North Shore Road which has a 60-foot right of way along the shoreline. Over 96 percent of the area of Lot 39 lies northerly of North Shore Road, virtually all of which classified as a significant landslide hazard area due to slopes in excess of 40 percent. Many areas of the lots have a slope in excess of 60 percent, particularly in close proximity to North Shore Road. The hillside along North Shore Road in this this general area has been historically prone to soil movement and slide activity in designated locations. The toe of slope is located within approximately 10 feet of the existing right-of-way line, leaving no room for construction of a single family home without significant clearing and grading of the hillside and construction of extensive retaining walls which would pose a significant hazard and adverse impact on the environment. During our site investigation of the lot, we observed seepage flowing out of the hillside just above the toe of slope as well as wetland plants. There is significant groundwater seepage associated with the toe r of this steep slope which further impacts the ability to safely clear and grade a building envelope on this portion of the property. In addition to the above, even if this slope wasn't considered a landslide hazard area, it is unlikely that a building could be physically constructed on this side of North Shore Road due to the severe gradient. It is easier to build "down" a slope using a stepped foundation than it is to build "up" a slope. Removing 1 material from the hillside above the toe for the purpose of constructing a house and foundation also has the potential to undermine the slope, further exacerbating the potential for instability of the slope and for erosion to occur onto North Shore Road. The southerly portion of Lot 39 is already partially developed by prior owners and is a feasible building ad not constrained by native vegetation, steep slopes,or other geotechnical hazards. There are retaining walls located along and within the right-of-way for North Shore Road to transition between the road and a flat area adjacent to the bulkhead roughly 16 feet below the road grade. This ith rass lawn and includes an outdoor fireplace. A deck exists on piling over the pad area is covered w g airs along the bulkhead to provide beach beach near the northeast corner and there are two sets of st g access as well stairs leading up to the road. However,this portion of Lot 39 is extremely shallow and has limited width. The maximum building area lying between the concrete seawall/bulkhead and the existing right-of-way line for North Shore Road is only 1530 square feet in size (roughly 4 percent of the total site area) and is irregular in shape. This entire area is located within one or more of the following setbacks asset forth in Mason County codes: o FWHCA setbacks as provided in Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110.D (Table 3) for Critical Area Habitat: 0 100-foot buffer from OHWM (bulkhead) plus a 15-foot BSBL o Building setbacks in the Mason County Development Regulations 17.04.223 for the Rural Residential 5(RR-5 zone) are: o 25-foot front yard setback from county right-of-way o 20-foot side yard setbacks © Shoreline Master Program setbacks as set forth in Mason County Chapter 17.50 for Residential Development(Subsection 9) o 15 feet from OHWM Given the above buffers and setbacks, this portion of the lot is unbuildable without approval of a variance from Mason County. There would be greater impacts from construction of a home on the northerly side of the road due to the extremely steep slopes, 25-foot setback and landslide hazard designation. Given the recent landslide in Oso, Washington, it doesn't make sense to consider building on this side of the road when there is an alternative that will have less impact. Criteria 2: That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is (0- 3 specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such r as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the county regulations, and not,for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions 2 As shown on the attached exhibits and described above, it is clear that the combined physical constraints affecting Lot 39 are due entirely to natural features and the application of county regulations and are not related to any actions of the applicant. The natural topography and features of the lot are not due to actions of the applicant, nor is the configuration of the lot which was platted with a long narrow configuration. The county constructed North Shore Road close to the shoreline, bisecting Lot 39 along with the adjoining lots such that there is a very limited area left for building on this portion of Lot 39. The location of this road was not due to actions of the applicant. Based on the above, it is clear that the hardship in this case is not related to a deed restriction or the applicants own actions. Criteria 3: That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment See attached photos of adjoining properties and the attached aerial photo of the property and the surrounding area. Virtually every lot in close proximity to Lot 39 along the shoreline has a house located between the bulkhead and North Shore Road. The immediately adjoining lots on both the north and south sides have houses on them, both of which also are built within the existing right-of-way for North Shore Road. Mason County no longer permits this practice of allowing a structure to be in the right-of-way so our building pad is even further constrained,which requires that we make full use of the existing flat building pad up to the edge of the bulkhead. There are numerous houses located on neighboring lots further north and south of the subject property that have similar constraints, all of which would require similar variances if they were new structures. _ This portion of Lot 39 is already graded to be flat behind the bulkhead and has concrete stairs through the bulkhead as well as up to North Shore Road. Placing a single family home on this portion of Lot 39 will not have any adverse impact on either adjoining property. r The existing house located to the south on Lot 40 is more than 10 feet from the common property will lin. ti/ If a house is built on Lot 39 as shown to be flush with this common boundary, the structuresC� maintain the minimum separation of 10 feet. The house on Lot 38 to the north is located only a few feet from the common property line which is why we want to create the building envelope that is close to the south line and farther from the north line. The other consideration is the existing bulkhead. The applicant is not proposing any construction below the OHWM or beyond this existing bulkhead. The balance of this portion of Lot 39 has already been 3 converted to urban use through historical activities before the applicant acquired the property. The proposal seeks to continue, but not.expand, the limits of such conversion, thereby minimizing new impacts. In addition to the above considerations,the applicant retained Soundview Consultants LLC to prepare a comprehensive "Habitat Management Plan". This plan is included with this submittal. This study meets the criteria outlined in the Mason County Code and confirms that the subject proposal should have no adverse impacts to Fish or Wildlife Habitat. o special authorized does not constitute a grantf rprivilege not p Criteria 4. That the variance enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief As noted above and as illustrated on the attachedphoto hoto records and aerial map,the granting of these variances are not a grant of special privilege. On the contrary,the vast majority of lots north and south of the subject property enjoy similar or even greater privileges. It is clear that a majority of the property owners along North Shore Road have elected to construct a home on the "water side" of the road and have often encroached into the existing right-of-way, and in some cases have extended structures over the bulkhead and beyond the OHWM. The request is for the minimum necessary to afford relief to the applicant..Ideally the applicant would be allowed the same rights as other owners have had to build partially within the existing right-of-way. With that option no longer allowed by Mason County, the applicant is left with no choice but to maximize the use of the remaining"urbanized" portion of the lot. Mason County Code section 17.01.150(E) defines the"minimum reasonable use for a residence" on a lot in a residentially zoned area. The minimum is 40 percetn of the area of the lot OR 2,550 square feet, whichever is less. The total area in this portion of Lot 39 is 1,540 square feet which represents less than 4 percent of the total lot area. Even if this entire portion of Lot 39 was covered with a structure it would still fall well below both of these thresholds. Even if these variances are approved it will be difficult to design and construct a small house on this footprint but at least this gives the applicant some flexibility. Anything less than this will unreasonably LZiI impact the applicant. Criteria 5: That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect 4 As noted above,this portion of Lot 39 is already"urbanized" and has been developed to a limited extent in the past. The lot is easily accessible from North Shore Road and will involve minimal clearing and virtually no grading. The flat pad is ready for construction of a standard foundation right up to the existing bulkhead. No work beyond the OHWM is proposed. The variance will also allow for a house to be fully constructed on the subject property beyond the existing right-of-way line,thereby avoiding any private improvements in the public right-of-way. The construction of a home in this location and within the reduced setbacks as proposed will be consistent with adjoining and nearby properties that enjoy similar benefits. Based on the above,the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Criteria 6: No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County comprehensive plan, development regulations, resource ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the growth management act.Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance Lot.39 of the plat of Cady's Sunrise Beach is a highly constrained legal parcel bisected by North Shore Road. The only physically feasible building area is located on an existing flat pad located between the existing concrete seawall/bulkhead and the existing county road. The portion of the lot located northerly of North Shore Road has been determined to be unbuildable due to geotechnical, wetland, and steep slope constraints. The Habitat Management Plan prepared by Soundview Consultants LLC confirms the proposal will have no adverse impact on the natural environment or Fish and Wildlife Habitat. There are no other reasonable uses of the land for the owner, and no other option that would produce less of an impact. In fact, any other option would likely result in greater impacts. This application is not for the purpose of maintaining land value. It is about allowing for the reasonable use of the property as a single family building lot on that portion that has previously been"urbanized". 3 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 426 W Cedar Street/P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 360.427.9670 Ext.352 Mason County Permit Center Use: 0 Resource Ordinance Variance: $1,520 VAR �C)j F 5 Date Rcvd: 0 Habitat Management Plan: $445 RECEIVED 0 Public Hearing: $2,005 N Applicant will also be billed for advertising costs. �'° 426 �, CcDAP, ST. Resource Ordinance Variance Application The purpose of this application is to allow the County to consider requests to vary or adapt certain numerical standards of the Resource Ordinance where the strict application would deprive property owners of reasonable use of their property. The minimum reasonable use for a residence, decks, and accessory structures in a residentially zoned area shall be defined by the lesser of 40 percent of the area of the lot or 2,550 square feet. A public hearing accompanies Variances and application for a Variance does not guarantee approval. Applicant Name Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. -Tom Barghausen Property Owners Washington Federal Mailing Address 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent,WA 98032 Phone 1 (425) 251-6222 Phone 2 Email targhausen@barghausen.com Site Address Tag Parcel# 32224 - 50 - 00025 Legal Description Lots thirtynine (39), Cady's Sunrise Beach,Volume 4 of Plats, Page 8 Records of Mason County, Washington. Project Description Please see attached l:\Community Development\PAC\VARIANCES Updated 10/2012 Page 1 off 0 Please provide a site plan that includes the following: 1. Indicate Scale and North Arrow. 2. Property line dimensions, easements, and right-of-ways. 3. The location of all existing and proposed structures.Include square footage of existing and proposed structures. 4. Setback distance,in feet from all property lines and structures. 5. Existing and proposed road access to and from the site. 6. Parking spaces. 7. Location of on-site sewage tanks and drainfields. 8. Location of drinking water supply.Include location on the proposed site and surrounding parcels. 9. Steep bluffs,wetlands, streams, and bodies of water. 10. Surface and storm water run-off routes. 0 On a separate piece of paper(#of pages attached:_�, please explain the reason for the Variance request and respond to the following: 1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. 3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how the proposal pertains to these circumstances. a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; b. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief, e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations,Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. 0 Provide a list (preferably printed on mailing labels or legal sized envelopes) of all property owners' mailing addresses within 300 feet of your parcel boundaries. Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office,Bld Applicant(s) Signature a e June 2, 2014 J:\Cormnunity Development\PAC\VARIANCES Updated 10/2012 Page 2 of C MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 426 W Cedar Street/P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 360.427.9670 Ext. 352 Publication Cost Agreement Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I/WE understand that I /WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I/ WE understand that is MY / OUR responsibility. I / WE must submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as complete. Signature of Property Owner Date Print Name OR Tom Barghausen Signature of Applicant ate Print Name I:\Community DevelopmentTACWARIANCBS Updated 10/2012 Page 3 of�� Project Description Lot 39 Cady's Sunrise Beach Combined Shoreline, Resource and Development Variance Lot 39 of the plat of Cady's Sunrise Beach is a highly constrained legal parcel bisected by North Shore Road. The only physically feasible building area is on an existing flat pad located between the existing concrete seawall/bulkhead and the existing county road. The portion of the lot located northerly of North Shore Road has been determined to be unbuildable due to geotechnical,wetland, and steep slope constraints. The lot is zoned RR-5 (Rural Residential -5). The Shoreline Designation for the property is "Urban". It appears that this portion of Lot 39 was previously used for recreation in conjunction with a neighboring parcel as evidenced by the existing grass lawn and brick fireplace. The maximum building land area lying between the concrete seawall/bulkhead is 1530 square feet in size (roughly 4%of the total site area) and is irregular in shape. The entire area is located within one or more of the following setbacks as set forth in Mason County codes: • FWHCA setbacks as provided in Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110.D (Table 3) for Critical Area Habitat: o 100' buffer from OHWM (bulkhead) plus a 15' BSBL • Building setbacks in the Mason County Development Regulations 17.04.223 for the Rural Residential 5 (RR-5 zone) are: o 25' front yard setback from county right-of-way o 20' side yard setbacks • Shoreline Master Program setbacks as set forth in Mason County Chapter 17.50 for Residential Development(Subsection 9) o 15' from OHWM Given the above buffers and setbacks, this portion of the lot is unbuildable without approval of a variance from Mason County. After completing the survey, we have determined that a rectangular building envelope approximately 35' x 25' (approximately 750 square feet) can be accommodated within the limitations of the existing pad, but will require approval of 3 combined variances. This footprint would be large enough to accommodate a 1500 SF 2-story home. This is substantially below the maximum threshold set forth in Mason County Code 17.01.150.E (Variances—Review Standards) of 2,550 square feet or 40% of the gross lot area. .0 H4V 426W Cc. -'A S►. The applicant has already received approval from the Mason County Health Department for a 2-party water system using the existing well associated with the adjoining lot 40 which will be able to provide water service for a house on this Lot 39. A septic system design and permit application has also been submitted for a drainfield on the northerly portion of this Lot 39 and is expected to be approved soon. Once the variance applications are approved, a single family home can be designed for the lot that fits within the approved variance envelope. The purpose of this application is to obtain approval for this "building envelope" before beginning the design of a house. The envelope shown on the enclosed site plan is conceptual. The request of the applicant is for approval of the following variances from setback and buffers for that portion of Lot 39 lying souther of North Shore Road: 1. Reduce the front-yard setback to-0-from the existing right-of-way for Northshore Road 2. Reduce the rear-yard (bulkhead) setback to -0- from the top back edge of the bulkhead along the shoreline 3. Reduce the southerly side yard setback to-0- measured from the existing property line Upon approval of a variance with the above criteria, the applicant will be able to proceed with design of a house to fit within this limited footprint. RE C ENT U'iI I 4 `�Y' 6 \ - I? ��5s i MASON COL-N'I'Y DEPARTMENT OF CommmrY DEVELOPMENT 426 W Cedar Street!P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 Mason County Permit Center Use: ! 360.427.9670 Ext 352 1 DIM q - 01 ❑ Development Regulations Variance: $1,135 Date R vd: ❑ Subdivision and Plats Variance: $1 135 i ❑ Public Dearing $2,005 Applicant will also be billed for advertising costs. i {U 11 1 Z 9,014 4260 W, CEDAR ST. 3 � Development Regulations Variance Application Mason County Code Title 15, Section 15.49.fl57 VARIANCE CRITERIA. states that variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Development Regulations (zoning regulations) may be allowed if written findings show compliance with the variance criteria The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the criteria is met. A Variance is an application for a special "exception to the rule." A public hearing accompanies Variances and application for a Variance does not guarantee approval. Applicant Name Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. -Tom Barghausen Property Owners Washington Federal Mailing Address 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 Phone 1 (425) 251-6222 Phone 2 Email targhausen -barghausen.com Site Address Tag Parcel T 32224 - 50 - 00025 Legal Description Lots thirtynine (39) Cady's Sunrise Beach Volume 4 of Plats Page 8 Records of Mason County, Washington. Project Description Please see attached L•\Community Deuciopment\PAC'�VARLLNIC£S Upd' -d 3012012 Paae l o 5 1QJ Please pro-,tale a site plan that includes the following: 1. Indicate Scale and North Arrow. 2. Property line dimensions,easements, and right-of-ways. 3. The location of all existing and proposed strictures. Include square footage of existing and proposed strictures. 4. Setback distance,in feet from all property lines and structures. E C =• . V E 5. Existing and proposed road access to and from the site. J� I Zuj4 6. Parking spaces. 426 W. C�rj A P , r. 7. Location of on-site sewage tanks and drainfields. 8. Location of drinking water supply.Include location on the proposed site and surrounding parcels. 9. Steep bluffs, wetlands,streams,and bodies of water. 10. Surface and storm water run-off routes. X a separate piece of paper 4 of s attached: ), please explain the reason for the � On sg p FP � P� Variance request and respond to the following: 1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required_ 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. 3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how the proposal pertains to these circumstances. a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; b. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not,for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations,Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. Provide a list (preferably printed on mailing Iabels or legal sized envelopes) of all property owners' mailing addresses within 300 feet of your parcel boundaries. Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office,Bldg. 1. Applicant's Signature Bate June 2, 2014 l/ l� I:1Commun0ty Devc1opm=f PAC\ AR ,1NC£S Updated 10!2012 Page 2 o f/5' MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 426 W Cedar Street/P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98514 360,427.9670 Fx.352 Publication Cost Agreement Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant_ The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I /WE understand that I/WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I/ WE understand that is MY / OUR responsibility. I / WE must submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as complete. Signature of Property Owner Date Print Name O Tom Barghausen Signature of Applicant Date PrintName RECEIVED J U N 1 1 2014 426 W, CEDAR S T. 1ACommunitw Developmenf\PAC\V,LUI -LACES Updated 3 012012 Pze 3 ofy 5 Project Description Lot 39 Cady's Sunrise Beach Combined Shoreline, Resource and Development Variance Lot 39 of the plat of Cady's Sunrise Beach is a highly constrained legal parcel bisected by North Shore Road. The only physically feasible building area is on an existing flat pad located between the existing concrete seawall/bulkhead and the existing county road. The portion of the lot located northerly of North Shore Road has been determined to be unbuildable due to geotechnical,wetland, and steep slope constraints. The lot is zoned RR-5 (Rural Residential -5). The Shoreline Designation for the property is "Urban". It appears that this portion of Lot 39 was previously used for recreation in conjunction with a neighboring parcel as evidenced by the existing grass lawn and brick fireplace. The maximum building land area lying between the concrete seawall/bulkhead is 1530 square feet in size (roughly 4%of the total site area) and is irregular in shape. The entire area is located within one or more of the following setbacks as set forth in Mason County codes: • FWHCA setbacks as provided in Mason. County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110.D (Table 3) for Critical Area Habitat: o 100' buffer from OHWM (bulkhead) plus a 15' BSBL • Building setbacks in the Mason County Development Regulations 17.04.223 for the Rural Residential 5 (RR-5 zone) are: 0 25' front yard setback from county right-of-way 0 20' side yard setbacks • Shoreline Master Program setbacks as set forth in Mason County Chapter 17.50 for Residential Development(Subsection 9) o 15'from OHWM Given the above buffers and setbacks, this portion of the lot is unbuildable without approval of a variance from Mason County. After completing the survey, we have determined that a rectangular building envelope approximately 35' x 25' (approximately 750 square feet) can be accommodated within the limitations of the existing pad, but will require approval of 3 combined variances. This footprint would be large enough to accommodate a 1500 SF 2-story home. This is substantially below the maximum threshold set forth in Mason County Code 17.01.150.E (Variances—Review Standards) of 2,550 square feet or 40% of the gross lot area. _ _ rh 426 DA° S T. �S The applicant has already received approval from the Mason County Health Department for a 2-party water system using the existing well associated with the adjoining lot 40 which will be able to provide water service for a house on this Lot 39. A septic system design and permit application has also been submitted for a drainfield on the northerly portion of this Lot 39 and is expected to be approved soon. Once the variance applications are approved, a single family home can be designed for the lot that fits within the approved variance envelope. The purpose of this application is to obtain approval for this "building envelope" before beginning the design of a house. The envelope shown on the enclosed site plan is conceptual. The request of the applicant is for approval of the following variances from setback and buffers for that portion of Lot 39 lying southerly of North Shore Road: 1. Reduce the front-yard setback to-0-from the existing right-of-way for Northshore Road 2. Reduce the rear-yard (bulkhead) setback to -0- from the top back edge of the bulkhead along the shoreline 3. Reduce the southerly side yard setback to-0-measured from the existing property line Upon approval of a variance with the above criteria, the applicant will be able to proceed with design of a house to fit within this limited footprint. REl C r E 12014 426 VV, CEDARS `, LEGEND 9 " G � ->—r TICHTUNE —V— WATER UNE LOT 38 1 �-�-TRANSPORT PIPE —P— EIECTRICAL LINE -LATERAL TRANSPORT PIPE CLEANOUT ----PRIMARY DRNNFIEID TRENCH Fo -1 PULP TANK ' -- PROPERTY LINE --RESERVE DRAINFIELD TRENCH O SEPTIC TANK ♦ ----PROPERTY UNE ifCONIFER TREE 0 DECIDUOUS TREE ♦��� ,,v 0 �5 g© i EX3 � r � ♦ PROPOSED PRIMARY ♦ DRAINAELD JU 11 2014 426 W. CEDAR ST. — °�_, —_ ♦ PROPOSED RESERVE —+� 1 DRAINFIELD LOT 39 EXISTING LOT 39 50) WELL ''—-- TWO PARTY WELL r� /� ♦ \ RADIUS LOCATION SERVING LOTS 39 AND 40 el 11 PROPOSED LOT 39 '�! /:' �° �a !'=' ,��i/ 25' SHORELINE SETBACK TRANSPORT PIPE Q%✓ \ 2Y34'E 2135' OF LOT 40 LOT 40 EXISTING ;ONTRACTOR SEPTIC AND DOSE TANK - V' / PROPOSED 3 ISTAL.LATION (1,200 GAL EA.) PROPOSED SEPTIC TANK 'l1C SYSTEM \ BEDROOM RESIDENCE / /,/��/ /� f/ f ,�� EXISTING 3 BEDROOM RESIDENCE N—SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM DESIGN PROJECT SHEET: of g8402 OR: WASHINGTON FEDERAL NOVASTAR 10801 NE NORTH SHORE RD DATE:02-05-14 18215 72ND AVE S BELFAIR, WA 98528 000 KENT, WA 98032 PARCEL132224-50-00025 — I 425-656-7435 & 00925 NO. DATE BY CK'D APP'D REVISION JOB -.213107 LEGEND ¶GHTUNE —V— WATER ONE �--�-TRANSPORT PIPE —P— ELECTRICAL ONE �-- LATERAL TRANSPORT PIPE CLEANOUT LOT 39 PRIMARY DRAINFIELD TRENCH PUMP TANK 50' WELL. RADIUS Fo _———— ----RESERVE DRAINFlELD TRENCH O O SEP11C TANK ----PROPERTY LINE i CONIFER TREE 0 DECIDUOUS TREE EXlS11NG LOT 39 TWO PARTY WELL LOCATION SERVING LOTS 39 AND 40 \ LOT 39 PROPOSED - • / � � �� �:�%"' • .' jC�- WATERLINE LOCATION Poo // EDGE OF ASPHALT 25' SHORELINE SETBACK HIGH WATER MARK -OUND TANK LID � � J ATE LOCATION OF TEPTIC AND DOSE TANK PROPOSED 3 • � l�/ BEDROOM RESIDENCE i PROPOSED 1,250 '��N• /� GAL SEPTIC TANK L ON-SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM DESIGN PROJECT SHEET: 2 OF 7 402 FOR: WASHINGTON FEDERAL NOVASTAR 10801 NE NORTH SHORE RD DATE:02-05-14 18215 72ND AVE S BELFAIR, WA 98528 KENT, WA 98032 PARCEL#32224-50-00025 425-656-7435 1& 00925 NO. DATE I BY I CK'D APP'D REVISION JOB :213107 i N� � I Q NE KENOSHA PASS RD I QO z ! E BEAR Ro. .I..:µ. T2 N R3 fz I l r2� m / o, 4c/ f5 f :i fl N D boo4q Vk?,od�f •0000s, r pA� 1 inch = 833.33 feet f(� E � � �`C vb��� 1 inch = 0 miles .�i 22245000011 >224500001I 322243200000 ' 322245000013 �'� 322245000014 = 322245000015 322245000919 322245000018 322245000021 322245000023 322245000925 .01 322245000014 322245000024 r � 322245000015' 322245000026 322245000018 322240060000 322245000030 322245000027 322245000019 322245000023 322245000021 322245000025 322245000029 Q� ,r'�. 322245000024 322245000082 � �y� � 322245000026 322245000027 322245000083 ' 322245000084,�. + `x 322245000029 r 322245000083, -,.!� 322242222222 322245000087 322248888888 322245000086 Sour-e. Esri Digi4al lope, wEye,kub-d,USDA.0 GS, EX, Getmafti ANCOM ON, IGF swissRopo, and the e User CMrgREW 660 0 57 e 1 inch = 100 feet 1 inch = 0 miles /�q S '�21If armor i 322245000015 � 322245000018 322245000919 322245000021 322245000023 �Np pR NE (3222450990181 322245000925 �'`� �' - 24 322245000019 322240060000 322245000024 322245000021 322245000026 c 322245000027 � � + 322245000023 322245000025 y,x'�.",r P 322245000024 322245000026 322245000027 + k� 322245000029 w' Sou ce. E r g4aWl @ Geo ye, i--u,b- SD USES,AM, G"Wtaing, erogrid.oqn,OF,s isstopo,a d the @58 Lbw Com unity t N / a 1 inch = 50 feet W E 1 inch = 0 miles s �� " SITE PLAN FOR COMBINED LEGAL DESCRM 6 2 m"x u�r:m�u) ¢wr aYrtipe n vsnee4 00 ` S SHORELINE/RESOURCE/DEVELOPMENT w > w� a / / l / / / i// REGULATIONS VARIANCE o CPI: q;w FOU N PIPE, • c �v c� r�1� / / % /�� / /j///�/�i / / /{ J^ R ♦v RrzoNr DATUM Ru D e/s 1-w rs Of eumNcs: z Q, �D� z Z. //J / / / ` / ��� • Emru DATUM�uw ems: _ o s c<u�ERr/ WELL JiDuse/%' J i �+ ..��� o � ItKI `L8pJ j/ / / / a m CPP;Q/L1 RT // / Lic1Dr.SIRII. w /'U• � - �` ,.�..d..<..�o.oa POW PROCEDURE/;;.TNEPOWER : N WTER / .^':'// + _ f' _ _ �o�..o.n..e.mn�..., i> jI/j/ iWEL/H / ' '\ i' vnNm wr _ vim.au:Av v.EwiO`_� G SST RE BAR 8 STD.CRATE .✓% I«o)-�- 1 - „•..m, v..Qm / +463 RIM=26.05' no.�a m.•m.m-x.,�m, m..:am 40%SLOPE - al !� ` 1`A�p_L.✓✓2— %/ /ice / �;Accouur uuveER: 0O{Fy�'' t/' JRI ER �� "0 / ��_ 1 // % % iEw®Rou11 vow,a.e.,v m _ I �rNa S ad Existin ncre� `--- - '< a 1 i ret ' Tng wall _ ! o exii;ti i! eck qtS 15/r %j _`/ w0 ¢ i 4'PVC CULVEJ--6 :_ / D sTePs i /�� �� - a Y L " EXi5t1 dD decldo� d' ings �`. o o a N /j/ / /// /S EBAR/CAP j ` n LSA4631 3 osed se cation % / 5'WALKWD PA �,� GONG.STERI_/ °Q`� '/ Q}�•a' ArASEWE misting concrete u•••w•) F stairs to shoreline �L W00 I / / / `�l°•• �' �D �CONC..�'fEP, ,,; aAn,.n '� 1 CULVERT PROPOSED DING ENVELOPE "• da ' .4p [ yp yg V j LE 1=16.27 — 0 % 25'%35'12 STO ~ a e BLDG AREA= .4 MAX SRE•150.S.F. 9823 S.F. { ® , PLANTEI< Shoreline and OHWM ; x SHOWER Concept a _ WOO Building E lopes ; °o�' An� t ,y _ Buildable Area(exact configu .ratt'q� i / / 2ND LEVEL/FlNISH FLOOR=23.32' ~ ~ and location o c�ti ' % - w V 'EPSS TO Y D.L { NISH FLOOR 15.85' ~ ~ ~ Exhibit for Public— will vary) GKi / y�N' Hearing cgs Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Pa e 1 of 7 r - . . ,� . n. o .-'--' L� Y._Xa.:+:�.-���f'r�asl`:,►i-�....ram...;.,_ - _ .. - - ...,.. __ View of the southeast corner of that portion of Lot 39 lying north of the Road. The View looking southwesterly into Lot 39 and toward Lot aT' , recif" ' corner is marked with the iron pipe and lath. The two well houses are shown on just inside the tree line behind the pump house. opposite sides of the line. The toe of slope is just inside the tree line. ST. Yr_ h'T`f -��f' I �,_r '. �" • �~ Qom' Looking southwesterly along North Shore road in front of Lot 39. The existing Existing corner of Lot 39 for that portion of the lot lying southerly of the right-of-way line is located near the front of the well house. road. There is an old concrete wall overgrown with ivy at this location. 05/01/14 The shoreline is just visible to the right. Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Pa e 2 of 7 �-- ;ram y•1C 1 t^ ' �;q � - i View looking south from the subject lot down the shoreline along the bulkhead View of the subject property showing the existing bulkhead, the lawn area, and showing the house on Lot 42 built right up to, and partially over the bulkhead. the existing brick fire place. This is the area proposed for the "approved building envelope". y•� Jt MPT _ s Another view looking northerly across the proposed building envelope showing Looking northwesterly between Lots 39 and 40 up to North Shore the existing retaining walls up against the road. The existing right-of-way line is Road. 05/01/14 located just to the left of the fire place. Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Pa e 3 of 7 Ili I - f « A. 4 �. 1 , e� Close up view of the nearby house on Lot 42 that enjoys a building envelope that Another house on an adjoining lot that has a deck built up to the bulkhead. A directly abuts the bulkhead. majority of the houses built on the water side of North Shore Road are built close to, or over, the bulkhead. 'i:�r,�4+-ry-.F,y J�-4i..- K_��Y�d�u/'f . �{ F•rr ��y��r.. _� �` �l may' -04 t�� r"± L' ,�,i� II �,,,��'t,t` m' r '.c '� L ��*•yrti4.��+ � r �S p 5C`��� ,• sec_. :..,.+�i �'� - -._�.`.�.�i:.��Fd � � -`_`— :?:� Another house located several hundred feet south of the subject property that View of the bulkhead on Lot 39 looking northeasterly. The deck in the essentially abuts the bulkhead, and another one is just beyond in the distance. distance is shown on our survey and is located on our property. 05/01/14 Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Pa e 4 of 7 � �:\,� ��;R�� �+4 .' �• "ice.•- '. ZVI K�1 Y � 3�,s. � �r��-^�J`>.:�-j IIr'7r tr-' � I` � •Ham•, ar:'Y".C.- n.. '�I View of several nearby houses northeasterly along the beach showing how they View of the retaining walls along the frontage of North Shore Road. are build right up to the bulkhead. RIM S ay; p� r-c View looking southwesterly along North Shore Road from the top of the View of the house immediately northeasterly of Lot 39 which is also retaining walls along the highway. The house is on Lot 40 next door which is built partially within the existing right-of-way. 05/01/14 partially built in the existing right-of-way. Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Page 5 of r I s f rr .e p View of another house near the subject property that is built on top of the View of a house built on top of the bulkhead with a deck that extends over the bulkhead. shoreline below. i k I 1 .f � ,1 .a �, � �f •`r Another house built over the bulkhead with decks extending further into the This house nearby has a bulkhead that was built out further into the shoreline. OHWM and is also built out to the limit of the bulkhead. 05/01/14 Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Pa e 6 of 7 i Here's a house built almost totally beyond the OHWM on columns. Another house built beyond the OHWM on column, Another house built all the way out to the bulkhead. House built out to the bulkhead and with a deck extending further. 05/01/14 Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Page 7 of 7 k _ �� D s I C _�. JON 426 W. CEDAR ST. House nearby constructed up to the bulkhead with a deck extending further over the water. 05/01/14 Afg, `y'. :i - =�-tt • r' 41.E ZNT�,��_Yh.Yr4-'9 S7 M 1 f h . f ti k •M TL VII -�, Mo CEDAR ST. MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division P.O. Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT (SHR2014-00014), RESOURCE ORDINANCE (VAR2014-00005), and DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS VARIANCE (DDR2014-00043) PERMITS. Notice is hereby given that Barghausen Engineers, who are the applicants of the described property below, filed an application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit/Variance, Resource Ordinance Variance, and Development Regulations Variance for the development of: Construction of 1,500 sq. ft. two-story residence (each floor 750 sq, ft.) in a 25 ft. deep by 35 ft.wide footprint location. Due the limits of the subject property, the setbacks from the shoreline bulkhead,west side property line, and the North Shore Road easement is proposed as 0 ft. The variances requested will evaluate the new residence footprint in regard to the common line setback from the ordinary high water mark of Hood Canal and to residences in the vicinity. Parcel Number: 32224-50-00024 and 32224-50-00025. Site Address: 10811 NE North Shore Rd., Belfair WA. Location of Project: Along Hood Canal 11 miles west of Belfair; within the northeast I/4 of Section 24, Township 22 N., Range 3 W. in Mason County Washington. Said proposed development is subject to shoreline management permit review(M.C.C. 17.50) and associated Mason County Development Regulations standards. Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify in writing of their interest to: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PO BOX 279 SHELTON, WA 98584 The comment period is at least 30 days from the final date of publication given pursuant to WAC 173- 14-020. The final date of publication,posting or mailing of notice is September 4, 2014. The proposal is exempt from environmental review under WAC 197-11-800. Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the Hearings Examiner public hearing Tuesday October 14, 2014; 1:00 PM in Mason County Bldg. I (411 No. Fifth St., Shelton). Contact Allan Borden in this office at(360) 427-9670, ext. 365 for further information. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ' NOTIDI= STATE OF.WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) do hereby Cefify that ! posted copies of I . the attached on_fj� ay of 4-�' �� 20 in public places.as follows: one at one at �f S one at ks(_ 062f I.n witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this day of By: , 20 - Address: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF MASON ) Subscribed and sworn to me this day of 1,2a__L-- Notary Public ota Public for'the State of Washington State of Washingt6a Residing at A_6ry� C_00 DEBBERA COKER Commission Expires /2- 15- My COMMISSION EXPIRES 11/15/2014 RetJm To: TITLE N'OTIE+'ICATiON OF HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: OWNER NAME: MAILING ADDRESS PARCEL# LEGAL DESCRIFTION: (ABER.FORM: QUARTEPJQUARTER,SECTION,TOWNSHIP,RANGE,PLAT, LOT&BLOCS NOTICE:. The property was the subject of a development proposal within a critical area or its buffer,for the purpose of application number Eded'on -(date) This property is subject to the conditions,mitigation and/or conservation mcasnres as contained within the Habitat Management Plan submitted to.and approved by the Mason Coanty Depaftmtnt of CDmmunity Development. Restrictions on the use or alteration of the property may exist due to the contents, conditions,:mitigation and/or conservation measures of the Habitat Management Plaza which are to be maintained in perpetuity. A copy of the Habitat Management Plan is attached hereto. GRANTORS): LOST FIRST MI LAST FIRST ML SIGNATURE(S): GRANTEE: PTJBI,1C Page 1 of 2 Allan Borden - FW: Barghausen decision on three Variances From: Tom Barghausen <targhausen@barghausen.com> To: Allan Borden <ahb@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 11/17/2014 6:54 AM Subject: FW: Barghausen decision on three Variances CC: Melody Saucedo <msaucedo@barghausen.com> Attachments: 15972-M-EXH-Revised Building Envelope Option 1-2014-05-06.pdf, 15972-M-EXH-Revised Building Envelope Option 2-2014-05-06.pdf Hi Allan, I'm following up on the below email. On October 30th,you had asked if we had a copy of the sketch I turned in at the public hearing to the Examiner showing a reduced building footprint. The Examiner referred to this in his decision as Exhibit 24. 1 turned in the only copy I had since it was sketched during the hearing and left with the Examiner. I assume his office has the official copy. The attached options reflect what was presented in the sketch. The goal was to reduce the size of the building footprint to 600 SF from 875 SF while also providing some setback from the bulkhead. Both options accomplish this but Option 1 is closest to the one that I sketched at the hearing. It provides setbacks on the south and north lines, as well as along the shoreline. Please confirm that the record includes Exhibit 24 as either the sketch I left with the Examiner, or one/both of these options. It may be several years or more before someone comes in to apply for a building permit on this lot and I don't want there to be confusion when looking for Exhibit 24. Thanks very much! Tom Thomas A. Barghausen P.E. GUW President C � 'vV V 0i Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. i'v��l 18215-72nd Avenue South / Kent, Washington, 98032 1-425-251-6222 (Office) 1-206-954-7947 (Cell) -----Original Message----- From:Tom Barghausen Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 2:15 PM To: 'Allan Borden' Cc: Ricka Gerstmann (Ricka.Gerstmann@wafd.com); Wayne Potter Subject: RE: Barghausen decision on three Variances file:///C:/ Jsers/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/54699BAOMasonma... 11/17/2014 Page 2 of 2 Hi Allan, The sketch that I turned in at the hearing was hand-drawn right there and I'm pretty sure I left that with the Hearing Examiner. The original building envelope we submitted with our application was 35'x 25' for a total of 875 SF. Attached are two options showing a smaller envelope of 20' x 30'which is what I showed the Hearing Examiner. The envelope has to be rectangular. Depending on which property line the envelope is parallel with, it could be in one of these locations--or moved/rotated slightly. What else do you need from me? Thanks Tom --------------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Barghausen P.E. President Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215-72nd Avenue South Kent,Washington, 98032 1-425-251-6222 (Office) 1-206-954-7947 Cell -----Original Message----- From:Allan Borden [mailto:ahb@co.mason.wa.us] Sent:Thursday,October 30, 2014 3:19 PM To:Tom Barghausen Cc:Allan Borden Subject: Fwd: Barghausen decision on three Variances Tom Barghausen: am forwarding the Variance cases decision issued yesterday AM. Look it over as it is long and detailed. Page 7, first paragraph of the Findings mentions project modifications (noted as Exhibit 24). Do you have the written memo or document that states the possible modifications to the proposed footprint that you supplied to the Hearing Examiner at the Oct. 14th hearing. If you have the memo/document, Mason County would need a copy to complete the Variance case record,to understand the approved footprint shape and area. Thanks in advance. Allan Borden Planner- Long Range &Site Inspection 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 ext. 365 file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/54699BAOMasonma... 11/17/2014 From: Tom Barghausen <tbarghausen@barghausen.com> To: Allan Borden <ahb@co.mason.wa.us> CC: "Ricka Gerstmann (Ricka.Gerstmann@wafd.com)" <Ricka.Gerstmann@wafd.com>,... Date: 11/3/2014 2:15 PM Subject: RE: Barghausen decision on three Variances Attachments: 15972-M-EXH-Building Envelope-2014-05-06.pdf; 15972-M- EXH-Building Envelope-2014-05-06.pdf Hi Allan, The sketch that I turned in at the hearing was hand-drawn right there and I'm pretty sure I left that with the Hearing Examiner. The original building envelope we submitted with our application was 35' x 25' for a total of 875 SF. Attached are two options showing a smaller envelope of 20' x 30' which is what I showed the Hearing Examiner. The envelope has to be rectangular. Depending on which property line the envelope is parallel with, it could be in one of these locations--or moved/rotated slightly. What else do you need from me? Thanks Tom --------------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Barghausen P.E. President Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 - 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington, 98032 1-425-251-6222 (Office) 1-206-954-7947 (Cell) -----Original Message----- From: Allan Borden [mailto:ahb@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 3:19 PM To: Tom Barghausen Cc: Allan Borden Subject: Fwd: Barghausen decision on three Variances Tom Barghausen: I am forwarding the Variance cases decision issued yesterday AM. Look it over as it is long and detailed. Page 7, first paragraph of the Findings mentions project modifications (noted as Exhibit 24). Do you have the written memo or document that states the possible modifications to the proposed footprint that you supplied to the Hearing Examiner at the Oct. 14th hearing. If you have the memo / document, Mason County would need a copy to complete the Variance case record, to understand the approved footprint shape and area. Thanks in advance. Allan Borden Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 365 From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@g mail.com> To: Allan Borden <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us> CC: Ariane Paysse <ArianeP@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 10/31/2014 1:53 PM Subject: Re: Request of Exhibit 24 to the Barghausen three Variances I'll be able to do that when I get back into town next Wednesday. On Oct 31, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Allan Borden <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us> wrote: > Phil Olbrechts: > Would you please scan the Exhibit 24 (Barghausen / applicant request > for increased shore setback) in your record of the Barghausen Variance > reviews and please attach the PDF to your response to this message? > Ariane and I do not have a copy. Our records will be more complete. > Allan Borden > Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection > 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 > (360) 427-9670 ext. 365 »» Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> 10/31/2014 12:47 AM >>> > I have the exhibit if he doesn't. > On Oct 30, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Allan Borden <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us> wrote: >> Tom Barghausen: >> I am forwarding the Variance cases decision issued yesterday AM. > Look it over as it is long and detailed. Page 7, first paragraph of the > Findings mentions project modifications (noted as Exhibit 24). Do you > have the written memo or document that states the possible modifications > to the proposed footprint that you supplied to the Hearing Examiner at > the Oct. 14th hearing. If you have the memo / document, Mason County > would need a copy to complete the Variance case record, to understand > the approved footprint shape and area. Thanks in advance. >> Allan Borden >> Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection >> 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 >> (360) 427-9670 ext. 365 » I >> From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> >> Subject: Barghausen decision >> Date: October 29, 2014 at 10:23:22 AM PDT >> To: Ariane Paysse <ArianeP@co.mason.wa.us>, Allan Borden > <ahb@co.mason.wa.us> >> <Resource Ordinance Variance and Shoreline Variance-- Payne.doc> >> All done! From: Kristin French <KFrench@RWJPLLC.com> To: Allan Borden <ahb@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 10/30/2014 3:12 PM Subject: RE: Barghausen decision Thanks Allan. If you could just let me know when you have it I'd like to get a copy for my file. Also I want to verify that I am reading the decision correctly - per decision p. 10 lines 21 - 23, it is my understanding that none of the clump of 5 - 6 trees is going to be modified or removed. Are you reading that the same way? Kristin -----Original Message----- From: Allan Borden [mailto:ahb@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 3:03 PM To: Kristin French Cc: Allan Borden Subject: RE: Barghausen decision Kristin: Ariane and I do not have a copy of Exh. 24. I will inquire about the exhibit (proposal modifications) with the Hearing Examiner and with the Applicant (Barghausen) in order to complete the record. Allan Borden Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 365 >>> Kristin French <KFrench@RWJPLLC.com> 10/30/2014 2:38 PM >>> Thanks very much Allan. How could I best obtain a copy of the Exhibit 24? There wasn't a copy I could take from the applicant at the hearing. Kristin French Robert W. Johnson, PLLC PO Box 1400 Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 426-9728 FAX: (360) 426-1902 KFrench@RWJPLLC.com -----Original Message----- From: Allan Borden [mailto:ahb@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 12:50 PM To: Kristin French Cc: Allan Borden<ahb@co.mason.wa.us Subject: Fwd: Barghausen decision Kristin: I am forwarding the decision issued yesterday AM. Look it over as it is long and detailed. Allan Borden Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 365 From: Tom Barghausen <tbarghausen@barghausen.com> To: Allan Borden <ahb@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 10/30/2014 3:25 PM Subject: RE: Barghausen decision on three Variances Hi Allan, Can you send me Exhibit 24? I know what was proposed for the 600 SF envelope and will forward to you but I want to see Ex. 24 to be sure I have it right. Thanks! Tom --------------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Barghausen P.E. President Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 - 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington, 98032 1-425-251-6222 (Office) 1-206-954-7947 (Cell) -----Original Message----- From: Allan Borden [mailto:ahb@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 3:19 PM To: Tom Barghausen Cc: Allan Borden Subject: Fwd: Barghausen decision on three Variances Tom Barghausen: I am forwarding the Variance cases decision issued yesterday AM. Look it over as it is long and detailed. Page 7, first paragraph of the Findings mentions project modifications (noted as Exhibit 24). Do you have the written memo or document that states the possible modifications to the proposed footprint that you supplied to the Hearing Examiner at the Oct. 14th hearing. If you have the memo / document, Mason County would need a copy to complete the Variance case record, to understand the approved footprint shape and area. Thanks in advance. Allan Borden Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 365 From: Allan Borden To: Tom Barghausen CC: Allan Borden Date: 10/30/2014 3:19 PM Subject: Fwd: Barghausen decision on three Variances Attachments: Barghausen decision Tom Barghausen: I am forwarding the Variance cases decision issued yesterday AM. Look it over as it is long and detailed. Page 7, first paragraph of the Findings mentions project modifications (noted as Exhibit 24). Do you have the written memo or document that states the possible modifications to the proposed footprint that you supplied to the Hearing Examiner at the Oct. 14th hearing. If you have the memo / document, Mason County would need a copy to complete the Variance case record, to understand the approved footprint shape and area. Thanks in advance. Allan Borden Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 365 Page 1 of 2 Allan Borden - RE: Variance Requests at 10801 NE North Shore Rd. Belfair From: Tom Barghausen <targhausen@barghausen.com> To: Allan Borden <ahb@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 10/9/2014 6:33 AM Subject: RE: Variance Requests at 10801 NE North Shore Rd. Belfair CC: "Ricka Gerstmann (Ricka.Gerstmann@wafd.com)" <Ri cka.G erstm ann @wafd.com>,... Attachments: 15972-M-EXH-Building Envelope-2014-05-06 (3).pdf, SnipImage.jpg Hi Allan, I reviewed the report in more detail and appreciate the comprehensive analysis and overview you provided. Thank you. However, I do have one question that I need clarified before the hearing. You are recommending one additional condition in the staff report beyond what was recommended by Soundview Consultants—which is to plant 400 SF of native vegetation along the south and east side of the project as mitigation for impacts to the Shoreline. However, per the site plan that was submitted with our application and given the constraints of this small lot, we are concerned this is going to be impossible to meet due to the following: • The building envelope abuts the south line and the east line (bulkhead) because this is where the existing grass lawn pad is located, and where the pad is the widest (measured from North Shore Road). This was included in our request to reduce the setbacks in these directions to-0-, which is also consistent with other properties along the shoreline. We can't plant native vegetation in these areas. • The entire lot area is only 1530 SF which includes the steep slope and retaining walls next to the ROW. The conceptual building envelope takes up about 875 SF, leaving only 655 SF left which includes the existing stairs on the north side,the stairs to the shoreline, as well as the slope and walls. It seems overly burdensome to require 400 SF of this area to be replanted as native vegetation given the existing development north and south of this property. • The lot is irregular shaped but a house is a rectangle. This forces us to locate the structure generally as shown to be feasible—even with a very small footprint, which prohibits the use of the south and west lines for revegation. • We also have to set aside area for the septic tank, access to the structure from the road (walkways, ramps etc.) and the future owner will want to be able to access the existing deck and stairs near the north line along the shore with walk ways. If any of this area is required to be planted with native vegetation,this will preclude the use of this area and impose an unreasonable burden on the property owner, without a measurable improvement in protection for the Shoreline since this area already has been completely altered. I realize the importance of protecting the shoreline from degradation but there are equally desirable goals to file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/54362C22Masonmail... 10/9/2014 Page 2 of 2 protect the steep slopes and wildlife habitat across the road. The vast majority of this lot is being left as native forest and less than 5%of the lot area is being developed. One potential compromise might be to change the condition as follows: "As part of this variance, staff recommends that a landscape plan be submitted at the time of a building permit application which shall incorporate a percentage of native species into the final plan as recommended by Soundview Consultants or other qualified Wildlife Habitat Consultant". I've also asked Soundview Consultants to weigh in here before the hearing. Thanks Allan! Tom --------------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Barghausen P.E. President Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215-72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington, 98032 1-425-251-6222 (Office) 1-206-954-7947 (Cell) -----Original Message----- From: Allan Borden [mailto:ahb@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 3:42 PM To:Tom Barghausen Cc: Allan Borden Subject:Variance Requests at 10801 NE North Shore Rd. Belfair Tom Barghausen: I have prepared a staff report for the proposal that requires the three variances for the public hearing on Tuesday October 14, 2014 at 1:00 PM in the County Commissioners Chambers at 411 No. Fifth St in Shelton. I wanted you to get the general direction of the County review. The scanned version includes the staff report, maps, and photo images;the geo and habitat mgmt. plan are not in the scanned version. A complete staff report will be available at the hearing. Contact me with any other questions. Allan Borden Planner- Long Range &Site Inspection 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 ext. 365 file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/54362C22Maso=ail... 10/9/2014 Page 1 of 3 Allan Borden-Re: Lots along NE North Shore Road From: Michael MacSems To: Wilson, Terry Date: 11/26/20121:57 PM Subject: Re: Lots along NE North Shore Road CC: Borden, Allan; Kenny, Stephanie; Lohmeyer, Marcie; Reynolds, Amanda Hi Terry, answers below. >>>Terry Wilson <twilson@barghausen.com> 11/25/2012 4:34 PM >>> Hi Michael- Sorry we have missed each other via phone; I have assembled this email to see if you might be able to assist me with some questions about the following 3 parcel numbers: 32224-50-00025 32224-50-00024 32224-50-00925 Attached is a pdf of an Assessor's Map for the 3 parcels, which are portions of Lots 39 and 40 of Cady's Sunrise Beach, together with second class shorelines abutting. Parcel 00024 is Lot 40 and is located on either side of NE North Shore Drive. Parcel 00925 appears to be the portion of Lot 39 lying northwest of NE North Shore Drive and parcel 00025 is the portion along the waterfront on the southeast side of the road. Our client is the bank, which has foreclosed on the property and needs to know what main issues surround its marketability and development potential. One of the first questions I have is whether these 3 parcels actually constitute 3 lots that may each have development potential, or whether the 2 parcel numbers for Lot 39 may merely be tax number assignments. I have worked in jurisdictions in the past where separate tax number assignments may have been given by the Assessor for property tax treatment, but are not recognized by the jurisdiction as segregated for permitting and development. Are you able to provide some feedback on this issue and our 3 parcel numbers? You are correct that occasionally a tax parcel number does not equate a legal lot of record. I don't have enough information here to judge this specific situation. I would say that these are two legal lots north and south of the road IF they were deeded out separately to different buyers prior to 1974. Marcie Lohmeyer in the Assessor's Office (360-427-9670 ext. 301) has records that would show if this tax number came into existence prior to 1974. Second, I am assuming wells are the source for water for the houses in the area, but I am not sure where I may be able to gather information on whether any new development may be able to tie into an existing well or drill a new one. Can you provide any direction on the well/water issue including whether or not any public water may be available? If this is a Health Department question, can you provide me with a referral and contact information for someone with the Health Department who is familiar with this type of development and that may be able to assist? I am not aware of any community water systems in this area, but I don't have perfect knowledge about this. You should check with Stephanie Kenny (x 581) with Public Health as she keeps track of the Group B water systems for the County. If there isn't an existing water service you should check with Amanda Reynolds (279) in Public Health to see if it would even be possible to have a well and a septic on a lot less than one acre in size. file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise150B37556Mason mail 1001626A6811D... 11/26/2012 Page 2 of 3 Third, are you able to ascertain if there has been any attempt at obtaining a building permit for any of the lots? Our computerized records start in 1992 and since then there have been no applications for anything on parcels 00025 & 00925. However a permit for a septic system for parcel 00024 (SWG96-00404) was approved in 1996. Also, the Planning Dept did a "pre-inspection" for 00024 in 2006, the text of which I've added at the bottom of this e-mail. To follow up on this, the planner was Allan Borden and he can be reached at x 365. 1 note that Allan assumed that parcels 00025 and 00925 were separate, but I doubt that the question you raise was investigated at that time. If you are interested in pre-1992 records, here is a link to our records request form: http://www.co.mason.wa.us/forms/Community Dev/research request.pdf Last, It appears that the existing house located on the waterfront portion of Lot 40 sends effluent across the street to the upper portion of the parcel where a drainfield is located. Can you comment on the feasibility of anything similar being proposed for Lot 39 from a Planning and zoning perspective? Based on zoning, options for reasonable use or variances if needed, and Shoreline Management constraints, we would like to investigate options for what can be done with the vacant property. There isn't a Planning Dept issue with the effluent being treated off site. As for the SMP regulations, Allan Borden has addressed them in his 2006 comments below, but you are free to follow up with Allan if you have any additional questions about that. Thank you for your assistance with these questions. Let me know if anything else relevant comes to mind as you look into these parcels. You are welcome. Michael Best regards, --------------------------------- Terry Wilson Senior Project Planner Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222- Phone (425) 656-7486- Direct (425) 251-8782- Fax http://www.barghausen.com --------------------------------- SPI 2006-00237 The zoning designation is Rural Residential 5, and the shoreline envirommnetal designation is Urban. Three adjoining parcels were inspected. one parcel has an existing single-family residence that could be replaced entirely if desired by the applicant within the existing foot print. A one-time horizontal 10% expansion of the existing footprint would be permitted if said expansion were not toward the resource, but forward of the minimum 35-foot minmium required setback distance from the shoreline. Vertical expansion is allowed to 35 feet above finished construction grade, as long as, it is no closer than 15 feet from the face of the existing bulkhead or shoreline ordinary high water mark. file:HC:0ocuments and SettingslAhblLocal SettingslTemplXPgrpwise150B37556Masonmai11001626A6811D... 11/26/2012 Page 3 of 3 The waterfront parcel adjacent to the above mentioned parcel has no upland portion to build upon, it is an extemely small area requiring that a resource ordinance variance be approved to construct a dwelling forward of the 35-foot minimum setback requirement from the face of the bulkhead. There is a 10' minimum setback distance from the county-right-of- way. These setback reqirements essentially eliminate the building envelope on the property, thus requiring the resource ordinance variance to build. The third property is on the upland side of North Shore Road and would require a building permit and Geotechnical Report for any future proposed structural development of the site. All three properties and their proposed developments could be included in the same Geotechnical Report document. file://C:1Documents and SettingslAhbIocal SettingslTemplXPgrpwise150B37556Masonmail1001626A6811D... 11/26/2012 #1854 MASON COUNTY (360) 427-9670 Shelton ext.352 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360)275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us April 18, 2014 To: Mason County Public Health // Alex Paysse From Allan Borden Mason Co. Community Development RE: Geotechnical Report for Wilson Hood Canal Lots 39 and 40 PN: 32224-50-00025 location of SWG2013-00250 near 10801 NE North Shore Rd. Washington Federal Novastar Development I have reviewed the Geotechnical Report [dated March 21, 2014] prepared by Earth Solutions NW (Bellevue WA) for the properties near PN: 32224-50-00025 that involve a shallow property south of North Shore Rd. (potential building site) and a larger property north of North Shore Rd. (potential septic system site). The report contains all of the elements addressed in MCC 17.01.100 Landslide Hazard Areas (as adopted in June 2009) with narrative, map exhibits, soil profiles, and recommendations; and stamped and signed by a professional engineer. The geotechnical report dated March 21, 2014 addresses potential development on the subject properties and is approved as to form as submitted. If you have further questions, please contact me. (4A All n Orden Senior Planner (360) 427-9670 ext. 365 Wilson - Hood Canal Site Visit Photos Page 1 I i f View of the existing p 9 stairs on Lot 40. Lot 39 ad is on the right. View looking northwesterly from the shoreline to the bulkhead showing the existing house on Lot 40 and the vacant area on Lot 39. lit � I I K` 'mil,'�11 i .,,,✓,�... n.- i yr F �~� •,y.�z ::,�.�vtl�"``��� � �-• .�,`'-:J t% T �.'���N� "lG�ry Jib!-' �r�.:r-r .6,,'-�=.�p,�.,�-�.. r r..r'^'�.p,+���./r�.. -rid .. Tu 4 F • l••1y✓� a_.R. � � 3 � JI �]�yf�`�'�✓�.aFSIc�"Y,�. +'- .�1 O. sr�-L _,"•r�. �i-�'��"'.. 1 �.'rZy' - "K-e" �' G yy� I r-ly^-* {"`r View of the northeasterly e 9 corner of Lot 39 with the stairs through the bulkhead Looking southwesterly across the front of Lot 39 to the house on Lot 40. The red and the existing deck above. fireplace is on Lot 39. 02/25/14 Wilson - Hood Canal Site Visit Photos Page 2 AN .:ln ' n-- rS ,� w P" .;"` {4•f'J �' Y P •.L a ,:� �•�}`+j °1 pk Looking southerly along the shoreline showing other houses on nearby lots View of Lot 39 pad between the bulkhead and the slope by North Shore Road. including the house on Lot 40 VP JIM View of the house on the lot just north of Lot 39 showing the stairs that provide Looking south along the bulkhead from the NE corner of Lot 39. This is an ideal access to Lot 39 and the metal fencing that separates this from Lot 38. location for a small house. 02/25/14 Wilson - Hood Canal Site Visit Photos Page 3 -NIP" P. :� � � a a t � PAS^•-b� s .+ • View looking north across from Lot 39 to Lot 38 showing the metal fencing Another view of the building pad on Lot 39 looking northwesterly from the yard in between the lots. The deck is part of Lot 39. Lot 40 02/25/14 i5d SITE PLAN FOR COMBINED SHORELINE/RESOURCE/DEVELOPMENT " "E RE / REGULATIONS VARIANCE ,� .�.Q. Aa ��� 9o!! tz)^' / %j/ l/ l /—FOUI�- 6N PIPE� / �`�°`w'�® � Q�Y W� / MAR/ig]}�_-- / HORIZONTAL DATUM(NAD 83/91)-PASS OF BFARIWS: V W W cc U �gwW+,v.mc mr oid�n Q d S eoALs:r-io• / / %% % // / / / / / ///////j �— / �,Or .om��o,.noa.� w„==.r=ml:ral LL of w=m D4TW-Naw : _Ed o i J�tP�f U�"!���EERRT j j/� WELL / / / / �'+ - oc�a.. i�oamm°'o. $ alc m 3 CPP,Q(1L`/�Ri �iEss vEw Dww a m IRaE11RE/ ///li /J/ __///j////j//j/�//�//rE//V ES"�//,',��/(�.S Y13/L POW /�/ / f{`/ �� •� ll'�I'�L.o.POWER a! z"'o E WTER !1— HEKD �CUTEDSSnE ; /, $ �¢ oS 3 4Df SIT REBAR/� B STD.GRATE M453 RIM-26.05' TA)ACCOUNT NUMBER: TOE OF 40%SIOPE { +�Lf / RISER / f_��� /�� /�/jiFw�Rv aaws.Diars. co uR�o mS.nTES' /WASHEg'/ % --�JA. a w ¢ o° KEYSTONE .,tS 6315/� , l_` " wQ w m ; 5'PVC CULVER cq Ri % / D STEPS j / /l' w w ✓ / IRpN FFbeE / / o is e / icy RfCpp'/ / / /' ! / ;• / —/`20 fr�'�pNYy / S� i y //j// / /// /S EBAR/CAP i' / / rin ""--� / s BL CONC.STFBS.- w _ W00 0HW G� 4.69' O � � I�ll�'/ �O � -GON [Pti S / CLUM `y�'a• S�' •PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE N=1627' 25'X 35'12 STORY) BLDG AREA= 4 MAX SIZE•1500 S.F. 9822 S.F. / PLANTER ® R / SHOWER / — WOOD 7 .� ' R�1 FENCE STEPS / .�•PS� < '"OF' / / 01�-M4' � .. `Q ... T ®Kuvw lu�01 a a e m � N / 2ND LEVE/FINISH FLOOR=23J2'` `� 6 TEPS/TO 3'DL CULVERT' INISH 1`1-00 y43.85' gECKJ I.E=9.86' / / ::. fc 3'DA CULVW _, J //�j/ � J � 8.oo• R c4 Cara__, Otis P e , y ���+,�r^� '�— a' ,a• ,ate \�, .d SL,. •�C'� `. y, ''. f c irk �•�$rtI.- _ a �.+r R �.ey,.i; r ' �1 6 _r !R � t y r> ...>`�,IL r•-_: 'S . ;�r.�Pxi i I,,ti'r w,^,6...i1 j • ., t yy r l l _ �:..i��:"���4r�t�':4�6��,�I�It�:'a .£�i1.4'�S!.4'#tE�1�Rd�'�.� t;. ,. .r .!•��"�- .. 1 �' 01 1ow zv �a p i . —1�F. =�r.f�'�•, � *� III ! ` '�., a.�^ I ti . ,# "IV f) y/In f I I Geotechnical Engineering Geology Environmental Scientists Construction Monitoring it 4 . RE AEIVED �,�� - -- F �..,,.�- r� - _, �.•,._•- JU 426 W. CEDAR ST. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED WILSON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 10801 NORTHEAST NORTH � SHORE ROAD MASON COUNTY (BELFAIR), WASHINGTON ES-3283 �425a : �� L. a 1�rC, ` �� �.yi•t'�ti.J.T. .._..- PREPARED FOR WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS CIO BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. March 21, 2014 Stephen H. Avril Staff Geologist V1. CA ti a R�0 NISIE Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED WILSON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 10801 NORTHEAST NORTH SHORE ROAD MASON COUNTY (BELFAIR), WASHINGTON ES-3283 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 — 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Ph: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 IIplent InfoPmellon About Geolechnical Engineeping Subsurface problems are , principal cause of delays, overruns, di • following information is provided ,g•your risks. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for • elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or weight of the Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects proposed structure, Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of • composition of the design team,or their clients.A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- • project ownership. neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer.Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique,each As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project geotechnical engineering report is unique,prepared solelyfor the client.No changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which —not even you—should apply the report for any purpose or project they were not informed. except the one originally contemplated. Subsurface Conditions Can Change Read the Full Report A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by:the passage of Do not read selected elements only. time;by man-made events,such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events,such as floods,earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on tions.Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors to determine if it is still reliable.A minor amount of additional testing or Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique,project-specific fac- analysis could prevent major problems. tors when establishing the scope of a study.Typical factors include:the client's goals,objectives,and risk management preferences;the general Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional nature of the structure involved,its size,and configuration;the location of Opinions the structure on the site;and other planned or existing site improvements, Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where such as access roads,parking lots,and underground utilities.Unless the subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken.Geotechnical engi- geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional erwise,do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the • not prepared for you, site.Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly— not prepared for your project, from those indicated in your report.Retaining the geotechnical engineer • not prepared for the specific site explored, or who developed your report to provide construction observation is the • completed before important project changes were made. most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final • the function of the proposed structure,as when it's changed from a Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your parking garage to an office building,or from a light industrial plant report. Those recommendations are not final,because geotechnical engi- to a refrigerated warehouse, neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion.Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical have led to disappointments,claims,and disputes.To help reduce the risk engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or of such outcomes,geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of liability for the reports recommendations if that engineer does not perform explanatory provisions in their reports.Sometimes labeled"limitations" construction observation. many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers'responsi- bilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own responsibilities A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to and risks. Read these provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical Misinterpretation engineer should respond fully and frankly. Other design team members'misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Lower that risk by having your geo- Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after The equipment,techniques,and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- submitting the report.Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.Contractors can study. For that reason,a geotechnical engineering report does not usually also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report.Reduce that risk by relate any geoenvironmental findings,conclusions,or recommendations; having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or conferences,and by providing construction observation. regulated contaminants, Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs vironmental information,ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data.To prevent errors or someone else. omissions,the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable,but recognize Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,construction, that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. operation,and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.To be effective,all such strategies should be Give Contractors a Complete Report and devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- Guidance prehensive plan,and executed with diligent oversight by a professional Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make mold prevention consultant.Because just a small amount of water or contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations,a num- they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent costly problems,give con- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a While groundwater,water infiltration,and similar issues may have been clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter,advise contractors that the addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the are conveyed in-this report,the geotechnical engineer in charge of this report's accuracy is limited;encourage them to confer with the geotechnical project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- engineer who prepared the report(a modest fee may be required)and/or to formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- need or prefer.A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed tors have sufficient time to perform additional study.Only then might you in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, growing in or on the structure involved. while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical Some clients,design professionals,and contractors do not recognize that engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.Confer plines.This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE Tne !lest people ea Eetin 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106,Silver Spring,MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile.301/589-2017 e-mail:info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE,Inc.Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part by any means whatsoever,is strictly prohibited,except with ASFB specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report.Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M v 6L NWLLC I March 21, 2014 Earth Solutions NW LLC ES-3283 • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Washington Federal Savings c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 — 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Mr. Tom Barghausen Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Wilson Single-Family Residence, 10801 Northeast North Shore Road, Mason County (Belfair), Washington". The site is generally underlain by advance outwash deposits comprised of gravel, silt, and sand in a medium dense grading to dense condition. Groundwater was not observed at the test pit locations during the fieldwork (March 2014). In our opinion, the proposed construction of a single-family residence, septic drainfield, and associated improvements as currently planned is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations detailed in this report are followed. Based on our study, the proposed residential structure should be supported conventional shallow foundation bearing on dense native soil or structural fill. The steep slopes located on-site and should be considered sensitive. Site designs should be developed in a manner which minimizes impacts to the slopes and associated buffers. Geotechnical recommendations related to the proposed site development are provided in this geotechnical engineering study. If you have questions regarding the content of this report, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Stephen H. Avril Staff Geologist 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,WA 98005 • (425)449-4704 • FAX(425)449-4711 i Table of Contents ES-3283 PAGE INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 General .................................................................... ...... 1 Project Description ........................................................... 1 Surface... ......... ................................................................ 2 Subsurface... ............. ....................................................... 3 GeologicSetting....................................................... 3 Groundwater..... ......... ........................................................ 4 Critical Area 4 Landslide Hazard Assessment .................................. 4 Erosion Hazard Assessment ............... ......... ............. 4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.................. 5 Analysis of Proposal and Mitigating Measures............. 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................... 5 General............................................................................. 5 Site Preparation and Earthwork............................................ 6 Foundation Excavations............................................ 6 In-situ Soils...... ............ ............................................ 6 ImportedSoil... ... ... .................................................. 6 Structural Fill Placement............................................ 6 Slope Fill Placement... .............................................. 7 Erosion Control....................................................... 7 Foundations......... ... ... ......... ............................................. 7 Slab-on-Grade Floors......... ................................................ 8 Seismic Considerations......................... ................................ 8 Retaining Walls................................................................. 8 Excavations and Slopes ................................................... 9 Utility Support and Trench Backfill....................................... 9 Drainage............ ... ............................................................ 9 LIMITATIONS............... ......................................................... ...... 10 Additional Services............................................................ 10 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Table of Contents Cont'd ES-3283 GRAPHICS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Test Pit and Hand Hole Location Plan Plate 3 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Plate 4 Footing Drain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Sieve Analysis Results Earth Solutions NW,LLC l J GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED WILSON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 10801 NORTHEAST NORTH SHORE ROAD MASON COUNTY (BELFAIR), WASHINGTON ES-3283 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed single-family residence to be constructed on the south side of Northeast North Shore Road in the Belfair area of Mason County, Washington. The approximate location of the subject property is illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The purpose of this study was to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development including the proposed house to be located along the shoreline and associated septic system to be located on the slope located north of Northeast North Shore Road. Our scope of services for completing this geotechnical engineering study included the following: • Subsurface exploration including excavation of four test pits, two using an excavator, and two using hand tools; • Engineering analyses, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents were reviewed as part of preparing this geotechnical engineering study: • Boundary and topographic survey prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, dated April 3, 2013; • Mason County Ordinance 17.01, Geologic Hazards. Project Description We understand the property will be developed with a single-family residence designated as Lot 39. An on-site septic drainfield is to be located on the ascending slope above Northeast North Shore Road in conjunction with associated improvements for the proposed residential development. The approximate limits of the subject property are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Earth Solutions NW,LLC I _ J Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 2 March 21, 2014 The residential structure planned for the property is to be located north of the bulkhead at the shoreline. Final Plans were not available at the time of production of this study; however we anticipate the new home will likely consist of relatively lightly-loaded wood-framing supported on conventional foundations. Based on our experience with similar developments, we anticipate wall loads on the order of 1 to 2 kips per lineal foot and slab-on-grade loading of 150 pounds per square foot (pso. An on-site septic system for the lot will be incorporated into site designs. The system is proposed to be located on the ascending slope north of Northeast North Shore Road. Current design details include installation of a septic tank along the north side of right-of-way which will then pump effluent up the hill to a drain field. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report, and provide supplement recommendations. Surface The subject site is located east of the intersection between Northeast North Shore Road and Northeast Canyon Drive in the Belfair area of Mason County, Washington. The site consists of a single residential parcel which is bordered to the north, west, and east by forest; and to the south by the Hood Canal. The proposed residential structure is to be constructed behind a bulkhead at the shoreline, south of Northeast North Shore Road. The proposed location of the septic system associated with the residence is to be sited on the ascending slope located north of Northeast North Shore road. A natural slope ascends about 150 feet on the north side of Northeast North Shore Road. Vegetation across the slope consists of forest growth with a moderate understory. The slope is currently undeveloped and no indications of past grading were observed at the time of the site visit with the exception of a pathway cut into the hill which runs towards the north. The proposed building envelope is to be located on the north side of the bulkhead located at the shoreline. The bulkhead appears to be in good condition, is approximately eight feet in height measured from the beach elevation. There is a lawn area located behind the bulkhead which was likely backfilled using fill during construction to create a level area currently being used as a side yard to the existing single-family residence. Rockeries are located to the north of the side yard area, which ascend towards the road grade approximately six feet. Earth Solutions Nw, LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 3 March 21, 2014 Subsurface A representative of ESNW observed, logged and sampled four test pits. Two test pits were excavated on the slope using an excavator; and two test pits were excavated adjacent to the bulkhead using hand tools. The hand-excavated test pits were located within the proposed building footprint for purposes of assessing soil conditions, characterizing and classifying the site soils and assessing the near-surface groundwater conditions. Limited amounts of fill may exist behind the bulkhead at the shoreline. However, the soil conditions observed behind the bulkhead at the test pit locations were in a dense condition during our fieldwork (March 2014). The approximate locations of the test pits are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the soil logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. We observed the test pits which were excavated by ADC to supplement the subsurface conditions within the proposed location of the septic system. The soil conditions observed at the proposed septic system location were similar in nature to those encountered at the test pits observed by ESNW which were located down-slope from ADC test locations. The subsurface conditions observed at the proposed septic system location consisted of poorly graded gravel with silt and sand (Unified Soil Classification GP-GM) in a dense condition. Medium dense grading to dense poorly graded gravel with silt and sand (GP-GM) was encountered extending to the limits of exploration (11 feet below existing site elevations at the test locations). It is our opinion that the subsurface conditions across the slope; including Lot 39, Lot 40, and at the proposed location of the low-impact septic system are relatively consistent. No signs of groundwater or a confining layer were observed at any of the test pit locations. Geologic Setting The referenced geologic map of Washington Northwest Quadrant (Dragovich et. al.) 2002, identifies Advance outwash (Qga) across the site and surrounding area; and glacial till (Qgt) to the north of the slope located on the north side of Northeast North Shore Road. The glacial till is mapped for off-site regions to the north of the subject site. The Washington State Web Soil Survey (SCS) generally describes the near-surface soil deposits, and indicates the site is underlain by Everett gravelly sandy loam. These soils are described as excessively well drained, forming on terraces. The erosion hazard for these soils is described as low to moderate. In general, the soils observed at the site are consistent with the map designations as described by the SCS resource. Earth Solutions NW,LLC it � Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 4 March 21, 2014 Groundwater Groundwater seepage was not encountered at the test pit locations at the time of our fieldwork (March 2014). In our opinion, perched seepage zones may be encountered in the deeper site excavations, such as utility excavations. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater seepage flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. Critical Areas Assessment As part of our report preparation, we assessed the site in terms of critical areas as defined in the Mason County Municipal Code Chapter 17.01.100 — Landslide Hazard Areas, 17.01.104 Erosion Hazard Areas, 17.01.102 Seismic Hazard Areas, and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. The Washington State On-Line Coastal Atlas identifies the slope located to the north of Northeast North Shore Road as having an intermediate slope stability rating. It is our opinion that the slope on the subject site will have a low susceptibility to sliding due to the relatively large granular (gravelly) nature of the soil present in the substrate; as opposed to typical advance outwash soil which is typified by more fined grained sands with silt and gravel. Landslide Hazard Assessment Based on review of the referenced topographic survey, the ascending slope along portions of the northern site is inclined more than 40 percent with a vertical relief of over ten feet in areas; and is estimated to be on the order of 150 feet in height. The slope is vegetated with a mixture of deciduous, fir, and cedar trees with a moderate understory. There were no signs of slope failure such as head scarps, bare slopes or groundwater seeps along the surface during the slope reconnaissance conducted during the fieldwork. In our opinion, the steep slope along the western and southern site boundary would exhibit a low to moderate risk for shallow landslide hazard activity in the present condition. We would expect landslide activity to be limited to surficial debris flow type failures. Our reasoning for this conclusion is that ESNW observed no signs of bedrock, or a consolidated silty layer of soil within the substrate than can be considered a plane of weakness; which would increase the risk of a slope failure if excess moisture is introduced to the slope subsurface conditions. Erosion Hazard Assessment The slopes throughout the majority of the site are underlain primarily by course grained deposits. The soils encountered during our fieldwork would exhibit a low to moderate erosion hazard. In our opinion, the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction, and the incorporation of the recommendations provided in this report, will adequately mitigate the erosion hazard at the site. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 5 March 21, 2014 The proposed septic system will be located within a steep slope area. The site soils consist of silty sand overlying dense gravel. Given the soil gradation and density, and the groundwater conditions across the site, in our opinion the risk of seismically induced liquefaction is low. In our opinion, the proposed development plans will not increase the risk of landslides on the slope located above Northeast North Shore Road where the proposed low-impact septic system to be constructed, given the relative density and granular nature of the underlying substrate present on the slope; and the low volume of discharge estimated to be released by the low- impact septic system. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas The subject site includes shoreline habitat area at the southern portion of the property. As part of the production of this report, we reviewed the proposed site layout. The proposed site development includes construction of a single-family residence to be sited behind (north) of the bulkhead currently located adjacent to the beach on the Hood Canal. It is our understanding that there will be no alteration to the bulkhead or beach area on the site. As such it is our determination that there will be no deleterious impacts to the critical shoreline on the property given best management practices (BMP) are undertaken to mitigate possible erosion/migration of soil via stormwater runoff from the development envelope into surrounding critical areas. Analysis of Proposal and Mitigating Measures Based on review of the referenced site plan, limited alterations are planned for the steep slope or landslide hazard areas on the subject site during construction of the septic system. The proposed residential structure is located in an area where grading would be minimized. The proposed location for the septic system is sited on a level area within the slope complex. In our opinion, the proposed development will not increase the potential for instability along the steep slopes and therefore conforms to the Critical Areas Requirements outlined in Chapter 17 of the Mason County Code. In our opinion, the potential for debris flow activity can be adequately mitigated by controlling surface water runoff above the slopes, and maintaining vegetative cover on the slopes. This assessment does not account for unforeseen or changed conditions or the slope conditions uphill from the subject site. Surface water should not be allowed to flow over or pond above the slopes and vegetative cover should be maintained along the existing slopes. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, the proposed construction of a single-family residence and associated on-site septic system is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include foundation support, maintaining slope stability, and structural fill placement and compaction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 6 March 21, 2014 In our opinion, the soils generated from cuts throughout the site are suitable for use as structural fill. The soils encountered at the exploration sites generally have a moderate sensitivity to moisture, and placement and compaction of these soils during wet weather conditions may be difficult. In our opinion, imported material should be used for structural fill if the native soils cannot be moisture conditioned for adequate compaction results. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of WA Fed and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork The primary geotechnical considerations during the proposed site preparation and earthwork activities will involve building pad area subgrade preparation, structural fill placement and compaction. Foundation Excavations In our opinion, the new residence can be supported on continuous or spread footings. Soil suitable for adequate foundation support should be encountered between one to three feet below existing site elevations within the proposed development envelope. If adequate bearing conditions are not exposed at the design footing elevations, overexcavation and backfill with suitable structural fill material will be necessary. In-situ Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, the coarse-grained soils encountered at the test sites are generally suitable for use as structural fill. The moisture sensitivity of the native soils can be generally characterized as moderate with respect to the poorly graded gravel with silt and sand. The soils encountered at the test sites were generally in a moist to wet condition at the time of the exploration (March 2014). Imported Soil Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well-graded granular soil with a maximum aggregate grain size of six inches, and a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Structural Fill Placement In general, areas to receive structural fill should be sufficiently stripped of organic matter and other deleterious material. The majority of the organic matter associated with trees, brush, root balls, and groundcover should be removed from the fill areas. The geotechnical engineer should observe cleared and stripped areas of the site prior to structural fill placement. Earth Solutions NW,LLC 1 Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 7 March 21, 2014 Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab-on-grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes, retaining wall, and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in maximum 12-inch loose lifts and compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent, based on the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557-02). Slope Fill Placement In general, fill placement on the steep slope areas should be avoided. Fill can be placed elsewhere on site to accomplish the design grading. ESNW should review the final grading plans to confirm the recommendations in this report are incorporated. Erosion Control Temporary erosion control measures should include, at a minimum, silt fencing placed along the downslope perimeter of the construction envelope, and a construction entrance consisting of quarry spalls, as needed, to minimize off-site soil tracking and to provide a firm surface. Surface water should not be allowed to flow over any temporary or permanent slopes. Interceptor drains or swales should be considered for controlling surface water flow patterns, as appropriate. A representative of ESNW should observe the erosion control measures, and provide supplemental recommendations for minimizing erosion during construction, as necessary. Foundations Based on the results of our study, the proposed residential structure can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent native soil or structural fill placed over competent native soil. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are encountered at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill may be necessary. For design the following parameters can be used for the foundation design: • Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf • Passive earth pressure 250 pcf • Coefficient of friction 0.40 The passive earth pressure and friction values provided above assume the foundations are backfilled with structural fill. A factor-of-safety of 1.5 has been applied to these passive resistance and friction values. For short term wind and seismic loading, a one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed. Earth Solutions NW, LLC I Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 8 March 21, 2014 With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of approximately one-half of an inch. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Slab-On-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on competent native soil or structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. If a vapor barrier will be used, it should be a material specifically designed for that use and should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Seismic Considerations The 2009 International Building Code specifies several soil profiles that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. If the project will be permitted using the 2009 IBC, based on the soil conditions observed at the test sites, Site Class D, from table 1613.5.2, should be used for design. The 2012 IBC recognizes ASCE for seismic site class definitions. If the project will be permitted under the 2012 IBC, in accordance with Table 20.3-1 of ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Site Class D, should be used for design. In our opinion, liquefaction susceptibility at this site is low. The relative density and gradation of the site soils is the primary basis for this designation. In our opinion there is little risk of lateral spread due to the soil gradation and relative density. Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. For preliminary design, the following parameters can be assumed for retaining wall design: • Active earth pressure (yielding condition 35 pcf (equivalent fluid) • At-rest earth pressure (restrained condition) 55 pcf • Traffic surcharge (passenger vehicles) 70 psf (rectangular distribution) • Passive earth pressure 250 pcf(equivalent fluid) • Coefficient of friction 0.40 • Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf Earth Solutions NW, LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 9 March 21, 2014 Additional surcharge loading from foundations, sloped backfill, or other loading should be included in the retaining wall design. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. The geotechnical engineer should review retaining wall 9 9 g designs to verify the earth pressure values have been incorporated into design, and to provide additional recommendations. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable (surface seal) soil, if desired. A rigid, perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an approved discharge location. Where desired, the use of a sheet drain in lieu of free draining backfill can be considered. However, the geotechnical engineer should review the proposed use of sheet drain, and provide supplement drainage recommendations. Excavations and Slopes The Federal and state Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA/WISHA) classifies soils in terms of minimum safe slope inclinations. Based on the soil conditions encountered during our fieldwork, the site soils would generally be classified by OSHA/WISHA as Type C. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type C soils should be sloped no steeper than 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). The geotechnical engineer should observe temporary and permanent slopes to verify that the inclination is appropriate, and to provide additional grading recommendations, as necessary. If temporary slopes cannot be constructed in accordance with OSHA/WISHA guidelines, temporary shoring may be necessary. Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V, or flatter, and should be planted with an appropriate species of vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. Utility Support and Trench Backfill In our opinion, the soils observed at the test sites are generally suitable for support of utilities. Excessively loose, organic, or otherwise unsuitable soils encountered in the trench excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. In general, the on-site soils observed at the test sites should be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations, provided the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary at some locations prior to use as structural fill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable specifications of the city or county jurisdiction. Drainage Groundwater seepage was not observed at the test locations explored during March 2014. Localized zones of groundwater seepage may be encountered in the site excavations and utility excavations. Temporary measures to control groundwater seepage and surface water runoff Earth Solutions NW,LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 10 March 21, 2014 during construction will likely involve interceptor trenches, sedimentation ponds, and sumps areas. In our opinion, perimeter drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building footing foundations. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 3 of this report. Where conveyance will occur over sloped areas of the site, we recommend using fuse-welded joints, HDPE UV-resistant piping and anchors. The approved discharge point should incorporate an energy dissipator system. Water discharge shall not occur on or above the steep slope areas of the site. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test sites may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW, LLC - IE 858 - �} 888 �'. v� "." 13 W flies FW K8r1U9f 8 f Mi tfAo4d t � C �f C�rc � bn i r S 4,6M FU N W E SITE r oit7= 0 r-r 859 . _ i r �� ��41I�+d�ir •rid �, ��Tim • ides Or � ._ 85 �- -- th Reference: NORTH []aarthSolutions Solutions Mason County, Washington NWti(; otechnical Engineering,Construction Monitoring Map 17 and Environmental Sciences Seven County Street Atlas By A Good Map Company, Inc. 2008 Vicinity Map ;4W Wilson Lot 39 Mason County, Washington NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be Drwn. GLS Date 03/11/2014 Proj. No. 3283 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information Checked SHA Date Mar. 2014 Plate 1 resulting from black&white reproductions of this plate. / Lot 38 J l \ Lot 39 \\ \ \ Proposed n\ \` APrimary Drainfield Lot 40\�\ O�C� N. Proposed I I I \ \ Reserved Drainfield \ Proposed / \ \ \ DOSE Tank // / � Lot 39 Lot 41 50, �\� /l � Well Radius \\ � "" // Easement \ \ J Line Lot 40 Approximate Drainfield Location Two Party Well /I TP-2 / for Lots 39&40\ Lot 41 Q Proposed � Approximate �� Lot 39 Drainfield Location \ �I I I I `Transport Pipe IFIH-1 LEGEND Proposed �• / / \ Residence TP-1�—Approximate Location of ,' , sK 14.de�9e I Septic Tan ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. / /• HH-2�— \ ES-3283, Mar. 2014 NORTH —LApproximate Location of HH-1 I ESNW Hand Hole, Proj. No. ES-3283, Mar. 2014 Subject Site i- — - 0 40 80 160 Existing Building 1"=80' = Scale in Feet Proposed Building ,. Solutions, ' a 1 1 Mic Geotechnical Engineering,Construction Monitoring NOTE:The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design and Envii onmental Sciences purposes or precise scale measurements,but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of Test Pit and Hand Hole Location Plan existing and/or proposed site features.The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our Wilson Lot 39 study.ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes Mason County, Washington or interpretation of the data by others. NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be Drvvn. GLS Date 03/11/2014 Proj. No. 3283 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information Checked SHA Date Mar. 2014 Plate 2 resulting from black&white reproductions of this plate. 18" Min. 0: o O ° o0 o0 Q °o° o0 0° O° o�°O°° B 0° 0 c o 0° o o 0 o 0 o °° 0 0 .0 o ° o ° °oo o° o oo ° oV o 0 o ° ° ° 0 O o0 ° O ° 0 �o 0 0o 0 0 ° 0° . % O° o° 0 0 o°O o ° Q 0° ° °0 o ° Structural 0 ° °° ° QC Fill 0 °° 000Oo oo°oo o o V ° o O ogo 0 o. o0 o 0o Q ° ° o0 0 oo o Q o o Q ° o ° o o oo Q o ° 0o 0 0 0 8 0 Q B o Q Oo°o o 0 oo 0 o 0 o 0 .r. o o ti• ti� ti• •ti .r. Perforated Drain Pipe NOTES: (Surround In Drain Rock) • Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing #4 should be 25 to 75 percent. • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu SCHEMATIC ONLY- NOT TO SCALE of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING recommendations. • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: ti 0 1 1 0 00 Q Free Draining Structural Backfill .r.r.r.r. 'r{:tijtirti 1 inch Drain Rock RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL .r.r.r.r. Wilson Lot 39 Mason County, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 03/13/2014 Proj. No. 3283 Checked SHA Date Mar. 2014 Plate 3 Slope t..(1. . . ::. . ti•ti•ti•ti�ti�ti� •r•r•r•r•r•r•r ti.•,.ti.ti.ti.ti. •rtir'r'rti��.�' ti.1. 1rti .J 2" (Min.) Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. SCHEMATIC ONLY- NOT TO SCALE • Surface Seal to consist of NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material. v r•r•r•r•r - ' ' �ti'ti•ti•ti• 1 1 •r•r•r•r .ti,1rLrtir 1 Drain Rock , FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Wilson Lot 39 Mason County, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 03/13/2014 Proj. No. 3283 Checked SHA Date Mar. 2014 Plate 4 Appendix A Subsurface Exploration ES-3283 The subsurface conditions were explored by advancing four test pits at the approximate locations illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. The test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The subsurface exploration was completed in March 2014. The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Solutions INK LLC I Earth Solutions NWLLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS CLEAN '1L. � WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVELS � GW SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO AND �� FINES GRAVELLY POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) GP GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE Q Q oQ OR NO FINES COARSE ° GRAINED GRAVELS WITH °� ° SILTY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND- SOILS MORE THAN 50% FINES o D GM SILT MIXTURES OF COARSE v FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE GC CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND- AMOUNT OF FINES) FE CLAY MIXTURES CLEAN SANDS SW WELL-GRADED SANDS,GRAVELLY MORE THAN 50% SAND SANDS,LITTLE OR NO FINES OF MATERIAL IS AND LARGER THAN SANDY NO.200 SIEVE SOILS POORLY-GRADED SANDS, SIZE (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SP GRAVELLY SAND,LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITH SILTY SANDS,SAND-SILT MORE THAN 50% FINES SM MIXTURES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SC CLAYEY SANDS,SAND-CLAY AMOUNT OF FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS,ROCK FLOUR,SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINE LIQUID LIMIT MEDIUM PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY GRAINED AND LESS THAN 50 CL CLAYS,SANDY CLAYS,SILTY CLAYS I CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS SOILS — OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR OF MATERIAL IS MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SMALLER THAN SILTY SOILS NO.200 SIEVE SIZE SILTS LIQUID LIMIT INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH AND CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 CH PLASTICITY O)I ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,ORGANIC SILTS !. .! 02, PEAT,HUMUS,SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 1805- 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue,Washington 98005 qWE Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Washington Federal Go Barghausen_ PROJECT NAME Wilson Lot 39 PROJECT NUMBER 3283 PROJECT LOCATION Mason County,Washington DATE STARTED 3/3/14 COMPLETED 3/3/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Novastar GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION --- NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 12" AFTER EXCAVATION --- w = Hw U 2 a g TESTS U 0-0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Lu o vi qQ_j Q z c9 U) 0 TOPSOIL PS ,, ,,,11'o Brown silty SAND with gravel,medium dense,moist(Duff) MC=7.40% SM 3.0 -increased gravel content Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand,dense, moist o 5 0 MC=9.90% ° Fines=5.70% o GP- ° GM o ° 0 0 10 ° I 0 11.0 Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 11.0 feet. a 0 c�co 2 a c� m I J a F _ 00 Uj Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT _Washington Federal Go Barghausen _ PROJECT NAME Wilson Lot 39 PROJECT NUMBER 3283 PROJECT LOCATION Mason County,Washington DATE STARTED 3/3/14 COMPLETED 3/3/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Novastar GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 16":ferns AFTER EXCAVATION -- W _ NW U 2 w _Co O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q Z (� 0 TOPSOIL TPS 1.5 _ 0 Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand,dense,moist O -cobbles 0 0 5 0 -increased sand content GP- p GM o U O P 0 O MC=10.20% 10 r110.0 Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. 0 a 0 0 v; c� a' iX J Q1 4J W 2 W Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER HH-1 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 WRON Bellevue,Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT _Wash>n ton Federal Go Barghausen PROJECT NAME Wilson Lot 39_ PROJECT NUMBER 3283 PROJECT LOCATION Mason County,Washington DATE STARTED 3/3/14 COMPLETED 3/3/14 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR ESNW Rep _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING --- LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF DRILLING --- NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 4":grass AFTER DRILLING --- w _ w vi d- -i g V a J p W MATERIAL DESCRIPTION �_ (/) � Q Z (, 0 TPSL 10.5 TOPSOIL SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense to dense,moist �.5 Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand,dense,moist GP- GM 3113.0 Hand Hole terminated at 3.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of hole at 3.0 feet. N M (7 N Z Q R N M J J a H x m J W W Z 111 I I Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER HH-2 1805- 136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT -Washington Federal Go Barghausen PROJECT NAME Wilson Lot 39 _ PROJECT NUMBER 3283 PROJECT LOCATION _-MasonCounty,Washington DATE STARTED 3/3/14 COMPLETED 3/3/14 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR ESNW Rep GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF DRILLING NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 4":grass AFTER DRILLING -- _ w 2 F-Lu �? a- JCo TESTS 0_O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION M aE Q Z C� U) 0 TPS  10.5 TOPSOIL Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand, medium dense, moist MC=13.20% GP- GM o becomes dense O 3.0 Test pit terminated at 3.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of hole at 3 0 feet. a 0 a m m J J S m J Z W Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ES-3283 Earth Solutions NW,LLC �I��III�� ��IIII ICI. • I I �..�III IIIIII� C Report Distribution ES-3283 EMAIL ONLY Washington Federal Savings c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 — 72"d Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Mr. Tom Barghausen Earth Solutions NW, LLC FxUct l� HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN NORTHEAST NORTH SHORE ROAD MAY 2014 :fS- oU a(T!E-uT CrOYL�1CctCLYL�� HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN NORTHEAST NORTH SHORE ROAD MAY 5,2014 PROJECT LOCATION 108014 NORTHEAST NORTH SHORE ROAD BELFAIR,WASHINGTON 98528 PREPARED FOR BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. 18215 72ND AvENUE SOUTH KENT,WASHINGTON 98032 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS r.r rr 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE GIG HARBOR,WASHINGTON 98335 (253)514-8952 j '::sound'vlF-cv �on�uCtant�u: Executive Summary Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Applicant) is proposing to construct a single-family residence and associated infrastructure on a 0.92-acre site (subject property) abutting Hood Canal in Puget Sound. The subject property is located 10801 Northeast North Shore Road in the Belfair region of unincorporated Mason County, Washington. The subject property is situated in the Section 24, Township 22 North, Range 03 East W.M. and consists of two tax parcels (Mason County Parcel Number 32224-50-00925 and 32224-50-00025). The subject property was investigated for the presence of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species in April 2014. The site investigation identified the shoreline of Hood Canal along the subject property. The marine shoreline of Hood Canal is designated as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Critical Area (FWHCA) by Mason County (Mason County Code Chapter 8.52.170). The shoreline and associated FWHCA is likely regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for in-water work,and Mason County. No other critical areas were identified on the subject property. The subject property is currently partially undeveloped land divided by NE North Shore Road. The ordinary high water for the property is located along an existing concrete bulkhead. The area to the northwest of NE North Shore Road is encumbered by very steep slopes and is unsuitable for placement of a single-family residence. The only buildable area on the property is located to the southeast of the road landward of the bulkhead and is approximately 1,530 square feet is size; however, almost all of the 1,530 square feet is encumbered by road easements and shoreline buffers. Associated infrastructure is proposed landward of the residence and outside of the FWHCA buffer. However, as the FWHCA buffer is highly modified and contains limited functional habitat, and as development should be clustered to protect open space to the north, the single-family residence is proposed located within the FWHCA buffer. Construction of the single-family residence is consistent with adjacent properties and shoreline zoning and is allowed as reasonable use of the property; however, due to extreme site constraints, the single-family residence is unable to conform to code standards set forth in the Mason County Code and will require a shoreline variance permit. A summary of recommended project findings is provided below: 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants arc Habitat Management Plan i May 5,2014 �— Determination Summary for ESA-listed species potentiafly found in Mason County Species/Habitat Scientific Name Determination of Effect Bull Trout Salveknus confluentus No Effect Canary Rockfish Sebmtes pinniger No Effect Chinook Salmon Oncorbyncus tsbawytscba No effect Chum Salmon,Hood Canal Oncorbyncus keta No effect Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangkae No Effect Killer Whale Orcinus orca No Effect Marbled Murrelet Bracbyrampbus marmoratus May Effect,Not Likely to Adversely Affect Spotted Owl Stnx ocadentaks caunna No Effect Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss No Effect Streaked Homed Lark Eremopbila alpestris strigata No Effect Taylor's Checkerspot Eupbydryas editha taylori No Effect Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes rubenimus No Effect Determination Summary for PHS-listed s ecies potentially found in Mason County Group Species/Habitat Scientific Name Determination of Effect Cascades Frog Rana cascadae Coastal Tailed Frog Ascapbus traei Amphibians Olympic Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus Not Likely to Adversely Affect Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocepbalus Brandt's Cormorant Pbalacmcorax penid&tus Common Loon Gavia immer Shoreline- Not Likely to Adversely Associated Birds Common Murre Urfa aalge Affect Harlequin Duck Histnonicus birtnonicus Great Blue Heron Ardea berodias Western grebe Aecbmopborus ocddentaks Golden Eagle Aquila cbysaetos Northern Goshawk Acoitergentiks Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus boreaus Peregrine Falcon Fako peregrinus Terrestrial Birds Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Not Likely to Adversely Affect Purple Martin Progne subis Vaux's Swift Cbaetura vauxi Western Bluebird Siaka mexicana Yellow-billed Cuckoo Cocg.Zus americanus Black Rockfish Sebastes melanops Brown Rockfish Sebastes auriculatus Fishes Coastal Res./Searun Cutthroat Oncorbynchus clarki No Effect Copper Rockfish Sebastes caurinus Greenstriped Rockfish Sebastes elongatus 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan u May 5,2014 Olympic Mudminnow Nommbra hubbsi Pacific Cod Gadus macmcephalus Pacific Hake Merluccius productus Pacific Herring Clupea pa&d Pacific Lamprey Lampetra tndentata Quillback Rockfish Sebastes maliger Redstdpe Rockfish Sebastesproriger River Lamprey Lampetra ayresi Sockeye Salmon Oncorynchus nerka Walleye Pollock Theragra chalcogramma Yellowtail Rockfish Sebastes flavidus Terrestrial Johnson's Hairstreak Mitoura johnsoni No Effect Invertebrates Puget Blue Plebejus icarioides blackmorei Marine Newcomb's littorine snail Algamorda newcormbiana No Effect Invertebrates Olympia Oyster Ostrea lurida Gray Whale Escbnchtius robustus Marine Mammals No Effect Pacific Harbor Porpoise Phocoena phocoena Reptiles Western Pond Turtle Ckmmys maramorata Not Likely to Adversely Affect Fisher Martes pennand Keen's Long-eared Bat Myotis keend Olympic Marmot Marmota olympus Terrestrial pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi Not Likely to Adversely Mammals Affect Roosevelt Elk Cervus elaphus rooseveld Townsend's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Western Pocket Gopher Thomomys ma�ama 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants u1c Habitat Management Plan iii May 5,2014 Table of Contents Chapter1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................1 Chapter2. Proposed Project...........................................................................................................................1 2.1 Project Location......................................................................................................................................1 2.2 Project Description.................................................................................................................................1 2.3 Action Area..............................................................................................................................................2 Chapter3. Methods..........................................................................................................................................5 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline...............................................................................................................6 4.1 Background Information.......................................................................................................................6 4.2 Species Information................................................................................................................................6 Chapter 5. Potential Impacts Analysis.........................................................................................................11 5.1 Project Sequencing................................................................................................................................11 5.2 Regulatory Considerations...................................................................................................................11 5.3 Project Impacts .....................................................................................................................................13 5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................................13 5.3.2 Short-Term Effects........................................................................................................................14 5.3.3 Long-Term Effects........................................................................................................................14 5.4 Determinations of Effect.....................................................................................................................15 5.4.1 Critical Habitat...............................................................................................................................15 5.4.2 Species Determinations.................................................................................................................16 Chapter 6. Habitat Management Recommendations ................................................................................25 Chapter7. References....................................................................................................................................27 Figures Figure1. Project Vicinity Map..........................................................................................................1 Figure 2. Construction Noise Attenuation Graphs ...........................................................................3 Tables Table 1. Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations..........................................................................4 Table 2. ESA-listed species potentially found in Mason County.......................................................7 Table 3. PHS-listed species potentially found in Mason County.......................................................7 Table 4. Shoreline Information Summary........................................................................................10 Table 5. Summary of Properties in the Area....................................................................................13 Table 5. Determination Summary for ESA-listed species potentially found in Mason County.........16 Table 6. Determination Summary for PHS-listed species potentially found in Mason County.........21 Appendices Appendix A—Action Area Appendix B—Background Information Appendix C—Site Photographs Appendix D—Biologist Qualifications 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan iv May 5,2014 Chapter 1. Introduction Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Applicant) is proposing to construct a single-family residence and associated infrastructure on a 0.92-acre site (subject property) abutting Hood Canal in Puget Sound. The subject property is located 10801 Northeast North Shore Road in the Belfair region of unincorporated Mason County, Washington. The subject property is situated in the Section 24, Township 22 North, Range 03 East W.M. and consists of two tax parcels (Mason County Parcel Number 32224-50-00925 and 32224-50-00025). The subject property was investigated for the presence of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species in April2014. The site investigation identified the shoreline of Hood Canal along the subject property. The marine shoreline of Hood Canal is designated as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Critical Area (FWHCA) by Mason County(Mason County Code Chapter 8.52.170). The shoreline and associated FWHCA is likely regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for in-water work, and Mason County. No other critical areas were identified on the subject property. This fish and wildlife habitat assessment is intended to identify potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species on or near the proposed project,assess any potential impacts to State and/or Federally-listed species, identify measures to preserve and protect wildlife habitat, and outline mitigation as necessary per Mason County Code (MCC) Chapter 8.52.170 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. The remainder of this document contains details of the proposed project such as project description and location, discussion and analysis of potential effects to priority species and critical habitat identified in the project vicinity, and identification and evaluation of protection measures.This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding: • Site description and area of assessment; • Background research and identification of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species within the subject property; • Identification and assessment of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species located on or near the subject property; • Analysis of project effects on ESA-listed species and critical habitat; • Standard buffer recommendations,building setbacks,and development limitations;and • Existing site map detailing identified critical areas and standard buffers. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants'u Habitat Management Plan 1 May 5,2014 Chapter 2. Proposed Project 2.1 Project Location The subject property is located 10801 Northeast North Shore Road in the Belfair region of unincorporated Mason County, Washington. The subject property is situated in the Section 24, Township 22 North, Range 03 East W.M. and consists of two tax parcels (Mason County Parcel Number 32224-50-00925 and 32224-50-00025). To access the site from Washinton-300 Westbound,proceed on Washington-300 Westbound until it becomes NE North Shore Road. After approximately 7.2 miles,the subject property will be on both the left-and right-hand sides of the road. Figure 1. i,roect' Vicini Ma . rI� Iyn f � I NI 0 t1 Suu Pwk 0 ` Approximate location of subject x = property _ ! N 'a so 4 ,a• 'I v�YA w.l+.C. ` v4 ua.r J w 0 (Google Maps,2014) 2.2 Project Description The proposed project includes construction of a new, approximately 1,530 square foot single-family residence and associated improvements on the 0.92-acre subject property located on Hood Canal. Currently, the site is divided by NE North Shore Road with the northwestern portion containing relatively undisturbed forest over steep slopes and the southeastern portion containing a concrete bulkhead, concrete stairs, and other recreational use structures along with modified and maintained yard area on an upland bench. The marine shoreline of Hood Canal abuts the concrete bulkhead. A 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants r-'o Habitat Management Plan 1 May 5,2014 L 100-foot FWHCA buffer and 15-foot building setback is required for single-family residences and associated infrastructure. Construction of the proposed single-family residence must occur between the bulkhead and NE North Shore Road within the 100-foot buffer due to lack of buildable land in the steeply sloped forested areas. To minimize impacts to sensitive habitat, the septic drainfield will be placed over 200 feet from ordinary high water (OHW), and no work or impacts are proposed below the bulkhead and OHW. 2.3 Action Area An action area has been identified for this assessment which encompasses the locations where direct impacts from project activities will occur (the project area) as well as all areas that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project either through physical, chemical, or biological mechanisms. The geographic limits of the action area were defined by considering the potential spatial extent of mechanisms that may lead to impacts on priority species and associated habitat (further defined in Chapter 4). Two primary mechanisms have been identified as having potential for impacting the potentially regulated fish and wildlife species and/or associated habitat. These potential impact mechanisms include temporary impacts from noise of the construction actions and equipment and the long-term effects of loss of undeveloped shoreline area. Noise from project activities can adversely affect wildlife with various behavioral and/or health- related consequences (WSDOT, 2013). Terrestrial noise (transmitted through air) is measured in decibels (dB), on a logarithmic scale. The threshold for human hearing begins at 0 dBA and the level at which a human would experience irreversible hearing loss is 180 dBA. The ambient noise was assumed to be 45 dB due to the projects location on the Hood Canal and approximate residential population density of 300+ within a square mile of the project. 84 dB was determined to be the maximum construction noise emitted by the project actions. It was assumed a backhoe (78 dB), dump truck (76 dB) and excavator (81 dB) would be operational at the same time. By the rules of decibel addition, the backhoe and dump truck combine for a noise level of 80 dB which, combined with the excavator,results in the maximum project construction noise level of 84 dB. The over water portion of the action area was modeled as a "hard" site which uses the standard dB reduction factor per doubling of 6 dB. No further dB reduction factors relating to wind or other means were applied. The terrestrial sound action area for the over water portion is estimated to have a radius of approximately 4,524 linear feet. A conservative reduction of 5 dB reduction, from 84 dB to 79 dB due to topography was used for the land portion. A maximum 10 dB reduction due to topography is allowed per the WSDOT guidance. The land portion attenuation was modeled as a "soft" site which increases the dB reduction per doubling to 7.5. The terrestrial sound action area for the land portion is estimated to have a radius of approximately 2,539 linear feet. A map showing the Action Area is provided in Appendix A. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 2 May 5,2014 Figure 2. Construction Noise Attenuation Graphs. Impact Terrestrial Attenuation (Over Water) 90 80 70 m 60 a y=-8.6561n(x)+117.86 50 d - 40 *Construction Noise c ;A30 ■Ambient Noise 20 10 0 A-I U- - 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Distance(ft) Terrestrial Attenuation (Over Land) 90 80 70 60 y=-10.821n(x)+121.33 50 d a 40 — ♦Construction Noise c 0 30 ■Ambient Noise 20 10 I 0 50 500 5000 50000 Distance(ft) 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 3 May 5,2014 Table 1. Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations. Terrestrial Attenuation Table (Over Water) Distance from Source Construction Noise Ambient Sound Measured Noise Pressure (Feet) (Miles) (dBA) (dBA) (Micro-Pascals) (atm) 50 0.00947 84 45 316978.6385 3.21 E-08 100 0.018939 78 45 158865.6469 1.61 E-08 200 0.037879 72 45 79621.43411 8.07E-09 400 0.075758 66 45 39905.2463 4.04E-09 800 0.151515 60 45 20000 2.03E-09 1600 0.30303 54 45 10023.74467 1.02E-09 3200 0.606061 48 45 5023.772863 5.09E-10 6400 1.212121 42 45 2517.850824 2.55E-10 12800 2.424242 36 45 1261.914689 1.28E-10 25600 4.848485 30 45 632.455532 6.41 E-11 51200 9.69697 24 45 316.9786385 3.21 E-11 Terrestrial Attenuation Table (Over Land) Distance from Source Construction Noise Ambient Sound Measured Noise Pressure (Feet) (Miles) (dBA) (dBA) (Micro-Pascals) (atm) 50 0.00947 79 45 178250.1876 1.81 E-08 100 0.018939 71.5 45 75167.48086 7.62E-09 200 0.037879 64 45 31697.86385 3.21 E-09 400 0.075758 56.5 45 13366.87835 1.35E-09 800 0.151515 49 45 5636.765863 5.71 E-10 1600 0.30303 41.5 45 2377.004455 2.41 E-10 3200 0.606061 34 45 1002.374467 1.02E-10 6400 1.212121 26.5 45 422.697808 4.28E-11 12800 2.424242 19 45 178.2501876 1.81 E-11 25600 4.848485 11.5 45 75.16748086 1 7.62E-12 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants LLC Habitat Management Plan 4 May 5,2014 Chapter 3. Methods This chapter summarizes the methods used in this fish and wildlife habitat assessment,per the goals and requirements set forth in Mason County Code (MCC) Chapter 8.52.170 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area. The shoreline and all areas of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat accessible within 250 feet of the proposed project area were assessed by qualified fisheries biologists in April of 2014. All publicly available background data was queried for documented wildlife observations and/or the presence of wetlands and potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat on or near the site. Mason County GIS maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory, the USGS Soil Survey data maps, Washington State Department of Ecology's (WSDOE) Coastal Atlas maps, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) and SalmonScape maps and databases, and various aerial imagery were inspected to identify locations of potentially regulated features. The site assessment was conducted by qualified fish and wildlife biologists. A thorough investigation that included an assessment of vegetative structure and composition of dominant species, any special habitat features, presence and evidence of potentially regulated fish and wildlife species, and level of human disturbance. Visual observations using stationary and walking survey methods were utilized for both aquatic and upland habitats. Any special habitat features or signs of wildlife activity were photographed for documentation and noted for further examination. Site inspections of the beach were performed at low tide. Due to the entire shoreline of the subject property being armored with concrete bulkhead, OHW and the shoreline boundary are all likely limited to the outside edge of the bulkhead. The location and features of the shoreline are described in Chapter 4 and identified on plan sheets in Appendix C. All field assessments used the best available science pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code 365-195-905 and definitions contained in RMC 4-03-050. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 5 May 5,2014 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline 4.1 Background Information Landscape Setting and Topography The subject property is partially undeveloped land located in a residential setting within Mason County adjacent to Hood Canal waters. The subject property includes shoreline abutting Hood Canal with a concrete bulkhead dividing upland and marine environments. Existing upland features include a concrete stairs and other recreational use structures along with modified and maintained yard area located over a small upland bench between the bulkhead and North Shore Road. The area to the northwest of NE North Shore Road contains very steep slopes. The upland forest rises from approximately 40 feet to approximately 140 feet in elevation over approximately 120 feet, constituting a slope of approximately 80 percent. A topographic map is provided in Appendix B1. Adjacent properties along the south side, or waterward side, of NE North Shore Road are currently developed with single-family residences and sloped undeveloped upland forested areas are located on adjacent properties north of NE North Shore Road. The proposed project is consistent with the neighboring properties. Vegetation The property is divided by NE North Shore Road and the concrete bulkhead. Vegetation to the northwest of NE North Shore Road is dominated by a mature mixed coniferous and deciduous forest with high native species diversity. The area between the road and bulkhead was previously used as a yard by adjacent property owners and contains cement terracing,paths, and a patio with an outdoor brick fireplace. Vegetation is primarily mowed lawn and English ivy with one stand of approximately 4-5 large trees, including big-leaf maple, Douglas fir, and western red cedar. Other vegetation is minor and includes camellia, herb Robert, dandelion, Himalayan blackberry, kinnikinnick, arborvitae, azalea, rhododendron, and minor amounts of other ornamental and/or weed species. The area waterward of the bulkhead contains little to no intertidal vegetation, with only sparse patches of red algae,likely Gracilaria sp.,in the lower intertidal areas. National Wetland Inventory The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWl) map identifies Estuarine and Marine as well as Estuarine and Marine Deepwater areas adjacent to the shoreline. A NWI map is provided in Appendix B2. 4.2 Species Information Several potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitats and priority species are identified in the vicinity of the project. WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) lists contain those species and habitats protected by Federal and State laws. According to WDFW PHS maps, estuarine intertidal aquatic habitat, geoduck, and oyster beds occur on the shoreline of the subject property. A PHS map is provided in Appendix B3. SalmonScape maps do not specify salmonid distribution within waters of the Hood Canal;however, Hood Canal is known to contain various salmonid species, and streams in the vicinity of the subject property that drain to Hood Canal contain documented presence of coho, fall chum,and winter steelhead. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants u1c Habitat Management Plan 6 May 5,2014 MCC provides a list of species of local importance in addition to Federal or State Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species known to be in Mason County. However, the as the code was last updated in 2009, some listings may be out of date. To compensate for this, the PHS list was queried for State- and Federally-listed species potentially found in Mason County and the two lists were combined. The following species may be located in the vicinity of the project and may have the potential for project impacts. Table 2. ESA-listed species potentially found in Mason unty State Species of Species/Habitat Scientific Name Status Federal Status Local Importance' Bull Trout Salvaanus conjluentus Candidate Threatened Yes Canary Rockfish Sebastespinniger Candidate Threatened - Chinook Salmon Oncorhyncus tshanytscha Candidate Threatened Yes Chum Salmon,Hood Canal Oncorhyncus keta Candidate Threatened Yes Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Endangered - Marbled Murrelet Bracbyramphus marmoratus Threatened Threatened Yes Spotted Owl Prix occidentalis caurina Endangered Threatened Yes Killer Whale Orcinus orca Endangered Endangered Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss - Threatened Streaked Homed Lark Eremophila alpestns stngata Endangered Threatened - Taylor's Checkerspot Eupbydryas editha taylori Endangered Endangered Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Candidate Threatened - Table 3. PHS-listed species potentially found in Mason unty State Species of Species/Habitat Scientific Name Status Federal Status Local Importance' Bald Eagle Haliaeetus kucocephalus Sensitive Species of Concern Yes Black Rockfish Sebastes melanops Candidate - - Brandt's Cormorant Pbakmcoraxpenidllatus Candidate - Yes Brown Rockfish Sebastes auriculatus Candidate Species of Concern Cascades Frog Rana cascadae Monitor - Yes Coastal Res./Searun Oncorhynchus clarki - Species of Concern - Cutthroat Coastal Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei Monitor - Yes Common Loon Gavia immer Sensitive - Yes Common Murre Uria aalge Candidate - Copper Rockfish Sebastes caurinus Candidate Species of Concern Fisher Martes pennanti Endangered Candidate Yes Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Candidate - Yes Gray Whale Escbricbdus robustus Sensitive - - Great Blue Heron Ardea herv&as Monitor - Yes Greenstriped Rockfish Sebastes elongatus Candidate - - Harlequin Duck Hutnonicus histnonicur - - Yes Johnson s Hairstreak Mitoura johnsoni Candidate - - 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants vc Habitat Management Plan 7 May 5,2014 Keen's Long-eared Bat Myo&keend Candidate - Newcomb's littorine snail Algamorda newcormbiana - - Yes Northern Goshawk Accpitergentiks Candidate Species of Concern Yes Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus boreaus - Species of Concern Yes Olympia Oyster Ostrea lurida Candidate - Olympic Marmot Marmota Olympus Candidate - - Olympic Mudminnow Novumbra hubby Sensitive - - Olympic Torrent Salamander Rbyacotriton olympicus Monitor - Yes Pacific Cod Gadus macrocephalus Candidate Species of Concern - Pacific Hake Merluccius pmductus Candidate Species of Concern - Pacific Harbor Porpoise Pbocoena pbocoena Candidate - Pacific Herring Clupeapallan Candidiate Species of Concern - Pacific Lamprey Lampetra tridentata Monitor Species of Concern - Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Sensitive Species of Concern Yes Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Candidate - Yes Puget Blue Plebe us icarioides Candidate - - blackmond Purple Martin Progne subir Candidate - Yes Pygmy Shrew Sorex bayi Monitor - Yes Quillback Rockfish Sebastes makger Candidate Species of Concern Redstripe Rockfish Sebastesproriger Candidate - River Lamprey Lampetra ayre i Candidate Species of Concern Roosevelt Elk Cenws elaphus roosevelti - - Yes Sockeye Salmon Oncorynchus nerka Candidate Threatened-Ozette Lake Endangered-Snake River Townsend's Big-eared Bat Corynorbinus townsendii Candidate Species of Concern Yes Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Candidate Species of Concern Yes Vaux's Swift Cbaetura vauxi Candidate - Yes Walleye Pollock Tberagra cbakogramma Candidate Species of Concern - Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana Monitor - Yes Western grebe Aecbmophorus occidentaks Candidate - - Western Pocket Gopher Thomomys maZama Threatened Candidate Yes Western Pond Turtle Ckmmys maramorata Endangered Species of Concern Yes Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas Candidate Species of Concern - Yellow-billed Cuckoo Cocg7s amnicanus Candidate Candidate - Yellowtail Rockfish Sebastesflavidus Candidate - - 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants'u Habitat Management Plan 8 May 5,2014 4.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area No known wetlands or other regulated features other than the shoreline were identified within 250 feet of the proposed project area. The shoreline adjacent to the proposed project area contains FWHCA as classified in 8.52.170. As such, the property is subject to a 100-foot buffer measured horizontally from the OHW of the shoreline. Intertidal marine environment extends waterward of the bulkhead with a substrate characterized as small mixed cobble below the bulkhead transitioning to medium to large mixed cobble at the approximate mean higher high water(MHHW) elevation. Estuarine intertidal habitats, geoduck, and oyster beds are identified within the vicinity of project area. No forage fish spawning habitat is shown for the project area on the WDFW Forage Fish Spawning Map; however, pre-spawner herring holding areas are shown in deepwater areas adjacent to the shoreline. The intertidal area contains sparse patches of red algae, likely Gracilaria, and no other special elements of herring breeding habitat (i.e. rooted kelp, eelgrass, and/or other available structures for egg deposition) as identified during the assessment. Dense beds of pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) were observed on the shoreline between MHHW and mean lower low water (MLI.W). Other than the typical migration corridor, habitat features utilized by juvenile salmon were not found onsite but may be located in nearby areas of the shoreline. Suitable juvenile salmon forage habitat features may include shallow water with low wave energy, fine-grained silt or mud substrate, or estuarine environments; such substrate and environments were not observed onsite. The shoreline can still provide some food and protection functions for juvenile salmon, as well as habitat connectivity for salmon between the freshwater natal streams and deeper salt water habitats typically utilized by adult salmonids. This area may also provide foraging opportunities for the PHS listed sensitive bird species (listed in Chapter 4.3). The portion of the property within the FWHCA buffer is highly modified and was previously used as a maintained yard by adjacent property owners. This area contains cement terracing and paths with a brick fireplace. Vegetation is primarily mowed lawn and English ivy with one stand of approximately 4-5 large trees, including big-leaf maple, Douglas fir, and western red cedar. Other vegetation is minor and includes camellia, herb Robert, dandelion, Himalayan blackberry, kinnikinnick, arborvitae, azalea, rhododendron, and minor amounts of other ornamental and/or weed species. No useable habitat exists for birds, amphibians, or mammals in this area aside from the 4-5 large trees. The area northwest of NE North Shore Road provides more suitable habitat for terrestrial species as it is vegetated with mature mixed coniferous and deciduous forest with high native plant species diversity. As the property contains shellfish areas, saltwater shoreline, areas with which federal or state endangered, threatened, and sensitive species of fish and wildlife have a primary association, and areas that contain habitats and species of local importance, the shoreline is classified as a FWHCA per MCC 8.52.170(b), and a 100-foot buffer and additional 15-foot setback is required under MCC 8.52.170(d). 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants Lw Habitat Management Plan 9 May 5,2014 Table 4. Shoreline Information Summary SHORELINE INFORMATION SUMMARY Water Body Hood Canal WRIA 15 Local Jurisdiction Mason County Shoreline Designation Rural Residential .:'fx• . 100-foot FWHCA buffer/ Buffer 200-foot SMA jurisdiction _ Estuarine intertidal aquatic PHS Documented Habitat habitat,Geoduck,Oyster beds Location of Shoreline Relative to Project The marine shoreline is located in the southeast portion of the site adjacent to a concrete bulkhead. The shoreline setback/FWHCA buffer is highly modified and was previously used as a maintained yard by adjacent property owners. This area contains cement terracing and Buffer Condition paths with a brick fireplace and roadway interrupting more functional buffer areas located on steep slopes. Buffer vegetation adjacent to the shoreline primarily consists of mowed lawn, English ivy, a small stand of large trees, and various ornamental species. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants ccc Habitat Management Plan 10 May 5,2014 Chapter 5. Potential Impacts Analysis As the site is already modified and as no in-water work is proposed as part of the redevelopment actions,no significant impacts to the FWHCA or sensitive species have been identified. In addition, best management practices (BMPs) proposed for the project along with approved temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will minimize any potential for indirect impacts to habitats and species in the Hood Canal. The interrupted and developed condition of the FWHCA buffer in the area precludes significant impacts by the proposed project. An analysis of impact minimization and potential impacts on regulated fish and wildlife habitats and priority species from the proposed project is detailed below. 5.1 Project Sequencing Almost the entire property is encumbered by steep slopes, existing roadway, intertidal areas, or regulatory setbacks. Careful planning efforts are necessary to ensure the proposed development minimizes fish and wildlife habitat impacts. The site is divided into northwest and southeast portions by NE North Shore Road with the northwestern portion extensively encumbered by steep slopes with recent landslides in adjacent areas. A geotechnical analysis has determined that northwestern areas are unstable for placement of a single-family residence; however, it is able to support a septic drain field. As a result, the single-family residence must be located between the roadway and bulkhead. The septic drain field may be placed in northwestern portion of the property and away from the shoreline area. The only potential buildable area on the property for the single-family residence is approximately 1,530 square feet is size; however, almost all of the 1,530 square feet is encumbered by the roadway and shoreline setback/FWHCA buffer. In order to minimize potential impacts to the shoreline, the septic tank should be located landward of the residence. Therefore, the single-family residence is proposed to be located entirely within the shoreline setback/FWHCA buffers. However, this portion of the FWHCA buffer is highly modified and lacking functional habitat, and locating the single-family residence in this area will result in minimal habitat loss as opposed to locating in the northwestern portion of the property that contains relatively undisturbed forest and steep slopes. In addition, locating the single-family residence adjacent to other residences will cluster development and preserve the open space to the northwest of NE North Shore Rd. This site design also minimizes potential impacts by placing the septic drain field and the septic tank outside of the FWHCA buffer area while locating the single-family residence in previously-modified areas lacking habitat. 5.2 Regulatory Considerations The proposed project is located in unincorporated Mason County. The site investigation identified the shoreline of Hood Canal on the subject property. The FWHCA buffer area is modified and lacking quality habitat,being separated from the shoreline by the bulkhead and modified for use as a maintained yard. As the property contains shellfish areas, saltwater shoreline, areas with Federal or State protected fish and wildlife species, and areas that contain habitats and species of local importance, the shoreline is classified as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) per MCC 8.52.170(b), and a 100-foot buffer and additional 15-foot setback is required under MCC 8.52.170(d). Due to the extensive site constraints discussed above, the proposed single-family 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 11 May 5,2014 residence must be located within the FWHCA buffer. MCC 8.52.170(d)(2) allows special provisions for buffers and setbacks on lots created prior to December 5, 1996, and which are located on saltwater. The special provisions state: (i) Where an existing residence is on one side of and within one hundred fifty feet of the lot line of the subject lot, and no more than two hundred feet from the shoreline OHWM, the setback on the subject lot is determined by an imaginary common line drawn from the shore-side roof line of the existing residence and across the subject lot to a point which is one hundred feet from the OHWM along the far lot line of the subject lot. (See Figure 2). The common line set back may be more or less than one hundred feet fmm the OHWM,provided, however, that. A. The buffer shall not be less than twenty feet in width from the OHWM and a minimum setback from the edge of the buffer is fifteen feet;and B. Them shall be a maximum buffer of one hundred feet from the OHWM with the balance of the setback estab&bed by the common line to be a building setback area. C. If the resulting buffer is less than one hundred feet, it will be enhanced for wildlife function which will include at a minimum planting with native vegetation. D. ;(the resulting buffer is less than one hundred feet, the development of site outside the buffer shall also use best management practices such as those in Appendix C to limit impacts to the resource. Due to the small size of the buildable area, maintaining a minimum buffer 20 feet and a minimum setback of 15 feet is not feasible, and the proposed single-family residence is unable to conform to code standards set forth in the MCC. As the strict application of the code standards would significantly interfere with or prevent reasonable use of the property, the proposed project will require a variance permit. The design of the project is compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area. The building footprint will be approximately 875 square feet,with a total area less than 1,500 square feet of livable space for the two-story residence. Using the Mason County Assessor's publically available data, sizes of properties in the area were evaluated. The residence sizes of adjacent properties ranged from 509 square feet to 1,736 square feet, and an average residence size of 1168 square feet was identified in the immediate project vicinity as demonstrated in Table 5 below. The proposed project is consistent with sizes of adjacent residential structures. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 12 May 5,2014 Table 5. Summary of Pro erd s in the Area Neighboring Parcels Direction From Subject Residence Size (developed only) Property (square feet) 32224-50-00023 Northeast(adjacent) 509 32224-50-00019 Northeast 1736 32224-50-00018 Northeast 1120 32224-50-00015 Northeast 1584 32224-50-00014 Northeast 1280 32224-50-00013 Northeast 1580 32224-50-00024 Southwest(adjacent) 682 32224-50-00026 Southwest 540 32224-50-00027 Southwest 1020 32224-50-00029 Southwest 1032 32224-50-00084 Southwest 1690 32224-50-00083 Southwest 1245 Average: 1168 In addition, the location the proposed structure is similar to other adjacent structures. As the bulkhead runs adjacent to the shoreline for a significant distance on either side of the subject property, and all residences in the area are located less than 20 feet from the bulkhead and OHW, the project location is consistent with adjacent property land use. Locating the proposed residence in the shoreline setback/FWHCA buffer is consistent with adjacent uses, and the design of proposed residence is in accordance with the square footage and footprint size of adjacent residences. 5.3 Project Impacts An analysis of project effects to Federal- and State-listed species and species of local importance that have potential for presence in the vicinity is detailed below. Potential project impacts are evaluated based upon specific habitat components that would be altered or removed and the degree to which such alteration may occur; the abundance and distribution of the habitat components; the distribution and population levels of the species (if known); the possibility of direct or indirect impacts to the species and/or habitat,and the potential to mitigate for adverse effects. 5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Potential direct effects from the project upon species identified in Chapter 4.2 of this report primarily include construction noise, loss of a minor landscaped area, and establishment of new impervious surfaces. However, the proposed project area is highly modified, and no shoreline habitat will be lost. In addition, potential effects on water quality elements such as sedimentation, chemicals, excess nutrients and other runoff/stormwater inputs from the subject property are a potential source of impacts to listed species; however, appropriate stormwater treatment will be provided, and potential impacts from the septic system are fully mitigated by locating the discharge elements of the septic system out of the shoreline setback/FWHCA buffer and the storage tank landward of the single-family residence. The project also proposes BMPs and MSC measures 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants u.c Habitat Management Plan 13 May 5,2014 during construction as outlined in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP);therefore,no calculable impacts to water quality are anticipated. No in-water work is proposed, no terrestrial sensitive wildlife species were identified onsite, and residential development of the site is proposed over existing cleared and disturbed areas between the bulkhead and roadway; therefore, no direct impacts to protected habitats and species have been identified. Assembly of the septic drainfield will cause temporary disturbance to the forested northwest portion of the property. However, disturbance will be minor as an existing road leads to the project area, and the location of the septic system is proposed in a previously partially cleared upland area. It should also be noted that the drainfield is located more than 200 feet away from OHW. 5.3.2 Short-Term Effects Potential fish and wildlife habitat is located in adjacent areas; therefore,the proposed project actions have three primary mechanisms for short-term impacts to sensitive species and associated habitats via altered hydrology and water quality from direct runoff, potential sedimentation and associated turbidity from land clearing and grading actions,and terrestrial construction noise during the actions. Impact minimization measures are proposed to contain and manage runoff and sedimentation within the project area. Potential hydrologic and water quality as well as sedimentation impacts are being addressed through BMPs and TESC as detailed in the SWPPP (Barghausen, 2014). Due to the project's limited potential for construction runoff and sedimentation as a properly managed construction site, decreases in water quality and/or increases in turbidity as a result of construction are not expected and are not considered a project impact. In addition, impacts to the local environment from project noise may occur within a 4,524 foot radius over Hood Canal and a 2,539 foot radius over land as discussed in Chapter 2.3. Noise from project activities can adversely affect wildlife with various behavioral and/or health-related consequences (WSDOT, 2010). As the noise generated by the action is anticipated to fall short of disturbance thresholds for sensitive terrestrial species (USFWS, 92dBA for murrelets for example) and no sensitive terrestrial habitat was identified in the action area,the short-term effects to sensitive species due to noise are anticipated to be minor and localized due to the topography of the land portion and the avoidance of in-water work as terrestrial noise will not impact aquatic species such as fish and marine mammals. 5.3.3 Long-Term Effects As no terrestrial sensitive wildlife species were identified onsite, and residential development of the site is proposed over existing cleared and disturbed areas between the bulkhead and roadway, no direct impacts to protected habitats and species have been identified due to the project. Long-term effects of the project upon fish and wildlife habitat and species are anticipated to be minimal due to the fact that habitat features are limited within the project location. Project actions will include site clearing and establishment of new impervious surfaces such as driveways and roof areas. However, the proposed project area is highly modified with much of the area already containing concrete paths,walls, and stairways,and little to no functional shoreline habitat will be lost. Water quality elements such as sedimentation, chemicals, excess nutrients and other inputs from subject property runoff/stormwater are a potential source for long-term impacts on listed species; 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants vc Habitat Management Plan 14 May 5,2014 however, appropriate stormwater treatment will be provided, and potential impacts from the septic system are minimized by locating all elements of the septic system out of the FWHCA buffer and landward of the single-family residence. Therefore, no measurable impact to water quality elements is anticipated as a result of the project. In addition,habitat management recommendations contained in Chapter 6 are proposed to further minimize any long-term effects due to the project. No in-water work is proposed and no impacts are anticipated to areas waterward of the bulkhead. 5.4 Determinations of Effect While not required under MCC, examination of project effects under the methods and procedures established under ESA provide a proven mechanism for evaluating project effects on ESA-listed species, and as such,are examined herein within a local context. 5.4.1 Critical Habitat Critical Habitat is defined in Section 3 of the ESA as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) which may require special management considerations or protection, and (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed,upon a determination such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Critical habitat for a listed species contains Primary Constituent Elements (PCE's),as defined below. Primary Constituent Elements: In accordance with Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the ESA and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas are occupied at the time of listing to propose ESA-listed species' critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. These features are the PCE's laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for conservation of the species. These include, but are not limited to: (1) Space for individual and population growth for normal behavior. (2) Food,water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) Cover or shelter; (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring, and (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species. Essential habitat types for salmon and steelhead species can be generally described to include the following. (1) juvenile rearing areas; (2) juvenile migration corridors; (3) areas for growth and development to adulthood; (4) adult migration corridors; and (5) spawning areas. Within these areas, essential features of critical habitat include adequate: (1) substrate, (2) water quality, (3) water quantity (4) water temperature (5) water velocity, (6) cover/shelter, (7) food, (8) riparian vegetation, (9) space, and (10) safe passage conditions. The actual regulatory descriptions of Critical Habitat for each ESU can be found at the end of this Federal Register:Vol. 65,No. 32,Wednesday February 16, 2000. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consukants uc Habitat Management Plan 15 May 5,2014 5.4.2 Species Determinations ESA-listed Species ESA-listed species potentially found in Mason County are evaluated in depth in the sections below to determine impacts of the project. Table 5.Determination Summary for ESA-listed species potentially found in Mason County Species/Habitat Scientific Name Determination of Effect Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus No Effect Canary Rockfish Sebastes pinniger No Effect Chinook Salmon Oncorhyncus tshanytscha No effect Chum Salmon,Hood Canal Oncorhyncus keta No effect Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae No Effect Killer Whale Orcinus orra No Effect Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratw May Effect,Not Likely to Adversely Affect Spotted Owl Strix ocddentalis caurina No Effect Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykus No Effect Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata No Effect Taylor's Checkerspot Euphydryas editha taylori No Effect Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus No Effect Bull Trout and Critical Habitat Salvelinus confluentus—Threatened,listed November 1, 1999 Critical habitat designated October 18, 2010 USFWS identifies bull trout with potential for presence in Mason County. Critical habitat for bull trout was identified in the Hood Canal marine environment. However, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. Therefore, the proposed project actions will have No Effect on Bull Trout. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore, the proposed activities will have No Effect upon Bull Trout Critical Habitat. Canary Rockfish Sebastespinniger Threatened,listed July 27,2010 Canary rockfish have been documented throughout the Puget Sound (Miller and Borton 1980), although numbers are relatively low compared to other rockfish species (Palsson, et al 2009, NMFS 2008a). Rockfish larvae are pelagic,often occupying the surface of open waters,under floating algae, detached seagrass, and kelp. Juvenile canary rockfish settle onto nearshore water habitats with rocky or cobble substrate that support kelp growth at 3 to 6 months of age, and move to progressively deeper waters as they grow (Love et al. 1991; Love et al. 2002). Juvenile rockfish recruitment is likely to be found in areas with shallow high—relief zones with crevices and sponge 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 16 May 5,2014 gardens (Love et al 2002). Adults are most common between 300 to 600 feet water depth, sometimes associated with depths between 40 to 1,560 feet deep (Love et al 2002). The likelihood of juveniles or adults of ESA-listed rockfish within the project's relatively shallow and non-vegetated habitats is highly discountable, as the nearshore habitat is largely lacking any eelgrass, kelp, or other aquatic vegetation preferred as foraging substrates by juvenile and larval rockfish (BergerABAM, 2012). Deeper portions of Puget Sound provide suitable habitat for adult and juvenile rockfish. In addition, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. The establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore,the proposed project will have No Effect on Canary Rockfish. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and Critical Habitat Oncorhynchus tshanytscha—Threatened,listed (reaffirmed)June 28,2005 Critical habitat designated September 2, 2005 USFWS identifies Chinook salmon with potential for presence in Mason County. Critical habitat for Chinook salmon was identified in the nearshore marine areas of Hood Canal. However, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. In addition,the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment,BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. .Therefore, the proposed project actions will have No Effect on Puget Sound Chinook Salmon. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore, the proposed activities will have No Effect on Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat. Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon ESU and Critical Habitat Oncorhynchus keta—Threatened,listed (reaffirmed)June 28,2005 Critical habitat designated September 2, 2005 USFWS identifies Chum salmon with potential for presence in Mason County. Critical habitat for Chum salmon was identified in the nearshore marine areas of Hood Canal. However, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. Therefore, the proposed project actions will have No Effect on Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon.The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore, the proposed activities will have No Effect on Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon Critical Habitat. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 17 May 5,7.014 Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangkae—Endangered,listed December 2, 1970 Humpback whales range from southern California through the Aleutian Islands while feeding in the Pacific Ocean (NMFS, 1991). However, Humpback whales are rarely present in the south Puget Sound. They are more likely to remain in outer coast waters during migration. There were reported humpback whale sightings in the Puget Sound in 1976, 1978, and two in 1988 (Calambokidis, et al, 1990). Due to the unlikelihood of humpback whales entering Hood Canal, the lack of suitable habitat in the vicinity of the Action Area, the lack of impact mechanisms to the marine environment, and the avoidance of in-water work,the project will have No Effect on Humpback Whale. Southern Resident Killer Whale and Critical Habitat Orcinus orca—Endangered,listed November 15, 2005 Critical Habitat designated November 2006(71 FR 69054) Southern Resident Killer Whale may be found in the Puget Sound, Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca during spring through fall (Wiles, G J., 2004). The website www.orcanetwork.org indicates sightings in Hood Canal are infrequent but may occur periodically. However, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on marine species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. Due to the unlikelihood of killer whales entering Hood Canal, the lack of impact mechanisms to the marine environment, avoidance of in-water work, and the lack of effect on prey species, the proposed actions will have No Effect on Southern Resident Killer Whales. Almost the entire Puget Sound has been designated as Critical Habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whale,excluding areas that are less than twenty feet deep during periods of high tide (NMFS,2012). Under the ESA, "Critical Habitat" is defined as: (1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing,if they contain physical or biological features essential to conservation, and those features may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation." The proposed project will have no long-term effects on marine areas where water is deeper than twenty feet at periods of high tide.Therefore,the proposed project will have No Effect on Southern Resident Biller Whale Critical Habitat. Marbled Murrelet Brachyrhanspus marmoratur—Threatened,listed 1992 Critical habitat designated May 1996(50 CFR Part 17.11) The Action Area does not contain suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelet as nests and roosts are found primarily in old growth forests. There may be nesting habitat located outside of the Action Area in the Cascade or Olympic mountain ranges. Foraging habitat can be found in Hood Canal waters as marbled murrelet are opportunistic feeders (WDFW PHS). The marbled murrelet flies long distances between nesting and foraging habitats, and there still may be a flight path over the site. There were no identified areas with critical habitat for marbled murrelet in the vicinity of the subject property (LJSFWS 2008, USFWS, 1996). The most likely presence of marbled murrelet would be from the species passing over the Action Area en route to foraging sites. Lack of suitable habitat near the Action Area make marbled murrelet presence in the Action Area unlikely. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants ttc Habitat Management Plan 18 May 5,2014 Sound resulting from project activities will be below precautionary harassment/injury guidelines for ESA-listed species that may be present in the proposed project area. The estimated threshold of harassment/injury for murrelets is approximately 92 dBA at nest sites and at a nesting site the disturbance threshold is an estimated 70dBA (WSDOT, 2010). Noise levels may be as high as 84 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but will attenuate at a maximum of 4,524 feet. Since there are no nesting sites near the project, terrestrial noise will have no effect on ESA-listed species. USFWS, 2011, discusses Primary Constituent Elements of Critical Habitat for marbled murrelets: (1) trees with potential nesting platforms and, (2) forested areas within 1/2 mile of potential nest trees with a canopy height of at least '/2 of the site potential tree height. No critical habitat or essential habitat elements are found within the vicinity of the Action Area (WDFW, 2011); there will be No Effect on Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat. Due to the project producing little noise and the short duration of activities,the proposed project has No Effect on Marbled Murrelet. Spotted Owl Strix Occidentalis—Threatened,listed June 23, 1990 Nesting or foraging habitats may be located in the Olympic or Cascade mountain ranges; however, there is no suitable spotted owl habitat on or within close proximity to the proposed project area. It is highly unlikely a spotted owl will be in or near the project vicinity. The Northern Spotted Owl Conservation does not document any spotted owl sites within or near the proposed action area. Terrestrial sound resulting from construction equipment will be well below precautionary harassment/injury threshold guidelines for ESA-listed species that may be present in the proposed project area.The estimated threshold of harassment/injury for spotted owl is approximately 92 dBA at nest sites and at a nesting site the disturbance threshold is an estimated 70dBA. Terrestrial noise levels may be as high as 84 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but will attenuate at a maximum of 4,524 feet. Since there are no nesting sites near the project, terrestrial noise will have no effect on the spotted owl. Unlike marbled murrelets that may have a potential nest to forage flight path over the proposed project, the spotted owl nests and forages in forested areas and does not have any reason to be near or flying over the proposed project area. Due to the lack of presence, and the project producing little noise which will be brief in duration, the proposed project will have No Effect on Spotted Owl. Puget Sound Steelhead DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss—Threatened,listed May 11,2007 USFWS identifies steelhead trout with potential for presence in Mason County. However, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. Therefore, the proposed project actions will have No Effect on Puget Sound Steelhead. Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata—Threatened,listed October 3,2013 Critical habitat designated October 3, 2013 (SO CFK Part 17.11) The Action Area contains no suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark. The streaked horned lark is found primarily in prairie habitat or unvegetated to sparsely-vegetated open habitats (WSDOT, 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants u c Habitat Management Plan 19 May 5,2014 i 2013). They can be found in developed areas such as airports and agricultural lands. There were no identified areas with critical habitat for streaked horned larks in the vicinity of the subject property (USFWS, 2013). Lack of suitable habitat near the Action Area makes streaked horned lark presence in the Action Area extremely unlikely. Sound resulting from project activities will be below precautionary harassment/injury guidelines for ESA-listed species that may be present in the proposed project area. The estimated threshold of harassment/injury for streaked horned lark is approximately 92 dBA at nest sites and at a nesting site the disturbance threshold is an estimated 70dBA. Noise levels may be as high as 84 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but will attenuate at a maximum of 4,524 feet. Since there are no nesting sites near the project, terrestrial noise will have no effect on the streaked horned lark. Unlike marbled murrelets that may have a potential nest to forage flight path over the proposed project, the streaked horned nests and forages in open prairie and agricultural areas and does not have any reason to be near or flying over the proposed project area. Due to the lack of presence, and the project producing little noise which will be brief in duration, the proposed project will have No Effect on Streaked Horned Lark. Due to a lack of habitat in the vicinity of the project, there will be No Effect on Streaked Horned Lark Critical Habitat. Taylor's Checkerspot Eupbydryas editba taylori—Endangered,listed October 3,2013 Critical habitat designated October 3, 2013 (SO CFR Part 17.11) The Action Area contains no suitable habitat for Taylor's checkerspot. Taylor's checkerspot is found primarily in open prairie and grass/oak woodland habitat (WSDOT, 2013). There were no identified areas with critical habitat for Taylor's checkerspot in the vicinity of the subject property (USFWS, 2013). Lack of suitable habitat near the Action Area makes Taylor's checkerspot presence in the Action Area extremely unlikely. No mechanisms for direct effects to Taylor's checkerspot are proposed from project actions as no suitable habitat is present within or in the vicinity of the Action Area. Since there is no suitable habitat near the project, terrestrial noise will have no effect on ESA- listed species. There will be No Effect on Taylor's Checkerspot Critical Habitat. Due the high unlikelihood of Taylor's checkerspot presence in the vicinity of the project and a lack of mechanisms for impact,the project will have No Effect on Taylor's Checkerspot. Yelloweye rockfish Sebastes entomelas—Threatened,listed July 27, 2010. Yelloweye rockfish are considered relatively rare in the Puget Sound, and they are observed more frequently in north Puget Sound than in southern areas (Miller and Borton 1980). Rockfish larvae are pelagic, often occupying the surface of open waters, under floating algae, detached seagrass, and kelp. Juvenile rockfish recruitment is likely to be found in areas with shallow high—relief zones with crevices and sponge gardens (Love et al 2002). Juvenile yelloweye rockfish do not typically occupy intertidal waters and shallow habitats (Love et al. 1991). Adults are most common between 300 to 600 feet water depth, sometimes associated with depths between 40 to 1,560 feet deep (Love et al 2002). The likelihood of juveniles or adults of ESA-listed rockfish within the project's relatively shallow and non-vegetated habitats is highly discountable, as the nearshore habitat is largely lacking any eelgrass, kelp, or other aquatic vegetation preferred as foraging substrates by juvenile and larval rockfish (BergerABAM, 2012). Deeper portions of Puget Sound provide suitable habitat for adult and juvenile rockfish. In addition, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants Utc Habitat Management Plan 20 May 5,2014 fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. The establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore,the proposed project will have No Effect on Yelloweye Rockfish. PHS-listed Species and Species of Local Importance PHS-listed species and species of local importance potentially found in Mason County are evaluated in the sections below to determine impacts of the project. Due to the number of species and lack of Federal regulation,these species have been grouped in order to provide more efficient evaluation. Table 6. Determination Summary for PHS-listed species potentially found in Mason County Group Species/Habitat Scientific Name Determination of Effect Cascades Frog Rana cascadae Coastal Tailed Frog Ascaphus tmei Amphibians Olympic Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus Not Likely to Adversely Affect Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas Bald Eaglet Hallaeetus leucacephalus Brandt's Cormorant Pha4acrocoraxpenid1latus Common Loon Gavia immer Shoreline- Common Murre Una aalge Not Likely to Adversely Associated Birds Affect Harlequin Duck Hutnonicus histnonims Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Western grebe Aechmophorus ocddentalis Golden Eagle Aquila cbgsaetos Northern Goshawk Acgz itergentilis Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus boreaus Peregrine Falcon Fakoperegrinus Terrestrial Birds Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopuspileatus Not Likely to Adversely Affect Purple Martin Progne subis Vaux's Swift Cbaetura vauxi Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccynus americanus Black Rockfish Sebastes melanops Brown Rockfish Sebastes auriculatus Coastal Res./Searun Cutthroat Oncorhymbus clarki Fishes Copper Rockfish Sebastes caurinus No Effect Greenstriped Rockfish Sebastes elongatus Olympic Mudminnow Novumbra hubbsi Pacific Cod Gadus macrocephalus Pacific Hake Merlucdus productus 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 21 May 5,2014 Pacific Herring Clupea pallasi Pacific Lamprey Lampetra Aidentata Quillback Rockfish Sebastes maliger Redstripe Rockfish Sebastes prmiger River Lamprey Lampetra ayresi Sockeye Salmon Oncogncbus nerka Walleye Pollock Theragra cbalcogramma Yellowtail Rockfish Sebastesfiatidus Terrestrial Johnson's Hairstreak Mitourajohnsoni No Effect Invertebrates Puget Blue Plebejus icarioides blackmorei Marine Newcomb's littorine snail Algamorda newcormbiana No Effect Invertebrates Olympia Oyster Ostrea lurida Gray Whale Eschricbtius mbustus Marine Mammals No Effect Pacific Harbor Porpoise Pbocoenapbocoena Reptiles Western Pond Turtle Clemmys maramorata Not Likely to Adversely Affect Fisher Mantes pennanti Keen's Long-eared Bat Myotis keend Olympic Marmot Marmota Olympus Terrestrial Not Likely to Adversely Mammals Pygmy Shrew Some hoyi Affect Roosevelt Elk Cemus elaphus mosevelti Townsend's Big-eared Bat Cognorhinus toumsendii Western Pocket Gopher Thomomys maZama Amphibians The amphibians that may occur within Mason County are primarily associated with the Cascade and/or Olympic mountain ranges or stream environments. As none of these exist onsite,it is highly unlikely that any amphibians are located within the Action Area. The only potential suitable habitat for amphibians is located in the northwest portion of the property,which contains mature forest.As the project proposes only temporary disturbance in previously-disturbed locations and presence of these species is unlikely in the Action Area,the project is not likely to adversely affect amphibians. Shoreline-Associated Birds The shoreline area may provide foraging opportunities for shoreline birds; however, the loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no significant impacts to shoreline-associated bird habitat or functionality.The only potential suitable bird habitat is located in the northwest portion of the property, which contains mature forest. Sound resulting from project activities will be below precautionary harassment/injury guidelines for ESA-listed species that may be present in the proposed project area. Noise levels may be as high as 84 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but will attenuate at a maximum of 4,524 feet. As the project proposes only temporary disturbance of potentially-suitable habitat in previously-disturbed locations and noise levels are below precautionary levels, the project is not likely to adversely affect shoreline-associated birds. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 22 May 5,2014 Terrestrial Birds The terrestrial birds that may occur within Mason County have specific habitat needs. The only species with potential to use onsite habitat include pileated woodpecker,purple martin,Vaux's swift, and western bluebird. The only potentially-suitable habitat is located in the northwest portion of the property, which contains mature forest. Sound resulting from project activities will be below precautionary harassment/injury guidelines for ESA-listed species that may be present in the proposed project area. Noise levels may be as high as 84 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but will attenuate at a maximum of 4,524 feet. As the project proposes only temporary disturbance of potentially-suitable habitat in previously-disturbed locations and noise levels are below precautionary levels,the project is not likely to adversely affect terrestrial birds. Fishes No mechanisms for direct effects to fishes are proposed from project actions. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on fishes. Terrestrial Invertebrates No mechanisms for direct effects to terrestrial invertebrates are proposed from project actions. The only protected terrestrial invertebrates that may occur within Mason County are the Johnson's hairstreak and Puget blue butterflies. According to WDFW,Johnson's hairstreak habitat is primarily old-growth or mature second-growth forests, and it is considered to be old-growth obligate. It is dependent on mistletoe,which is parasitic to conifer trees, for breeding and food. Neither mistletoe nor old-growth was observed onsite. Puget blue habitat consists of forest clearings or prairies with lupine present. The only known Puget blue populations occur in the Tenino Prairies south of Olympia. As it is extremely unlikely that Johnson's hairstreak or Puget blue will occur onsite due to lack of suitable habitat,the project will have no effect on terrestrial invertebrates. Marine Invertebrates Of the two marine invertebrate species, only Olympic oyster is likely to occur within the vicinity of the project.According to WDFW, Olympic oyster is known to occur in Hood Canal, to the north of the project site. However, no mechanisms for direct effects to marine invertebrates are proposed from project actions. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality for this species. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on marine invertebrates. Marine Mammals No mechanisms for direct effects to marine mammals are proposed from project actions. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 23 May 5,2014 habitat or functionality. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. It is unlikely that marine mammals will venture far enough into Hood Canal to reach the Action Area of the proposed project. Due to the unlikelihood of marine mammals reaching the project area, the lack of mechanisms for impact, and avoidance of in-water work,the proposed actions are not likely to adversely affect marine mammals. Reptiles The only protected reptile species that may occur within Mason County is western pond turtle. According to WDFW, western pond turtle occurs in streams, ponds, lakes, and permanent and ephemeral wetlands. None of these exist onsite, and it is unlikely that western pond turtles are located within the Action Area. The only potential suitable habitat onsite is located in the northwest portion of the property, which contains mature forest. As the project proposes only temporary disturbance in previously-disturbed locations and presence of these species is unlikely in the Action Area, the project is not likely to adversely affect reptiles. Terrestrial Mammals Many of the terrestrial mammals that may occur within Mason County have specific habitat needs or are endemic to certain locations. The only species with potential to use onsite habitat include Keen's long-eared bat and Townsend's big-eared bat. The only potentially-suitable habitat onsite is located in the northwest portion of the property, which contains mature forest. Sound resulting from project activities will be below precautionary harassment/injury guidelines for ESA-listed species that may be present in the proposed project area. Noise levels may be as high as 84 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but will attenuate at a maximum of 4,524 feet. As the project proposes only temporary disturbance in previously-disturbed locations and presence of these species is unlikely in the Action Area,the project is not likely to adversely affect terrestrial mammals. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants LLc Habitat Management Plan 24 May 5,2014 Chapter 6. Habitat Management Recommendations Based on direct observations during the site visit, the subject property contains a marine shoreline area with fish and wildlife habitat suitable for sensitive species located adjacent to the project area. The project area is cleared of native species with the exception of one stand of approximately four large trees adjacent to the road and is otherwise landscaped with non-native ornamental and invasive species and manicured lawn. The subject property located northwestern of the project area, across NE North Shore Road primarily contain mature mixed coniferous and deciduous trees as well as shrub and emergent plants suitable for wildlife habitat. The most suitable location for the proposed single-family residence is found within the FWHCA buffer between existing structures. This chapter provides recommendations for construction and best management practices as well as fish and wildlife habitat management recommendations for the proposed project. 6.1 Construction Sequencing and Best Management Practices Project staging should be located over existing impervious and/or cleared and disturbed surfaces. During site clearing and demolition, the existing concrete elements and all debris should be removed using typical demolition procedures and transported offsite to an approved facility. Once the site is cleared, TESC measures consisting silt fencing, plastic sheeting, and seeding of disturbed soils should be installed and actively managed for the duration of the project. Once all foundation work and underground utilities are installed and the site is finish graded,the entire site should be seeded to permanently stabilize the soils and prevent erosion; however, silt fencing should remain in place until completion of construction activities. BMPs should be implemented to avoid and minimize disturbance to critical areas and associated buffers to the maximum extent practicable. A concrete wash water collection basin should also be installed away from the FWHCA buffer prior to commencement of construction activities. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles should be kept out of the buffer to the maximum extent, and the area will need to be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials. No heavy equipment or machinery should be operated on the beach. All fill material and road surfacing should be sourced from upland areas onsite or from approved suppliers, and will need to be free of pollutants and hazardous materials. Construction materials along with all construction waste and debris should be effectively managed and stockpiled on paved surfaces and kept free of the remaining buffer area. Following completion of the residence, the entire site should be cleaned and detail graded using hand tools wherever necessary, and TESC measures will need to be removed. In addition, permanent stormwater treatment features will need to be implemented. 6.2 Habitat Management Recommendations The following habitat management recommendations are provided to protect the marine shoreline and fish and wildlife habitat: • TESC measures should be installed prior to site clearing, including silt fencing should be installed around construction activities prior to and maintained throughout the construction period; • All applicable construction BMPs should be used during land disturbing activities; 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants u1c Habitat Management Plan 25 May 5,2014 • Stormwater runoff from driveway and landscape surfaces should to be properly treated prior to direct release to Hood Canal; • Any future improvements to the shoreline area such as bulkhead replacement or addition of a dock should attempt to avoid impacts to habitat and species to the maximum extent practicable; • Confine new work to existing disturbed areas, such as existing building footprints, decks, walkways,driveways,and landscaped features to the maximum extent feasible; • Use of chemicals and herbicides should be avoided in upland areas adjacent to the bulkhead, • Plant native shrubs and groundcovers in disturbed areas to help retain soils, filter stormwater, and increase biodiversity of macroinvertebrates (i.e.-insects); • Maintain and preserve non-hazardous native tree and shrub species already on-site; • Remove non-native invasive plants growing in the FWHCA buffer, such as Engish ivy and Himalayan blackberry,and replant these areas with native shrubs and ground covers; • Do not place clearing debris, yard waste, or trash within the fish and wildlife buffer or on adjacent slopes, and • Keep heavy equipment and vehicles off shoreline. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uIc Habitat Management Plan 26 May 5,2014 Chapter 7. References Code of Federal Regulations. 2013. Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service.Washington D.C. Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations. Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1730-1, BLM/RS/ST- 98/005+1730. Envirovision, Herrera, and AHG 2007. Protecting Nearshore Habitat and functions in Puget Sound. An Interim Guide. The Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group. h=://wdfw.wa.g,ov/hab/ahg/nearshore interim guide october 2007 final draft.gdf Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle,Washington. Lichvar, Robert W. and John T. Kartesz. 2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NW, and BONAP, Chapel Hill, NC. Mason County Code. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2003. HCD Stormwater Online Guidance for Analyzing Stormwater Effects. NOAA Fisheries Service,Northwest Region. March 2003. Olson, P. and E. Stockdale. 2008. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program,Lacey,WA. Ecology Publication# 08-06-001. Pojar,J. and A. MacKinnon. 2004. Plants of the Pacific Northwest: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia,and Alaska(Revised).Lone Pine Publishing,Vancouver,B.C. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States dam'Carabell v. United States. EPA/USACE. December 2,2008. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.• Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Ver2.0), ed.J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MSS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service. Dee water Habitats of the United States Washington D.C. Washington State Department of Transportation. 2013. Biological Assessment Preparation: Advanced Training Manual,Version 02-2013. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants"-c Habitat Management Plan 27 May 5,2014 R . AI • •" i 4'��,age Dr. N ' /R 1• s r 600 po top v T T � P 111 1 Appendix B Background Information This Appendix includes a Mason County Topographic Map (B1), USFWS National Wetland Inventory map (B2),and Priority Habitat and Species Map (B3). 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan May 5,2014 Appendix B1. Mason County Topographic Map Mason County Map 11E MUgO q0 Me t(ARey q00 �. 1 C, d� RAND LrZI'ATiON OF L:.JLB T1'. TEA data auke 1131 s'ap tr.t fret :et:> to :crs:.rw retry fir:Lit t+e frx t :e mrze It At tEtst 4r.A re ri.r.tty,a:;xa:t ml Hr v.•er,\tlpx C*=^rr.Akes ra LEGEND r:.=,et cr-s->~n w in a::,xa:y As to tAbtltrj. ,er.eruorS.or y'acemtat or locricr. _ icy sap tartres tertatced heres h:e toxdL:et✓p:t:ed by these data art 4j=ximn4?. a•>sAs (!J f tdwat L AMS rA Are rat rwcesw1v vrxzt to rx%,r.1r.s cr ers:r.etses s r..r1s,Ar.O ut trcerAw tx trSxrwriecA!ptxposes c ay.N:asor:Cv=t•.•Gan rat asrarw ay 1#0 l:a.*rl:ry o N +'�v.ays CRy or SP#4Ln ttpee Aibility ArisuS iert the ue o!tLAt>'wp is a aarzer txt ictvded by\Lxc Caxn p,.#rs 4 Stro was (� •:txlnty Blk"WV 1040 t :s no r.*Ct khkU\1A5.x C".fy be!L&%!t Lc;sect,w,kmt.trr_tditw,ce>req s~ria1. r .uJ,cc toot.^wrratts eary kw4 trA'4v*ei,bat=4 tura:td to.lost cf.wi:ipued protzn R'ww% Cotnn,svorw Csstncts cc bwdn msir:{rrcr sse eor rt.'%amt ea the irtteratior::trttr. aed Eereifl it :�cb:ns S 1.41,01 E:et9•Mason Lowy 03S ('—] Tor.nse+�.s S Fygtt Sand d Map-t L a e 1Q0 W ?uDlf:Welk I Dr Sh*ltws.tVA 9S:U 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants etc Habitat Management Plan May 5,2014 � C � o nest iijtasttr, rtot+r`t. zU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServicefD z National Wetlands Inventory a o Apr 30,2014 N a Wetlands lift Freshwater Emergent A� - Freshwater Forested/Shrub r*,, - Estuarine and Marine Deepwater l Estuanne and Marne - Freshwater Pond - Lake PD - Rrwnne p� _ Other a I--1 CD t� I CD a I � y% O b •11 _. ����'' IG4 nw a fa parsral nttrwla oroy ma u5 Flar am MMIS :"Ce is fat fwp0lM�lf rflr tfla afAlriCy a ARratKIlMa OI iM bao Gau 6b~M u"map.IJI O. watlard rsiabtl fNSi M101dtl W UaW III 7CGbr6iltoa youl tM IayW n*txIj a TOu W on �. me WatUnd apppor Ynb site. User Remarks: n 0 N v"i O WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE z PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORT z SOURCE DATASET: PHSPlusPublic Query ID: P140423135739 • rt REPORT DATE: 04/23/2014 1.58 PM H fD Common Name Site Name Priority Area o Accuracy Federal Status Sensitive Data Source Entity a Scientific Name Source Dataset Occurrence Type State Status Resolution Geometry Type Source Record More Information(URL) PHS Listing Status Notes Source Date Mgmt Recommendations ram+• ESTUARINE INTERTIDAL WA Aquatic Habitat NA WA N US Fish and WildliGe Service NWIPOLY Aquatic habitat WA AS MAPPED Polygons hllp:fl e::lN,ecy Wa. PHS Listed M Geoduck Not Given Presence NA WA N WDFW pz Shellfish_Summary Presence NA AS MAPPED Polygons NiA PHS Listed Oyster Beds Not Given Presence NA WA N WDFW Shellfish—Summary Presence WA AS MAPPED Polygons a NIA PHS Listed (n at D C' •r S. E n 0 � 9 N w O A Appendix C Site Plans 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants' Habitat Management Plan May 5,2014 N SITE PLAN FOR COMBINED LEGALDEAAPDON Z o /SHORELINE/RESOURCE/DEVELOPMENT :E // REGULATIONS VARIANCE 6- .�a �w�"��� o c 1 •_ _I➢ • / / / J / f // / / p o -Y FOUyD-I PIPE / e _CH PIPE- w CH 2Q13)-__ a * s.«..� :�.ro. "..�..•,M."".:.�°ate,. z s W r HORIZONTAL DATUM(NAD 83/91)-BASIS OF BEWNGS: V a.t�l z n GOA":r io• �� /��/i/ //j/ / ' %/ / / µo �� .,..�,..u.«�=�r.1a.�« �aT- LL N // //{ �./� wRncn DATUM-Nnw ear« Z >o /4):P.,,CCUVERT / 'j//j� WELL IJ'OU32�/ / � / �a - �b...�..ao. o�«�,� «'�°�� ;�`n € 0 0 3 LL ICI rPP.811E Ri .i/ / �!• / �• _ DATES OF SURVEY: . . ms H .Aw i�/ //'�-/ / / ,•'/;:� J // / /• \ e _ aRocEDUR[/NnaRnm,F p F �i J A1 ._�i%/ i/V�E11 ��IlSE /POWFIR �.Y " ER ��� \\ t .. o.�,.o�..... «_<,,=m.•a 8 1= w •�J`..-////i/ ".✓' /aVELL/ / �•: _ • 3-x :°.`POWER w g ¢ U H6tD f + •\ NCNry NAP CA CUCUTATEDDSSITE�AREA`•u uw imx "OE I.0T'39ilc46J SST REBAR/ B STD.CRATE '1'O /� RIM=26.05' _.�'���" m.�m.«ooro.µ•ro�>o.se. � ro.:.assi �5�463 ' • % 1 1 � �N�..J:Ff ,! moo. i�� /i- r�Ax, a/N: UMBER: TOE OF / � / �i(vimar rt awk sm.mws TEL /�WEQ�WIMY '�' �`•�� j I /RISER �.!` �' ..% •/�/ i � REFERENCE SURVErs: / d'qHIMN // -�./ u l NCZ�.� w �WfA�POL ,V / / $ET /WASHES/ j A� ¢ o° 1 I //M51Cega ' I /XETsoNE its 6315,E ///' T. c W I-- 3 V PVC CULVER / J2•/GONG.fkL i Z / All % / WOOD STEPS / r' w w / IL Q Y w �eflTfa3 63 �:i i faE�73��.::'r. / r •w �r j rY�� // j z ,2 a IRpN FENeE j /''� o cc � W TE_ o UUJI , // �OHW-24--/ z EBAR/CAP '\ / .__. _-. J� / ` 3 CUYPOLE LS/4631 5' WALK PA / CONC.STfBS- "• o»"`"" O�_//f Q ••a\` 5� ,/_, F E 70 j ♦♦♦/; wu.a�1 \ / /♦ P ACE / CONC.STEPS ♦, O® •�:a.1�ssw� y s�CULVERT ,F.�' S� / PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE - /�/ 25'X 36'12 STORY) MAX SIZE•1500 S.F. /... BLDC AREA= ,a / 9823 S.F. I l ♦ PLANTER SHOWER i ♦♦♦ /' ry m �•�«.o�m i WOOD • CONC. n ♦� / G�P ¢ u�� wp�1 E \3� FENCE STEPS X♦ P 2ND LEVE�/ISH F OOR=23.32y 'EPS/TO 3•D.I.CULVERT \ NISH FLOOR IK85' gECKI I.E.=B.35' itONw // oaonnwamw m.u. / 3.0.L CLILgL- 'i\--' -A J LE.4.74'/1 If N SLOPE ANALYSIS MAP FOR ///'//,�+,;��%�'�,�,/ SHORELINE/RESOURCE/DEVELOPMENT � TM GP,GN � y w `rt;E � �a % '%///i !iftr/�'%'i/�i%i,/ ;/ , REGULATIONS VARIANCE .oa..a oW. ���� / �/%�/i/�/////i////i/j�//�%�/,/��//i///�1/////>/r/%/////%�////j��/�j/.//�//i/j/i�/��/i//i�/j////i////ce/�///(/I/1/�/1'��r%/Ti/P/''///>/fii1/I(//I/1I//1(//Il/////(1jl////II////(/iI/i/Il1/(l/l//J)//I///)/(///11/!/!/1/k/////fi///�b/////////(/l///i/1/f/i///)////I JI/I/I /(/�1((.)/+�I1III/II rI`��II 1 lti e a�. i. a a■ e w ww;a p9 ��a�n,,�.:e�..o,�u�'mb�m.�an"i. sa �=�oWw zw° ¢� o(I(NII)(1 SCALE: 20' 1{d HORIZONTAL DATUM(NAD 83/91)-BASIS OF BEARINGS: </ / / II } >" ,. RA , 11 VERTICAL MR a WII(II 1,1 11I I I N" a c OF 40R SLOPE / ( ( ; /( 1)//// I 1` III LAI 1 t �a r, j �1, I 1 I /< „ -, ,( I , 1 , I I , =FSUR /�'J ./ /�/ �-j//'/'/ '//�J( / / /j /1 / ) f{}l/ I I I �11\'--�., I I 11�(I I I I - •:�° _ _ ...�w.�:=��.��,�lou�„n¢ I,M.�,,,, � b W ME°°qE�Z,�T"W� F s �`•,���....���°" AL �°N AaE sS;TE:F n. amp /p /� j f�� r i j//i �I1)l1Ill//I1/!j/�✓////i a.a , n. -—1 ,,!/ _ - // TA%ACCO°MNUMBER: 0—:a[s1 REFERENCE SURZEYS: `. v'i ¢ W ::f#'9!'?';':` I�l( // i/. ///, ///1/// //// / / suum�v Rs".°:� m W W {:[ / / / / / /� / / // //// 77L, YCL r.�i� Z— F';F //// / //r// // /// //% // // / / of ¢ nuJ a 0 in am 0 of AREA OF ay -....r, // /, / iN a -�N. / /� SLOB% I „/ Il�//�1 r/�/�./y.u�rn J�\ jam/ —'/ LL %q- u.c iw.. .. orx ///i j/%''i/�' / i" /i/i%ice %// %�/�//%///�/,�,owrom ':;j �noc/i/,f . m a•c �/ / /�/ / / /�-�j////J 1" j"//„o, �.�•�L a - cope I OR-TER oQ .,.a,c�'iswro J /i /.I. q°umJ'' �--N,` `.,///! //�•/%/�'//J'' // ai I ).. 'o. o.ane / �� // :ORA on IIEio PF­ Q xwnIRAI r �/ wu�"��,!/ / / p• //�i �/�/ .i ��*ener � �.��: s- ' ,,.�f,, �ia.5s��-`-j� � � �Y co '¢'¢ srna mate u »�mi /�j/�i / //.6.v ���` /. :ee:v r.— / �..�•'V ��J/_ �;N� � �— aor.na w.,...... / � � •K//`l iI i�I 1 u�f.mpr9�q' r.�::�.. /IumS.•�_ - - � n ` TI Ir°! / !rum / ifs b a Appendix D Biologist Qualifications All field inspections, jurisdictional wetland determinations, OHW determinations, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Habitat Management Plan prepared for Northeast North Shore Road, were prepared by, or under the direction of, Racheal Villa and Hannah Blackstock of Soundview Consultants LLc. Racheal Villa, Senior Scientist Racheal Villa is a professional Senior Scientist and fisheries biologist with a diverse background in both freshwater and marine ecology with emphasis in salmonid life histories and habitat. She has experience in assessing marine, shoreline, stream, and wetland systems, reporting on biological evaluations,permitting, and site assessments. Racheal earned a Bachelor's of Science degree in Fisheries Biology from the University of Washington, Seattle, with additional graduate level training in salmonid behavior and life history; restoration of fish communities and habitats in river ecosystems; biological problems with water pollution;and biomonitoring and assessment. nt f Ecology in In addition she has received formal trainingfrom the Washington State Department o � p gY Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark, the revised Washington State Wetland Rating System, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach, and Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects from the Washington State Department of Transportation. She is also a Pierce County qualified Fisheries Biologist. 5/05/2014 Racheal Villa Date Soundview Consultants L'c 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor,WA 98335 (253) 514-8952 Office (253) 514-8954 Fax racheal@soundviewconsultants.com 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan May 5,2014 Hannah Blackstock, Staff Scientist Hannah Blackstock is a Staff Scientist with a background in both forest and wetland ecology and fisheries biology and experience with various Federal agencies. Hannah earned a Bachelor's of Science with a double major in Environmental Science and Resource Management as well as Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences at the University of Washington. Hannah has an extensive knowledge of restoration ecology, ranging in topics such as soils,plant familiarity, hydrology, and wetland ecology. Furthermore, she has been certified by the Washington Department of Ecology in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach and has received training from the PNW Invasive Plant Council on the identification of newly emerging invasive plant species. She is also a Pierce County Qualified Fisheries Biologist. 9-9�61 5/05/2014 Hannah Blackstock Date Soundview Consultants L'c 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor,WA 98335 Office: (253) 514-8952 ext. 004 Fax: (253) 514-8954 hannah@soundviewconsultants.com 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan May 5,2014 Page 1 of 2 Ey, 17 7 Allan Borden - RE: Variance Requests at 10801 NE North Shore Rd. Belfair From: Tom Barghausen <targhausen@barghausen.com> To: Allan Borden <ahb@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 10/9/2014 6:33 AM Subject: RE: Variance Requests at 10801 NE North Shore Rd. Belfair CC: "Ricka Gerstmann (Ricka.Gerstmann@wafd.com)" <Ri cka.Gerstm ann @w afd.c om>,... Attachments: 15972-M-EXH-Building Envelope-2014-05-06 (3).pdf; Sniplmage.jpg Hi Allan, I reviewed the report in more detail and appreciate the comprehensive analysis and overview you provided. Thank you. However, I do have one question that I need clarified before the hearing. You are recommending one additional condition in the staff report beyond what was recommended by Soundview Consultants—which is to plant 400 SF of native vegetation along the south and east side of the project as mitigation for impacts to the Shoreline. However, per the site plan that was submitted with our application and given the constraints of this small lot, we are concerned this is going to be impossible to meet due to the following: • The building envelope abuts the south fine and the east line (bulkhead) because this is where the existing grass lawn pad is located, and where the pad is the widest (measured from North Shore Road). This was included in our request to reduce the setbacks in these directions to-0-,which is also consistent with other properties along the shoreline. We can't plant native vegetation in these areas. • The entire lot area is only 1530 SF which includes the steep slope and retaining walls next to the ROW. The conceptual building envelope takes up about 875 SF, leaving only 655 SF left which includes the existing stairs on the north side, the stairs to the shoreline, as well as the slope and walls. It seems overly burdensome to require 400 SF of this area to be replanted as native vegetation given the existing development north and south of this property. • The lot is irregular shaped but a house is a rectangle. This forces us to locate the structure generally as shown to be feasible—even with a very small footprint, which prohibits the use of the south and west lines for revegation. • We also have to set aside area for the septic tank, access to the structure from the road (walkways, ramps etc.) and the future owner will want to be able to access the existing deck and stairs near the north line along the shore with walk ways. If any of this area is required to be planted with native vegetation, this will preclude the use of this area and impose an unreasonable burden on the property owner,without a measurable improvement in protection for the Shoreline since this area already has been completely altered. I realize the importance of protecting the shoreline from degradation but there are equally desirable goals to file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Locab'Temp/XPgrpwise/543 62 C22Masonmail... 10/9/2014 Page 2 of 2 protect the steep slopes and wildlife habitat across the road. The vast majority of this lot is being left as native forest and less than 5%of the lot area is being developed. One potential compromise might be to change the condition as follows: "As part of this variance, staff recommends that a landscape plan be submitted at the time of a building permit application which shall incorporate a percentage of native species into the final plan as recommended by Soundview Consultants or other qualified Wildlife Habitat Consultant". I've also asked Soundview Consultants to weigh in here before the hearing. Thanks Allan! Tom Thomas A. Barghausen P.E. President Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 -72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington, 98032 1-425-251-6222 (Office) 1-206-954-7947 (Cell) -----Original Message----- From: Allan Borden [mailto:ahb@co.mason.wa.usj Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 3:42 PM To:Tom Barghausen Cc: Allan Borden Subject:Variance Requests at 10801 NE North Shore Rd. Belfair Tom Barghausen: I have prepared a staff report for the proposal that requires the three variances for the public hearing on Tuesday October 14, 2014 at 1:00 PM in the County Commissioners Chambers at 411 No. Fifth St in Shelton. I wanted you to get the general direction of the County review. The scanned version includes the staff report, maps, and photo images; the geo and habitat mgmt. plan are not in the scanned version. A complete staff report will be available at the hearing. Contact me with any other questions. Allan Borden Planner- Long Range &Site Inspection 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 ext. 365 file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/54362C22Maso=ail... 10/9/2014 N - WED, SITE PLAN FOR COMBINED LF��P1)�, Q (PEA H ST Mg tlCAN VILE INSURANCE COMPANY CDFYIMEHT HEX a2A, 9M. Z A nUST 31.2012 R 7:30 AM) CC ° SHORELINE/RESOURCE/DEVELOPMENT wm A w Cm a ,rrp / / { / LOTS TNRECOM OF AAA)FORAY(M), aTcAL SLNREE FEA3l NR1NE t OF PATS, Z P/ a PEo ms 6 NamN mmr..mmc« J / TOGETHER WITH AL TEEwms OF THE SECOND-MASS.FORMERLY CANED EK 1EE SINIE W Z W LL wB� rE � REGULATIONS VARIANCE B O W YOSINGfON.STRATE N FIRM OF.ADPCENT 10.OR ARMND UPON SAID LOTS Q O FARDEL IM // / / j/ //,�/ I /FOU N PIPE---- e � IN UNUff FE FAm£Nr F(A ER 1.1 M EafA,FILE FEET N 1NOOt As DEsdem Q = a a NSR41AET1T fECORDm F4PJE3ACflE,.1996,Almrrai'S FlIE NO.637C66. N I CH 2� S AR ACROSS N�G1-0(C14r£EASE/.ENT FOR MUaNG MVO 5 FEET INMA,/NC On NO Z W O l W } J y OSS AN'E)MW SWRWCLL A5 OE9VH R B D IN PUEN REDO D NNUR 1.1r/ Q J C7 S / / / HURD AD 1996. LXTOR'S FIE NO.W7055, m ~ W HORIZONTAL DATUM NAD 33 91 O w Lu z o s o o / % / / / / / / / / / / / % 4 ( / ) -aAsls OF BEARINGS: H r/ H DATHNETHIS OIIT NAY MWA-MQ3106-9 OWVY FOR MR SUES NAM A L PER rKEN NSDOT w MD. FONT - d Z 4 N ANO O6-9 WAS NO MR PE WAS Afro A R R BEION O SAID PORT ND.BY23108-9 O ♦J Z , SCALE: 1'=10' / / / // // / / / / i / / // / / t 'yBHiN ND CONTROL POW N0.YLKiE W0.5 HELD FOR ROTATION BEIIC NpON SPtS'35'VST. LL- J > N 6 // /J / //� WELL JJSC/ µ 9r - �CPS DAN DATUM PROJECT "I PER axvEmED VMT,WSOor CONTRA Z w c7 f / POiM W. RM23106-9 WAS HELD O ELEVATION,BEND 12A6 RE(N ND29) ¢ ' O a CL STE a N ERsroN Freon avo®-Ncwev.us LU L, O E— u TI AL 28.jti7' '/", / � / / dE- w ND03 DPP 1Ly�RT, // / , ` �'` _ p\ HEL LU D OF SURVEY:RIEY EN RAPT EN CONSULTING ENGW3IS,N CONdXICD N MA 12013. (n � a Ea_l MONUMENTS 5H011 AS 1111 WERE IM71 AT THAT TIME- = O .POW �"v/ / `\ • ��r ��OO - AA FFELDETRVVF�UUSSNGDA TDOPCnON GR-S NC A MmaE 5600 SIRRE�EFOm INN HELD g m � F E / E /. POWER / : J \ F NDEEI'tF6ECN�iFE E �PaovE ulV+s ao u."MEMFDA.�irE�REPw"iTUIGCE�ae1AI Ni1EE�rs �- ¢ c� J" Yam/ / TATER / tY OR E CEEDS HE sAp AD5 FD W D BOUNDARY SV ME As SEr FDRN N X F= �/ ✓ _ ✓ / 332-,SD-o9D. iYVE HEAD i / / I \ VICINITY MAP CALCULATED SITE AREA 3 4e/ CB STD. GRATE / (Nor-ro-scnLe) - NORTHERLY of Ram LOT 39.x.231:saraE m (osfi:ADO) ST REBAR/�APf: I/c SWTNELOT a ROAD TO EXAMEAM LOT 39•1,5S*SaWE FEET (0.041 AM) fJ#463 RIM=26.05� !...� � GROSS LOT AREA 39,7601 SOUARE FEET(0.9131 ACRES) 18" C E. W=24.�,5 /� / �� { / �� •ti+ / um ACCOUNT NUMBER: OF 40% SLOPE- 1 1 A�.1 E��= '`l� / �/ j zzz45D)o925 TOE \ TELLOT 39(souNERtr �0):}22N500002s � REFERENCE SURVEYS: WLLL P - f =' / RISER / / // 1.P AT a amrs suEaE aFAa Bwa,M.B / '\ n-T�xW�g R! 'Of � ,•' / / / ////./ A z RECORD OF SAM AFN.59160D Z r �� l / s / 16FFS(TE� ��/ / / i RRECORD ECORD OFF wm AFNN.15455SR17 ' Z 1 = >f�pr Nd Sk�O ad Existin ncrek / BIcT1G/� / / { ¢ ¢ / /c}'� /p J y[_ �.�F SURVEYOR'S NOTES: LLJ CO / W P LE I i ret i ng wall ' // / G S§y! .1 .o exivtil lg--4eCgc ,.ALL D5TNETS ARE IN US SUIW FEET ¢ CO "J / �JJ / cc M ICB TONE / / / J� w w rA :'jM L OD STEPS / j �_ LLLI uL PVC CULVER >' / RT /! , ' U- ¢ Y LU /'- I.F -• - / '" C / s�21s' / / / )� J = y/%%/ // ' ! / ` �` / 3L///\ -- M / J9F/ IRQiJ F 12E/ //Existir�gvvo�cY `.\ o EE L -``•i / / // j/ l // l� / ,. Cj E -- J deck on piings `. o C0 , / / /S EBAR/CAP / // N, —� osed se M- / _ I (NSF:NOT AL SYMBOLS AY AI ON THE MAP) ILL cation % 5' KKK PA CONC. STF�S� - !/ EASEMENT , oo YARD UUMIWRE , LAisti concrete AM METER `� �_ \ \ EQ• / ,,, AFN637055 1 O POWER POLE T " E / r ® JUNCTION BOX(q5 NOTED) x = > ' CJ`` /, stairs to shoreline (P TELEPHONE MANHOLE CE W-4.69' / • 0 CATCH BASIN(CB) AC c CONC. STEPS ,� ® S STORM �(M woLE(ss.) WOO ® CLENIOKO(AS NDTED) II I F �,, / 1 / CULVERT s J� PROPOSED DING ENVELOPE GAS MCFER j cas vAYE I.E. N=16.27' u a _ 25' X 35' (2 STO FA, WATER VALVE(Tv) g o MANHOLE BLDG AREA= d„ MAX SIZE•1500 S.F.\ ®A WATERY )/cP NECDON(mG) LDG S.F. Shoreline and OHWM T WATER OO(RSSDEMSOER \ ^ PLAPJTER /i`/ \ ry ^• ^• ® WELL HEAD SHOWER " / �� -� 01RECTq ARROW Concept �. SURVEY M NVM NT(0.5 NOTED) / •` WOO / ,, / P + BENCHMARK \ a\ F �i CONC. �y +I s6nroN ORNER(AS NOTED) o z E ° STEPS / ,� G� FOUND RMWCP(AS NOTED) N FOUND LW/TACK W Building Eri lops ! oo GDNR�S� N _ OI�VV•4.44' i o exact confi urat'' �° / r Buildable Area GAT D`AS NO ED) Z�"^ F) g e 2ND LEVEL/FINISH FLOOR=23.32' - - BumNG NE n 3-N z Ae ` '^■{�/ """�� ` Y / A\�� N X— CHAIN LINK FENCE F!} N N z Z and location on ■ / WOO FENCE N2NN o n/<. / BARBED NNE FENCE LD W Q E �\ /� / EATE RE FENCE T PST ` /FINISH FLOOR 15.85' ^• •= WATER 8 E 1 O 3'D.I. CULVERT / � � ti Exhibit for Publi _ will vary) �GKJ I.E=9.86' 1 / '(°O— PJERHEAD/UNDERCP0UN0 TEL IRE �� m / DFIW 98 °E� STOC1ERHEAD/UNOERGROUNO PWR.LINE C2 / m / ( J I SEWER UN J d•T D.I. ED4� \\(� N H A ORDNARY HIGH WATER MEASDREMENI G .� Hearing o 1 W [-E L� Ti Page 1 of 2 Allan Borden - FW: Barghausen decision on three Variances From: Tom Barghausen <targhausen@barghausen.com> To: Allan Borden <ahb@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 11/17/2014 6:54 AM Subject: FW: Barghausen decision on three Variances CC: Melody Saucedo <msaucedo@barghausen.com> Attachments: 15972-M-EXH-Revised Building Envelope Option 1-2014-05-06.pdf, 15972-M-EXH-Revised Building Envelope Option 2-2014-05-06.pdf . ....___._........................... Hi Allan, I'm following up on the below email. On October 30th, you had asked if we had a copy of the sketch I turned in at the public hearing to the Examiner showing a reduced building footprint. The Examiner referred to this in his decision as Exhibit 24. 1 turned in the only copy I had since it was sketched during the hearing and left with the Examiner. I assume his office has the official copy. The attached options reflect what was presented in the sketch. The goal was to reduce the size of the building footprint to 600 SF from 875 SF while also providing some setback from the bulkhead. Both options accomplish this but Option 1 is closest to the one that I sketched at the hearing. It provides setbacks on the south and north lines, as well as along the shoreline. Please confirm that the record includes Exhibit 24 as either the sketch I left with the Examiner, or one/both of these options. It may be several years or more before someone comes in to apply for a building permit on this lot and I don't want there to be confusion when looking for Exhibit 24. Thanks very much! Tom --------------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Barghausen P.E. President Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215-72nd Avenue South Kent,Washington, 98032 1-425-251-6222 (Office) 1-206-954-7947 (Cell) -----Original Message----- From:Tom Barghausen Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 2:15 PM To: 'Allan Borden' Cc: Ricka Gerstmann (Ricka.Gerstmann@wafd.com); Wayne Potter Subject: RE: Barghausen decision on three Variances file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/54699BAOMasonmail... 12/2/2014 Page 2 of 2 Hi Allan, The sketch that I turned in at the hearing was hand-drawn right there and I'm pretty sure I left that with the Hearing Examiner. The original building envelope we submitted with our application was 35' x 25'for a total of 875 SF. Attached are two options showing a smaller envelope of 20'x 30' which is what I showed the Hearing Examiner. The envelope has to be rectangular. Depending on which property line the envelope is parallel with, it could be in one of these locations--or moved/rotated slightly. What else do you need from me? Thanks Tom --------------------------------------------------------- Thomas A. Barghausen P.E. President Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 -72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington, 98032 1-425-251-6222 (Office) 1-206-954-7947 (Cell) -----Original Message----- From: Allan Borden [mailto:ahb@co.mason.wa.us] Sent:Thursday, October 30, 2014 3:19 PM To:Tom Barghausen Cc:Allan Borden Subject: Fwd: Barghausen decision on three Variances Tom Barghausen: I am forwarding the Variance cases decision issued yesterday AM. Look it over as it is long and detailed. Page 7, first paragraph of the Findings mentions project modifications(noted as Exhibit 24). Do you have the written memo or document that states the possible modifications to the proposed footprint that you supplied to the Hearing Examiner at the Oct. 14th hearing. If you have the memo/document, Mason County would need a copy to complete the Variance case record,to understand the approved footprint shape and area. Thanks in advance. Allan Borden Planner- Long Range &Site Inspection 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 ext. 365 file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/54699BAOMasonmail... 12/2/2014 r SITE PLAN FOR COMBINED SHORELINE/RESOURCE/DEVELOPMEN " REGULATIONS VARIANCE FOU IRON PIPE-- dAR C 2.Q- .— °yP. CU WELL IJ-O.Ud ERT�L/28. RT ,POW / METE' 'POWER � ER �wE HEAD 39�4c40� /f;AP CB STD. GRATE S�T REBAR %" � ,.. �• � ow, BLS#463 RIM=26.05' 18" C I.E. W=24.�,5' it r SLOPE / T , 1 2 TEL i /RISER OFFSltE, 0"� BLDG 1�1E I{t Fil'MN Fit P LE d a:'' / �/ %/ T G/WASHE�/ , S 6315 /� / R1L'B /�'` jj KEYSTONE ALL OD SUPS !/d / d �, IROr FFN r /r OHW 314— /S EBAR/CAP -'\ j/ AS I ' rin LS#4631 ` BL 2 1 QFQ 055 ♦♦ i/ / s� o OHW-4.69', CONC. STEPS ♦♦♦ 1 CULVERT �\ .6' 0S / PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE �j• I.E. N=16.27 25' X 35' (2 STORY) BLDG AREA= c .. i MAX SIZE=1500 S.F. / 9821 S.F. ♦� PLANTER \` SHOWER L / �♦♦ / w` \ . \vA \ e FENCE �' n, CONC. ♦,; P `_ STEPS / G NY 01HW--4.44' ♦y O 2ND LEVEL�FINISH FLOOR=23.32' /� 'EPS/TO 3" D.I. CULVERT INISH FLOO1 45.85' ^ gECKI I.E.=9.86' / / 3" D.I. CULVEP �� OHW.98' 1.E.4.74'/I SITE PLAN FOR COMBINED SHORELINE/RESOURCE/DEVELOPMENT � �$/ `� / / � ' i i/ / REGULATIONS VARIANCE / FOU N PIPE ARC Hv ///j/ / i// / / r'� _ 4wo 4"yP. CU�T j/%// WELL IJDLSC/ / rrr %. /'�/ERTI AL 28}57/ — ' // L•/ a .� jJPOWER "` �Y"/ /TWEE/ ' .• ' TER _�// j / �✓ / L/HEAD / f1OT'39&401 S�T REBAR4�AP,;•r CB STD. GRATE /S#463 `e. RIM=26.05' = ' 18" C E. W=24.2w5' TOE k OF,I, TEL RISES OFFSr1`TE �i1E At CyHfMN \ i -'�W0(P LE / T G/WASHE�/ / /MAfC6 ! / KEYSTONE �kS 6315 CODI� RT /" ALL OD STEPS ,N _/ < / A ATE_J— BAA/JCAP 'fond" 10 / / " S / OHW-324— / L f 4 1 / t 20'. / / x /S EBAR/CAP � 4 OGY�L) LS#4631 i ) i ' ?� BL / ♦ CONC. STE�S� /, "" \ QUO `" „ ♦♦ i 70 G i CONC.-STEPSwoo ♦♦ F F'` / I CULVERT �S�j PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE I.E. N=16.27' / 25' X 35' (2 STORY) BLDG AREA= >a a 4 i MAX SIZE-1500 S.F. � ... 982t S.F. ♦� PLANTER SHOWER � ♦� /� WOOD �JQ� FENCE �' a CONC. P / STEPS % ♦ G OF�•4.44' �y ti Q 2ND LEVE/FINISH FLOOR=23.32' ti 4� / TEPS/TO / 3"D.I. CULVERT INISH FLODf /115.85' gECKI I.E.=9.86' // / 3"DJ. CULVE� �/ OHW,Z.96' ti J 1.E. .74''/ / ; 1 I OPPOSITION TO BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS / WASHINGTON FEDERAL VARIANCE APPLICATIONS OCTOBER 14, 2014 SUBMITTED BY: ROBERT W. JOHNSON, PLLC KRISTIN FRENCH FOR ADJACENT OWNERS IN OPPOSITION 103 S. 4TH STREET PO BOX 1400 SHELTON, WA 98584 (360) 426-9728 FAX: (360) 426-1902 E-MAIL: kfrench@rwjpllc.com Bill Carter October 7, 2014 10871 NE Northshore Road Belfair WA, 98528 Mason County Department of Community Development, Planning Division Attn: Allan Borden 426 W. Cedar St. Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Sir: I am writing this letter to state my strong objection to variance requests included in SHR2014-00014; VAR2014-00005; and DDR2014-00043. This proposed development is located at 10811 NE Northshore Road (parcels 32224-50-00024 and 32224-50-00025),just a few houses east of my home. The site of the development is a small lot that is apparently being split away from an original two lot residential development. The proposal includes the development of a two story home to be built with absolutely no set back from the shoreline. Due to the short distance between the bulkhead and the Northshore Road even the original two lot development was a marginal building site and non-compliant with the current and prior Shoreline Regulations. To totally disregard the shoreline regulations and other setbacks would impact many nearby residences and create irreversible impacts to the shoreline that the Shoreline Regulations are intended to protect. This development with a zero set back from the shoreline will not only block views but will also present an unattractive anomaly to the otherwise somewhat uniform setbacks of all the other homes along this stretch of waterfront. Shoreline setbacks and regulations are an important part of what the County has established for the purpose of protecting adjacent neighbors and the environment. This development would be inconsistent with adjacent developments and uses and would severely impact views for several parcels. This alone should be sufficient to deny this variance. Additionally the development would have several impacts to the natural environment which should be avoided. It will require the removal of several large trees one of which is an old cedar tree frequently used by bald eagles as a roosting site. The beach in front of the house is a spawning area for forage fish and should be protected by a reasonable setback. I feel this requested variance would be inconsistent with what I was told on several occasions were the policies of Mason County. I my case my case I was told that a variance would most likely not be granted for a minor expansion of the deck in front of my house even though it still would have been more than twenty feet from the shoreline. Mason County should not grant special consideration to his requested variance when so many other homeowners are forced to follow the current regulations. Please consider my strong objections to the proposed development. I don't feel the applicable variance criteria have been met, and this property owner should comply with the Shoreline Management Regulation as all of the neighboring parcels must. Sincerely, A. W. (Bill) Carter Patricia Lund 10851 NE Northshore Road Belfair WA, 98528 October 1, 2014 Mason County Department of Community Development, Planning Division Attn: Allan Borden 426 W. Cedar St. Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Sir: My name is Pat Lund. I reside at 10851 NE Northshore Road, two houses west of the proposed building site that is requesting multiple variances on county road right of way and shoreline setbacks. I strongly oppose that a two story structure be built up to and on the aging bulkhead. Why would this parcel alone be allowed to bypass the shoreline management setbacks impacting several homeowners' views? Looking east from my home I would basically see a house built in the front yard of the adjacent vacant home, completely blocking their eastern view of Hood Canal. A grove of tall cedar trees would also be removed from the narrow hillside impacting slope stability. These trees are home to many birds, including Bald Eagles that add to the beauty of this special area. Directly in front of the proposed building is the location of a yearly fall smelt run and spawning grounds. The cove is thick with smelt that hug the beach at high tide. Seals swim daily close to the shoreline. The shoreline setback is there to protect and preserve the views of current and future homeowners and to protect a healthy marine habitat for our fragile Hood Canal. Please act to uphold applicable regulations and deny the variances sought for this proposed development, based on the fact that the project as proposed is not compatible with adjacent development,would constitute a grant of a special privilege not enjoyed by other nearby properties, and would substantially interfere aesthetically with adjacent properties and the purposes of critical area protection regulations. Sincerely, Patricia Lund .�«♦ �' ~�x, a .. t' •i a �,. i �1 Sx7 .j F •� .,-f. rs i y 16 fx -01 -"'f :-`�., v(s' i;1�-� ,-��r,•ry- .S"s(`t I'j magma ..f'S G_ Y �, . � :-, . - � : . . •..'� .t.'', _ A`-"� r. +. .;"� c?• .ems.. � . ' +s. � 1 f .� � � 1 Y f AV- VI, r� f-• p ... .�..t 1 �N r �� ,•Js��. _ �k1f�`�L. •'�1"..�y �� �"`��fir,. V 4`. r "Now to '4 r t f; . s � ti -+�1, a •.L�to 'J' � Air .`.ice� :•i� � � y.. .•� ! !ji �t , � •' ! "� �`� •p'-..mot � YY=,^ .sue ¢y;.��•. f 77 ioi ft - - .ems AfW r _" rF w — _ ^��."• ::�!:+-tit ' ...+..=4 ... ,ram^._-, ._ •. ' ry aY ♦ � P �lyyy a •� ,1 • aw+r .\ `+� �!�' �. '�' any*'At • �~ y , 1 _ _ 1 -7 r .. ~' ~, la, F / i Ir"' ' Y \A4 q► •�� " ' Fr t . Arl r OL 44. �. I d R t S.; i ,SIT'•�+.. .4.,. f"' _ • .f � j. yr. -." �-�-\1Ci � - _ - s _ t c ol r It 3Y. ;~ •- � ' 'i t—,r.\fir, ��. -. M.` 6•�e �r •.-` a� . _'" ��� ,' ��• .•I. � !C f �,r-�j,�j�'� \ DTI Alk • � � `' L•�n'k,��.t � �,�•` - c '' '�' ,/ Sri y � •T �.,y� c x I "err I_ RECEIVED d26 W. CEDAR ST. Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Pa e 1 of 7 l . .ice -7.. +'!'• � 4 <'•`'� r• i� y'' •���+� �j'}�� q . C� t�.kr� Nf� .. r - .: -' V^•6 "'+ � '��$`��. . •�tga''•'1-� 4 � � 'iC,� '!t`�• :rya ,�� � F� . -ram' <..'. View of the southeast corner of that portion of Lot 39 lying north of the Road. The View looking southwesterly into Lot 39 and toward Lot -Phf-toe d# corner is marked with the iron pipe and lath. The two well houses are shown on just inside the tree line behind the pump house. _ opposite sides of the line. The toe of just inside the tree line. PP slope P is j :'. ST. J AO. a .s Looking sc---" ,esterly along North Shore Road in front of Lot 39. The existing existing corner of Lot 39 for that portion of the lot lying southerly(-'— right-of-wa is located near the front of the well house. )ad. There is an old concrete wall overgrown with ivy at this loca 05/01/14 i he shoreline is just visible to the right. Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Pa e 2 of 7 4 - 911 Asti .'I; Iii 44 i• View looking south from the subject lot down the shoreline along the bulkhead View of the subject property showing the existing bulkhead, the lawn area, and showing the house on Lot 42 built right up to, and partially over the bulkhead. the existing brick fire place. This is the area proposed for the "approved building envelope". • yt r� r: is Another vie-, "oking northerly across the proposed building envelope showing ' ooking northwesterly between Lots 39 and 40 up to North Shore the existinc ining walls up against the road. The existing right-of-way line is oad. 05/01/14 located just <U LI ie left of the fire place. Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Pa e 3 of 7 i I 1 - 4W r a' M- F. Close up view of the nearby house on Lot 42 that enjoys a building envelope that Another house on an adjoining lot that has a deck built up to the bulkhead. A directly abuts the bulkhead. majority of the houses built on the water side of North Shore Road are built close to, or over, the bulkhead. it r 7j w � r Another he ocated several hundred feet south of the subject property that .iiew of the bulkhead on Lot 39 looking northeasterly. The deck i essentially is the bulkhead, and another one is just beyond in the distance. listance is shown on our survey and is located on our property. 05/01/14 Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Pa e 4 of 7 tt . 4*a. {� 7 �a hey •tr.`.rT- +t+w-'ra. .. ems..-' � :�4'Y View of several nearby houses northeasterly along the beach showing how they View of the retaining walls along the frontage of North Shore Road. are build right up to the bulkhead. i i View lookir- --uthwesterly along North Shore Road from the top of the 'iew of the house immediately northeasterly of Lot 39 which is al: retaining w along the highway. The house is on Lot 40 next door which is uilt partially within the existing right-of-way. 05/01/14 partially bum in the existing right-of-way. Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Pa e 5 of 7 IVOW View of another house near the subject property that is built on top of the View of a house built on top of the bulkhead with a deck that extends over the bulkhead. shoreline below. - r .� y, i ` 1 Another ho- -- ')uilt over the bulkhead with decks extending further into the This house nearby has a bulkhead that was built out further into shoreline. OHWM and is also built out to the limit of the bulkhead. 05/01/14 Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Pa e 6 of 7 7rc Here's a house built almost totally beyond and the OHWM on co',- Another house built beyond the OHWM on columns. Y i` S Another he wilt all the way out to the bulkhead. -louse built out to the bulkhead and with a deck extending further 05/01/14 Wilson - Hood Canal Site Photos Page 7 of 7 g�E CEI'V z "` -- JON 1 1 201� 426 W. CEDARS rl`!flTl'" vi r''r House nearby constructed up to the bulkhead with a deck extending further over the water. 05/01/14 a� , A rr,: 40 Op s r; e 41 Y!` d r .� r e, i `: t` 00 Ar f Mason County Map Output Page Page 1 of 1 Mason County Map 322245000012 322245000013 y 322245000014 g 322245000018 }0 322245000015 d gg� 722245000919 322245000021 322243200000 322245000023 t I 722245000925 ¢ 32224M03324' I 322245000026 322245000019 h h d / 322240060000 122243tl3@S y 322MS�M2 /f// O� 322246998M3 �O 122234161161111 3222415009 r 3222450000114 322246M0M 32222M333333 ]??Z1M33070 / 32224590410117 52�43333M3 322242222222 .. 4 12224/M3334 3y 32224999SR1 .,._.. ''. DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: The data used to make this map have been tested for accuracy,and every effort has been made to ensure that these data are timely,accurate and reliable.However,Mason County LEGEND makes no guarantee or warranty to its accuracy as to labeling,dimensions,or placement or location of any map features contained herein.The boundaries depicted by these data are Roads Federal Lands approximate,and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards,and are ^�Highways ^ City of Shelton intended for informational purposes only.Mason County does not assume any legal liability or responsibility arising from the use of this map in a manner not intended by Mason County. f Rivers 8 Streams County Boundary(DNR) In no event shall Mason County be liable for direct,indirect,incidental,consequential, special,or tort damages of any kind,including,but not limited to,loss of anticipated profits Parcels Commissioner Dstncts or benefits arising from use of or reliance on the information contained herein (' Sections S Lakes ®2009-Mason County GIS (� Townships S Puget Sound 8 Major Lakes 100 W.Public Works Dr Shelton,WA 98584 http://mapmason.co.mason.wa.us/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=atnaso... 10/13/2014 TerraScan TaxSifter - Mason County Washington Page 1 of 2 MASON COUNTY '. ' WASHINGTON TAXSIFTER :SEARCH SALES SEARCH REETSIFTER COUNTY HOME PAGE CONTACT DISCLAIMER Melody Peterson Mason County Assessor 411 N 5TH ST Shelton,WA 98584 Assessor Treasurer Appraisal MapSifter Parcel Parcel#: 32224-50-00024 Owner Name: WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS DOR Code: 18- Residential-All other Addressl: 425 PIKE STREET Situ$: 10811 NE NORTH SHORE RD Address2: Map Number: City,State: SEATTLE WA Status: Zip: 98101-2334 Description: CADY'S SUNRISE BEACH TR 40&T.L. Comment: 2014 Market Value 2014 Taxable Value 2014 Assessment Data Land: $118,595 Land: $118,595 District: 0259-Tax District 0259 Improvements: $111,520 Improvements: $111,520 Current Use/DFL: No Permanent Crop: $0 Permanent Crop: $0 Total $230,115 Total $230,115 Total Acres: 0.45000 Ownership Owner's Name Ownership WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS 100% Sales History Sale Sales #Date Document Parcels Excise# Grantor Grantee Price 09/05/12 1995035 3 12-14625 BISHOP WHITE MARSHALL& WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS $327,325 WEIBEL PS 01/31/06 1859646 1 200682974 WILLIAM &KIMMERLEE OLSEN GARRY R&DIANE L WILSON H/W $409,000 10/02/91 533703 1 199100000 WILLIAM E OLSEN AND KIMMERLEE A OLSEN $0 10/10/89 499870 1 198903485 LEWIS E COMMONS ET UX WILLIAM E OLSEN ET UX $120,000 (KIMMERLEE A) 06/08/89 494692 1 198901724 WILLIAM WOLFENBARGER ETUX LEWIS E COMMONS ET UX $0 09/22/86 457727 1 198696080 WILLIAM I WOLFENBARGER SUSAN A WOLFENBARGER $87,000 Historical Valuation Info Year Billed Owner Land Impr. PermCrop Value Total Exempt Taxable 2014 WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS $118,595 $111,520 $0 $230,115 $0 $230,115 2013 WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS $125,575 $123,260 $0 $248,835 $0 $248,835 2012 WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS $139,525 $117,390 $0 $256,915 $0 $256,915 2011 WILSON,GARRY R&DIANE L $139,525 $117,390 $0 $256,915 $0 $256,915 2010 WILSON,GARRY R&DIANE L $139,525 $91,780 $0 $231,305 $0 $231,305 View Taxes Parcel Comments http://property.co.mason.wa.us/Taxsifter/Assessor.aspx?keyld=3166723&parcelNumber=... 10/10/2014 TerraScan TaxSifter- Mason County Washington Page 2 of 2 Dale Comment 12 12 11 PER VCIS CASE WAS CLOSED ON 8 1 11 FOR GARY&DIANE WILSON A #/ / / / SO CASE 11 42998. BP 08/01/11 RECEIVED DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR AS OF 7/27/11 FOR GARRY RAYMOND WILSON CASE#11-42998. BP 05/12/11 BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 7 FILED 4/14/11 FOR GARY&DIANE WILSON CASE#11-42998. BP Property Images No images found. 1.0.5381.28073 T7( Rolh'ear Search:2014 http://property.co.mason.wa.us/Taxsifter/Assessor.aspx?keyld=3166723&parcelNumber=... 10/10/2014 TerraScan TaxSifter - Mason County Washington Page 1 of 2 r MASON COUNTY M.7 WASHINGTON TAXSIFTER 7 ,SEARCH SALES SEARCH REETSIFTER COUNTY HOME PAGE CONTACT DISCLAIMER Melody Peterson Mason County Assessor 411 N STH ST Shelton,WA 98584 Assessor Treasurer Appraisal MapSifter Parcel Parcel#: 32224-50-00025 Owner Name: WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS DOR Code: 91 - Undeveloped- Land Addressl: 425 PIKE STREET Situs: Address 2: Map Number: City,State: SEATTLE WA Status: Zip: 98101-2334 Description: CADY'S SUNRISE BEACH TR 39, SELY OF CO R/W&T.L. (SEE PARCEL#00925 FOR PTN LYING NLY OF R/W-NOT A SEPARATE PARCEL) Comment: 2014 Market Value 2014 Taxable Value 2014 Assessment Data Land: $105,190 Land: $105,190 District: 0259-Tax District 0259 Improvements: $0 Improvements: $0 Current Use/DFL: No Permanent Crop: $0 Permanent Crop: $0 Total $105,190 Total $105,190 Total Acres: 0.06000 Ownership Owner's Name Ownership WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS 100 Sales History Sale Sales #Date Document Parcels Excise# Grantor Grantee Price 09/05/12 1995035 3 12-14625 BISHOP WHITE MARSHALL&WEIBEL WASHINGTON FEDERAL $327,325 PS SAVINGS 01/31/06 1859646 1 200682974 WILLIAM&KIMMERLEE OLSEN GARRY R&DIANE L WILSON $0H/W Historical Valuation Info Year Billed Owner Land Impr. PermCrop Value Total Exempt Taxable 2014 WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS $105,190 $0 $0 $105,190 $0 $105,190 2013 WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS $111,375 $0 $0 $111,375 $0 $111,375 2012 WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS $123,750 $0 $0 $123,750 $0 $123,750 2011 WILSON, GARRY R&DIANE L $123,750 $0 $0 $123,750 $0 $123,750 2010 WILSON, GARRY R&DIANE L $137,500 $0 $0 $137,500 $0 $137,500 View Taxes Parcel Comments Date Comment 12/12/11 PER VCIS CASE WAS CLOSED ON 8/1/11 FOR GARY&DIANE WILSON CASE#11-42998. BP 08/01/11 RECEIVED DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR AS OF 7/27/11 FOR GARRY RAYMOND WILSON CASE#11-42998. BP http://property.co.mason.wa.us/Taxsifter/Assessor.aspx?keyld=3166724&parcelNumber=... 10/10/2014 TerraScan TaxSifter - Mason County Washington Page 2 of 2 05/12/11 BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 7 FILED 4/14/11 FOR GARY&DIANE WILSON CASE#11-42998. BP Property Images No images found. 1.0.5381.28073 TX RollYear.,Search:2014 http://property.co.mason.wa.us/Taxsifter/Assessor.aspx?key1d=3 166724&parcelNumber=... 10/10/2014 TerraScan TaxSifter- Mason County Washington Page 1 of 2 MASON COUNTY WASHINGTON TAXSIFTER SIMPLE SEARCH SALES SEARCH REETSIFTER COUNTY HOME PAGE CONTACT DISCLAIMER Melody Peterson Mason County Assessor 411 N 5TH ST Shelton,WA 98584 Assessor Treasurer Appraisal MapSifter Parcel Parcel#: 32224-50-00925 Owner Name: WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS DOR Code: 91 - Undeveloped- Land Addressl: 425 PIKE STREET Situ$: Address2: Map Number: City,State: SEATTLE WA Status: Zip: 98101-2334 Description: CADY'S SUNRISE BEACH TR 39, NWLY OF CO R/W(SEE PARCEL#00025 FOR PTN SLY OF R/W-NOT A SEPARATE PARCEL) Comment: 2014 Market Value 2014 Taxable Value 2014 Assessment Data Land: $3,365 Land: $3,365 District: 0259-Tax District 0259 Improvements: $0 Improvements: $0 Current Use/DFL: No Permanent Crop: $0 Permanent Crop: $0 Total $3,365 Total $3,365 Total Acres: 0.88000 Ownership Owner's Name Ownership WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS 100% Sales History Sale Sales # Excise# Gr otcr Grantee Price Date Document Parcels 09/05/12 1995035 3 12-14625 BISHOP WHITE MARSHALL&WEIBEL WASHINGTON FEDERAL $327,325 PS SAVINGS 01/31/06 1859646 1 200682974 WILLIAM&KIMMERLEE OLSEN GARRY R&DIANE L WILSON $0 H/W Historical Valuation Info Year Billed Owner Land Impr. PermCrop Value Total Exempt Taxable 2014 WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS $3,365 $0 $0 $3,365 $0 $3,365 2013 WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS $3,565 $0 $0 $3,565 $0 $3,565 2012 WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS $3,960 $0 $0 $3,960 $0 $3,960 2011 WILSON,GARRY R&DIANE L $3,960 $0 $0 $3,960 $0 $3,960 2010 WILSON, GARRY R&DIANE L $3,960 $0 $0 $3,960 $0 $3,960 View Taxes Parcel Comments Date Comment 12/12/11 PER VCIS CASE WAS CLOSED ON 8/1/11 FOR GARY&DIANE WILSON CASE #11-42998. BP 08/01/11 RECEIVED DISCHARGE OF DEBTOR AS OF 7/27/11 FOR GARRY RAYMOND WILSON CASE#11-42998. BP http://property.co.mason.wa.us/Taxsifter/Assessor.aspx?keyld=3166783&parcelNumber=... 10/10/2014 TerraScan TaxSifter- Mason County Washington Page 2 of 2 05/12/11 BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 7 FILED 4/14/11 FOR GARY&DIANE WIL.SON CASE#11-42998. BP Property Images No u„dge5 found 1.0.5381.28073 T7(RollYear Search:2014 http://property.co.mason.wa.us/Taxsifter/Assessor.aspx?keyld=3166783&parcelNumber=... 10/10/2014 Mason County Permit Information Search Results Page 1 of 2 MASON COUNTY Washington Government and Information ServicesA • "&R"Walions coaffunity Unks VIsIt Masono Building Dept ► Some information/cases may not be displayed Planning dept ► This information may be outdated and inaccurate Environmental Health Dept ► Information is only for the unincoporated areas of Mason County and may only show items since April 1 st, 1992 Records ► Please contact the Permit Center(360) 427-9670 ext 352 to New Search verify any information Looking to Download Permit Search Results Data? Case Parcel Number Number Applicant Name DDR2014- 322245000025 WASHINGTON FEDERAL/NOVASTAR 00043 DEV Site Address Project Description REDUCE FRONT YARD,REAR YARD AND A SIDE YARD TO 0'SETBACK Case Parcel Number Number Applicant Name SHR2014- 322245000025 WASHINGTON FEDERAL/NOVASTAR 00014 DEV Site Address Project Description BUILD LESS THAN 15 FEET FROM THE BULKHEAD Case Parcel Applicant Name Number Number SWG2013- 322245000025 WASHINGTON FEDERAL/NOVASTAR 00250 DEV Site Address Project Description New System Case Parcel Applicant Name Number Number VAR2014- 322245000025 WASHINGTON FEDERAL/NOVASTAR 00005 DEV Site Address Project Description SHORELINE,DEVELOPEMENT REGULATIONS http://www.co.mason.wa.us/permits/search_results.php 10/6/2014 Mason County Permit Information Search Results Page 2 of 2 Records 1 to 4 of 4 Building Planning Environmental Search our Home Home Health Home Disclaimer Site http://www.co.mason.wa.us/permits/search_results.php 10/6/2014 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN NORTHEAST NORTH SHORE ROAD MAY 2014 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN NORTHEAST NORTH SHORE ROAD MAY 5,2014 PROJECT LOCATION 108014 NORTHEAST NORTH SHORE ROAD BELFAIR,WASHINGTON 98528 PREPARED FOR BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS,INC. 18215 72-AvENUE SOUTH KENT,WASHINGTON 98032 PREPARED BY SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS' 2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE GIG HARBOR,WASHINGTON 98335 (253)514-8952 �ounLlulzw 61onluctants� Executive Summary Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Applicant) is proposing to construct a single-family residence and associated infrastructure on a 0.92-acre site (subject property) abutting Hood Canal in Puget Sound. The subject property is located 10801 Northeast North Shore Road in the Belfair region of unincorporated Mason County, Washington. The subject property is situated in the Section 24, Township 22 North, Range 03 East W.M. and consists of two tax parcels (Mason County Parcel Number 32224-50-00925 and 32224-50-00025). The subject property was investigated for the presence of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species in April 2014. The site investigation identified the shoreline of Hood Canal along the subject property. The marine shoreline of Hood Canal is designated as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Critical Area (FWHCA) by Mason County (Mason County Code Chapter 8.52.170). The shoreline and associated FWHCA is likely regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for in-water work,and Mason County. No other critical areas were identified on the subject property. The subject property is currently partially undeveloped land divided by NE North Shore Road. The ordinary high water for the property is located along an existing concrete bulkhead. The area to the northwest of NE North Shore Road is encumbered by very steep slopes and is unsuitable for Placement of a single-family residence. The only buildable area on the property is located to the southeast of the road landward of the bulkhead and is approximately 1,530 square feet is size; however, almost all of the 1,530 square feet is encumbered by road easements and shoreline buffers. Associated infrastructure is proposed landward of the residence and outside of the FWHCA buffer. However, as the FWHCA buffer is highly modified and contains limited functional habitat, and as development should be clustered to protect open space to the north, the single-family residence is proposed located within the FWHCA buffer. Construction of the single-family residence is consistent with adjacent properties and shoreline zoning and is allowed as reasonable use of the property; however, due to extreme site constraints, the single-family residence is unable to conform to code standards set forth in the Mason County Code and will require a shoreline variance permit. A summary of recommended project findings is provided below: 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants'u Habitat Management Plan i May 5,2014 Determination Summary for ESA-listed species potentiall found in Mason County Species/Habitat Scientific Name Determination of Effect Bull Trout Salm nus confluentus No Effect Canary Rockfish Sebastespinniger No Effect Chinook Salmon Oncorbyncus tsbanytrcba No effect Chum Salmon,Hood Canal Oncorbyncus keta No effect Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae No Effect Killer Whale Orcinus orca No Effect Marbled Murrelet Bracbyrampbus marmoratus May Effect,Not Likely to Adversely Affect Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina No Effect Steelhead Trout Oncorbymbus mykiss No Effect Streaked Horned Lark Eremopbila alpestns stngata No Effect Taylor's Checkerspot Eupbydryas editba taylori No Effect Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes rubemmus No Effect Determination Summary for PHS-listed species potentially found in Mason County Group Species/Habitat Scientific Name Determination of Effect Cascades Frog Rana cascadae Coastal Tailed Frog Ascapbus tmei Amphibians Olympic Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus Not Likely to Adversely Affect Van Dyke's Salamander Pletbodon vandykei Western Toad Anaxyrus bores Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocepbalus Brandt's Cormorant Pbalaemcorax peniallatus Common Loon Gavia immer Shoreline- Common Murre Uria aalge Not Likely to Adversely Associated Birds Affect Harlequin Duck Histrionicus bistnonicus Great Blue Heron Ardea berodias Western grebe Aecbmopborus occidentalis Golden Eagle Aquila cbysaetos Northern Goshawk Accipitergentilis Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus boreaus Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Terrestrial Birds Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopuspileatus Not Likely to Adversely Affect Purple Martin Pmgne subis Vaux's Swift Cbaetura vauxi Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyms ameriwnus Black Rockfish Sebastes melanops Brown Rockfish Sebastes auriculatus Fishes Coastal Res./Searun Cutthroat Oncorhymbus clarki No Effect Copper Rockfish Sebastes caurinus Greenstriped Rockfish Sebastes elongatus 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan ii May 5,2014 Olympic Mudminnow Novumbra bubbsi Pacific Cod Gadus macrocephalus Pacific Hake Merluccius productus Pacific Herring Clupea pallasi Pacific Lamprey Lampetra tndentata Quillback Rockfish Sebastes maliger Redstripe Rockfish Sebastes pm iger River Lamprey Lampetra ay . Sockeye Salmon Oncognchur nerka Walleye Pollock Theragra chalcogramma Yellowtail Rockfish Sebastes flavidus Terrestrial Johnson's Hairstreak Mitourajobnsoni No Effect Invertebrates Puget Blue Pleb jus icanoides blackmorei Marine Newcomb's littorine snail Algamorda nemcormbiana Invertebrates Olympia is Oyster Ostma lurida No Effect Gray Whale Escbricbtius robustus Marine Mammals No Effect Pacific Harbor Porpoise Pbocoena pbocoena Reptiles Western Pond Turtle Clemmys maramorata Not Likely to Adversely Affect Fisher Mantes pennanti Keen's Long-eared Bat Myotis keenii Olympic Marmot Marmota Olympus Terrestrial Not Likely to Adversely Mammals I'YBmY Shrew Sorex hayi Affect Roosevelt Elk Cervus elaphus roosevelti F� tern send's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus toumsendii Pocket Gopher Thomomys=Zama 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan iii May 5,2014 Table of Contents Chapter1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................1 Chapter2. Proposed Project...........................................................................................................................1 2.1 Project Location......................................................................................................................................1 2.2 Project Description.................................................................................................................................1 2.3 Action Area..............................................................................................................................................2 Chapter3. Methods..........................................................................................................................................5 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline...............................................................................................................6 4.1 Background Information.......................................................................................................................6 4.2 Species Information................................................................................................................................6 Chapter 5. Potential Impacts Analysis.........................................................................................................11 5.1 Project Sequencing................................................................................................................................11 5.2 Regulatory Considerations...................................................................................................................11 5.3 Project Impacts .....................................................................................................................................13 5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects...........................................................................................................13 5.3.2 Short-Term Effects........................................................................................................................14 5.3.3 Long-Term Effects........................................................................................................................14 5.4 Determinations of Effect.....................................................................................................................15 5.4.1 Critical Habitat...............................................................................................................................15 5.4.2 Species Determinations.................................................................................................................16 Chapter 6. Habitat Management Recommendations ................................................................................25 Chapter7. References....................................................................................................................................27 Figures Figure1. Project Vicinity Map..........................................................................................................1 Figure 2. Construction Noise Attenuation Graphs ...........................................................................3 Tables Table 1. Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations..........................................................................4 Table 2. ESA-listed species potentially found in Mason County.......................................................7 Table 3. PHS-listed species potentially found in Mason County.......................................................7 Table 4. Shoreline Information Summary........................................................................................10 Table 5. Summary of Properties in the Area....................................................................................13 Table 5. Determination Summary for ESA-listed species potentially found in Mason County.........16 Table 6. Determination Summary for PHS-listed species potentially found in Mason County.........21 Appendices Appendix A—Action Area Appendix B—Background Information Appendix C—Site Photographs Appendix D—Biologist Qualifications 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants u.c Habitat Management Plan iv May 5,2014 I Chapter 1. Introduction Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Applicant) is proposing to construct a single-family residence and associated infrastructure on a 0.92-acre site (subject property) abutting Hood Canal in Puget Sound. The subject property is located 10801 Northeast North Shore Road in the Belfair region of unincorporated Mason County, Washington. The subject property is situated in the Section 24, Township 22 North, Range 03 East W.M. and consists of two tax parcels (Mason County Parcel Number 32224-50-00925 and 32224-50-00025). The subject property was investigated for the presence of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species in April 2014. The site investigation identified the shoreline of Hood Canal along the subject property. The marine shoreline of Hood Canal is designated as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Critical Area (FWHCA) by Mason County (Mason County Code Chapter 8.52.170). The shoreline and associated FWHCA is likely regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for in-water work,and Mason County. No other critical areas were identified on the subject property. This fish and wildlife habitat assessment is intended to identify potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species on or near the proposed project,assess any potential impacts to State and/or Federally-listed species, identify measures to preserve and protect wildlife habitat, and outline mitigation as necessary per Mason County Code (MCC) Chapter 8.52.170 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. The remainder of this document contains details of the proposed project such as project description and location, discussion and analysis of potential effects to priority species and critical habitat identified in the project vicinity, and identification and evaluation of protection measures.This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding: • Site description and area of assessment; • Background research and identification of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species within the subject property; • Identification and assessment of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat and/or priority species located on or near the subject property; • Analysis of project effects on ESA-listed species and critical habitat; • Standard buffer recommendations,building setbacks,and development limitations;and • Existing site map detailing identified critical areas and standard buffers. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 1 May 5,2014 Chapter 2. Proposed Project 2.1 Project Location The subject property is located 10801 Northeast North Shore Road in the Belfair region of unincorporated Mason County, Washington. The subject property is situated in the Section 24, Township 22 North, Range 03 East W.M. and consists of two tax parcels (Mason County Parcel Number 32224-50-00925 and 32224-50-00025). To access the site from Washinton-300 Westbound,proceed on Washington-300 Westbound until it becomes NE North Shore Road. After approximately 7.2 miles,the subject property will be on both the left-and right-hand sides of the road. Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map. p VO .,r `i 3 9e1hr M " Approximate location of subject property P4 AV G."Y.l 701 y," ., (Google Maps,2014) 2.2 Project Description The proposed project includes construction of a new, approximately 1,530 square foot single-family residence and associated improvements on the 0.92-acre subject property located on Hood Canal. Currently, the site is divided by NE North Shore Road with the northwestern portion containing relatively undisturbed forest over steep slopes and the southeastern portion containing a concrete bulkhead, concrete stairs, and other recreational use structures along with modified and maintained yard area on an upland bench. The marine shoreline of Hood Canal abuts the concrete bulkhead. A 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants u-c Habitat Management Plan 1 May 5,2014 I 100-foot H A buffer - -FW e C b and 15 foot building setback is required for single-family residences and associated infrastructure. Construction of the proposed single-family residence must occur between the bulkhead and NE North Shore Road within the 100-foot buffer due to lack of buildable land in the steeply sloped forested areas. To minimize impacts to sensitive habitat, the septic drainfield will be placed over 200 feet from ordinary high water (OHW), and no work or impacts are proposed below the bulkhead and OHW. 2.3 Action Area An action area has been identified for this assessment which encompasses the locations where direct impacts from project activities will occur (the project area) as well as all areas that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project either through physical, chemical, or biological mechanisms. The geographic limits of the action area were defined by considering the potential spatial extent of mechanisms that may lead to impacts on priority species and associated habitat (further defined in Chapter 4). Two primary mechanisms have been identified as having potential for impacting the potentially regulated fish and wildlife species and/or associated habitat. These potential impact mechanisms include temporary impacts from noise of the construction actions and equipment and the long-term effects of loss of undeveloped shoreline area. Noise from project activities can adversely affect wildlife with various behavioral and/or health- related consequences (WSDOT, 2013). Terrestrial noise (transmitted through air) is measured in decibels (dB), on a logarithmic scale. The threshold for human hearing begins at 0 dBA and the level at which a human would experience irreversible hearing loss is 180 dBA. The ambient noise was assumed to be 45 dB due to the projects location on the Hood Canal and approximate residential population density of 300+ within a square mile of the project. 84 dB was determined to be the maximum construction noise emitted by the project actions. It was assumed a backhoe (78 dB), dump truck (76 dB) and excavator (81 dB) would be operational at the same time. By the rules of decibel addition, the backhoe and dump truck combine for a noise level of 80 dB which, combined with the excavator,results in the maximum project construction noise level of 84 dB. The over water portion of the action area was modeled as a "hard" site which uses the standard dB reduction factor per doubling of 6 dB. No further dB reduction factors relating to wind or other means were applied. The terrestrial sound action area for the over water portion is estimated to have a radius of approximately 4,524 linear feet.A conservative reduction of 5 dB reduction, from 84 dB to 79 dB due to topography was used for the land portion. A maximum 10 dB reduction due to topography is allowed per the WSDOT guidance. The land portion attenuation was modeled as a "soft" site which increases the dB reduction per doubling to 7.5. The terrestrial sound action area for the land portion is estimated to have a radius of approximately 2,539 linear feet. A map showing the Action Area is provided in Appendix A. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 2 May 5,2014 Figure 2. Construction Noise Attenuation Graphs. Impact Terrestrial Attenuation (Over Water) 90 80 70 60 ma y=-8.6561n(x)+117.86 5 50 v a 40 ♦Construction Noise c 00 30 ■Ambient Noise 20 10 0 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Distance(ft) Terrestrial Attenuation (Over Land) 90 80 70 60 y=-10.821n(x)+121.33 50 v a 40 ♦Construction Noise c o 30 ■Ambient Noise 20 10 0 50 500 5000 50000 Distance(ft) 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 3 May 5,2014 Table 1. Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations. Terrestrial Attenuation Table Over Water) Distance from Source Construction Noise Ambient Sound Measured Noise Pressure Feet (Miles) (dBA) (dBA) (Micro-Pascals (atm 50 0.00947 84 45 316978.6385 3.21 E-08 100 0.018939 78 45 158865.6469 1.61E-08 200 0.037879 72 45 79621.43411 8.07E-09 400 0.075758 66 45 39905.2463 4.04E-09 800 0.151515 60 45 20000 2.03E-09 1600 0.30303 54 45 10023.74467 1.02E-09 3200 0.606061 48 45 5023.772863 5.09E-10 6400 1.212121 42 45 2517.850824 2.55E-10 12800 2.424242 36 45 1261.914689 1.28E-10 25600 4.848485 30 45 632.455532 6.41 E-11 51200 9.69697 24 45 316.9786385 3.21 E-11 Terrestrial Attenuation Table (Over Land Distance from Source Construction Noise Ambient Sound Measured Noise Pressure Feet Miles (dBA) (dBA) (Micro-Pascals) (atm 50 0.00947 79 45 178250.1876 1.81E-08 100 0.0189391 71.5 45 75167.48086 7.62E-09 200 0.037879 64 45 31697.86385 3.21 E-09 400 0.075758 56.5 45 13366.87835 1.35E-09 800 0.151515 49 45 5636.765863 5.71 E-10 1600 0.30303 41.5 45 2377.004455 2.41 E-10 3200 0.606061 34 45 1002.374467 1.02E-10 6400 1.212121 26.5 45 422.697808 4.28E-11 12800 2.424242 19 45 178.2501876 1.81 E-11 25600 14.848485 11.5 45 75.16748086 1 7.62E-12 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants LLc Habitat Management Plan 4 May 5,2014 Chapter 3. Methods This chapter summarizes the methods used in this fish and wildlife habitat assessment,per the goals and requirements set forth in Mason County Code (MCC) Chapter 8.52.170 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area. The shoreline and all areas of potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat accessible within 250 feet of the proposed project area were assessed by qualified fisheries biologists in April of 2014. All publicly available background data was queried for documented wildlife observations and/or the presence of wetlands and potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitat on or near the site. Mason County GIS maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory, the USGS Soil Survey data maps, Washington State Department of Ecology's (WSDOE) Coastal Atlas maps, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) and SalmonScape maps and databases, and various aerial imagery were inspected to identify locations of potentially regulated features. The site assessment was conducted by qualified fish and wildlife biologists.A thorough investigation that included an assessment of vegetative structure and composition of dominant species, any special habitat features, presence and evidence of potentially regulated fish and wildlife species, and level of human disturbance. Visual observations using stationary and walking survey methods were utilized for both aquatic and upland habitats. Any special habitat features or signs of wildlife activity were photographed for documentation and noted for further examination. Site inspections of the beach were performed at low tide. Due to the entire shoreline of the subject property being armored with concrete bulkhead, OHW and the shoreline boundary are all likely limited to the outside edge of the bulkhead. The location and features of the shoreline are described in Chapter 4 and identified on plan sheets in Appendix C. All field assessments used the best available science pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code 365-195-905 and definitions contained in RMC 4-03-050. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants ctc Habitat Management Plan 5 May 5,2014 Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline 4.1 Background Information Landscape Setting and Topography The subject property is partially undeveloped land located in a residential setting within Mason County adjacent to Hood Canal waters. The subject property includes shoreline abutting Hood Canal with a concrete bulkhead dividing upland and marine environments. Existing upland features include a concrete stairs and other recreational use structures along with modified and maintained yard area located over a small upland bench between the bulkhead and North Shore Road. The area to the northwest of NE North Shore Road contains very steep slopes. The upland forest rises from approximately 40 feet to approximately 140 feet in elevation over approximately 120 feet, constituting a slope of approximately 80 percent. A topographic map is provided in Appendix B1. Adjacent properties along the south side, or waterward side, of NE North Shore Road are currently developed with single-family residences and sloped undeveloped upland forested areas are located on adjacent properties north of NE North Shore Road. The proposed project is consistent with the neighboring properties. Vegetation The property is divided by NE North Shore Road and the concrete bulkhead. Vegetation to the northwest of NE North Shore Road is dominated by a mature mixed coniferous and deciduous forest with high native species diversity. The area between the road and bulkhead was previously used as a yard by adjacent property owners and contains cement terracing,paths, and a patio with an outdoor brick fireplace. Vegetation is primarily mowed lawn and English ivy with one stand of approximately 4-5 large trees, including big-leaf maple, Douglas fir, and western red cedar. Other vegetation is minor and includes camellia, herb Robert, dandelion, Himalayan blackberry, kinnikinnick, arborvitae, azalea, rhododendron, and minor amounts of other ornamental and/or weed species. The area waterward of the bulkhead contains little to no intertidal vegetation, with only sparse patches of red algae,likely Graczlaria sp.,in the lower intertidal areas. National Wetland Inventory The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map identifies Estuarine and Marine as well as Estuarine and Marine Deepwater areas adjacent to the shoreline. A NWI map is provided in Appendix B2. 4.2 Species Information Several potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitats and priority species are identified in the vicinity of the project. WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) lists contain those species and habitats protected by Federal and State laws. According to WDFW PHS maps, estuarine intertidal aquatic habitat, geoduck, and oyster beds occur on the shoreline of the subject property. A PHS map is provided in Appendix B3. SalmonScape maps do not specify salmonid distribution within waters of the Hood Canal; however, Hood Canal is known to contain various salmonid species, and streams in the vicinity of the subject property that drain to Hood Canal contain documented presence of coho, fall chum,and winter steelhead. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 6 May 5,2014 MCC provides a list of species of local importance in addition to Federal or State Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species known to be in Mason County. However, the as the code was last updated in 2009, some listings may be out of date. To compensate for this, the PHS list was queried for State- and Federally-listed species potentially found in Mason County and the two lists were combined. The following species may be located in the vicinity of the project and may have the potential for project impacts. Table 2. ESA-listed spec' s otential1 found in Mason unty State Species of Species/Habitat Scientific Name Status Federal Status Local Importance' Bull Trout Salvelinus conjluentus Candidate Threatened Yes Canary Rockfish Sebastespinniger Candidate Threatened Chinook Salmon Oncorbyncus tsbauytmba Candidate Threatened Yes Chum Salmon,Hood Canal Oncorhyncus keta Candidate Threatened Yes Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Endangered - Marbled Murrelet Brachyrampbus marmoratus Threatened Threatened Yes Spotted Owl Strix ocddentalis caurina Endangered Threatened Yes Killer Whale Oninus orca Endangered Endangered - Steelhead Trout Oncorbynchus mykiss - Threatened - Streaked Horned Lark Errmopbila alpestns stngata Endangered Threatened - Taylor's Checkerspot Eupbydgas editba taylori Endangered Endangered - Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Candidate Threatened - Table 3. PHS-listed species potentially found in Mason unty State Species of Species/Habitat Scientific Name Status Federal Status Local Importance' Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Sensitive Species of Concern Yes Black Rockfish Sebastes melanops Candidate - - Brandt's Cormorant Pbalacmcoraxpenid1latus Candidate - Yes Brown Rockfish Sebastes amiculatus Candidate Species of Concern - Cascades Frog Rana cascadae Monitor - Yes Coastal Res./Searun Oncorbyncbus clarki - Species of Concern - Cutthroat Coastal Tailed Frog Ascapbus truei Monitor - Yes Common Loon Gavia immer Sensitive - Yes Common Murre Uria aalge Candidate - Copper Rockfish Sebastes caurinus Candidate Species of Concern - Fisher Martes pennanti Endangered Candidate Yes Golden Eagle Aquila chgsaetos Candidate - Yes Gray Whale Escbnebbus robustus Sensitive - - Great Blue Heron Ardea herv&as Monitor - Yes Greenstriped Rockfish Sebastes elongatus Candidate - - Harlequin Duck Histnonicus histrionicus - - Yes Johnson's Hairstreak Mitourajobnsoni Candidate - - 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 7 May 5,2014 Keen's Long-eared Bat Myods keend Candidate - - Newcomb's littorine snail Algamorda newcormbiana - - Yes Northern Goshawk Accpitergentilir Candidate Species of Concern Yes Olive-sided flycatcher Contopur boreaur - Species of Concern Yes Olympia Oyster Orirea 1wida Candidate - Olympic Marmot Marmota olympus Candidate - Olympic Mudminnow Novumbra hubbri Sensitive Olympic Torrent Salamander Bhyacotriton olympicur Monitor Yes Pacific Cod Gadus macmcephalur Candidate Species of Concern Pacific Hake Merlucciurpmductus Candidate Species of Concern Pacific Harbor Porpoise Phocoena pbocoena Candidate - Pacific Herring Clupea pallasi Candidiate Species of Concern Pacific Lamprey Lampetra t identata Monitor Species of Concern Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinur Sensitive Species of Concern Yes Pileated Woodpecker Dgocopus pileatus Candidate - Yes Puget Blue Plebe us icarioides Candidate - - blackmord Purple Martin Progne rubis Candidate - Yes Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi Monitor - Yes Quillback Rockfish Sebarter makger Candidate Species of Concern Redstripe Rockfish Sebarterpronger Candidate - River Lamprey Lsmpetra ayresi Candidate Species of Concern - Roosevelt Elk Cenvur elaphus roosevelti - - Yes Sockeye Salmon Oncorynchur nerka Candidate Threatened-Ozette Lake Endangered-Snake River Townsend's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinur tommendd Candidate Species of Concern Yes Van Dyke's Salamander Pkthodon vandykei Candidate Species of Concern Yes Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi Candidate - Yes Walleye Pollock Theragra chalcogramma Candidate Species of Concern - Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana Monitor - Yes Western grebe Aechmopborur ocddentaAr Candidate - - Western Pocket Gopher Thomomys ma-Zama Threatened Candidate Yes Western Pond Turtle Clemmys maramorata Endangered Species of Concern Yes Western Toad Anaxyrur borear Candidate Species of Concern - Yellow-billed Cuckoo Cocg.Zur americanur Candidate Candidate Yellowtail Rockfish SebarterAtidur Candidate - - 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants U-C Habitat Management Plan 8 May 5,2014 4.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area No known wetlands or other regulated features other than the shoreline were identified within 250 feet of the proposed project area. The shoreline adjacent to the proposed project area contains FWHCA as classified in 8.52.170. As such, the property is subject to a 100-foot buffer measured horizontally from the OHW of the shoreline. Intertidal marine environment extends waterward of the bulkhead with a substrate characterized as small mixed cobble below the bulkhead transitioning to medium to large mixed cobble at the approximate mean higher high water (MHHW) elevation. Estuarine intertidal habitats, geoduck, and oyster beds are identified within the vicinity of project area. No forage fish spawning habitat is shown for the project area on the WDFW Forage Fish Spawning Map; however, pre-spawner herring holding areas are shown in deepwater areas adjacent to the shoreline. The intertidal area contains sparse patches of red algae, likely Gracilaria, and no other special elements of herring breeding habitat (i.e. rooted kelp, eelgrass, and/or other available structures for egg deposition) as identified during the assessment. Dense beds of pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) were observed on the shoreline between MHHW and mean lower low water (MLLW). Other than the typical migration corridor, habitat features utilized by juvenile salmon were not found onsite but may be located in nearby areas of the shoreline. Suitable juvenile salmon forage habitat features may include shallow water with low wave energy, fine-grained silt or mud substrate, or estuarine environments; such substrate and environments were not observed onsite. The shoreline can still provide some food and protection functions for juvenile salmon, as well as habitat connectivity for salmon between the freshwater natal streams and deeper salt water habitats typically utilized by adult salmonids. This area may also provide foraging opportunities for the PHS listed sensitive bird species (listed in Chapter 4.3). The portion of the property within the FWHCA buffer is highly modified and was previously used as a maintained yard by adjacent property owners. This area contains cement terracing and paths with a brick fireplace. Vegetation is primarily mowed lawn and English ivy with one stand of approximately 4-5 large trees, including big-leaf maple, Douglas fir, and western red cedar. Other vegetation is minor and includes camellia, herb Robert, dandelion, Himalayan blackberry, kinnikinni k arborvitae, azalea rhododendron and minor amounts of other ornamental and/or c � rv1 / weed species. No useable habitat exists for birds, amphibians, or mammals in this area aside from the 4-5 large trees. The area northwest of NE North Shore Road provides more suitable habitat for terrestrial species as it is vegetated with mature mixed coniferous and deciduous forest with high native plant species diversity. As the property contains shellfish areas, saltwater shoreline, areas with which federal or state endangered, threatened, and sensitive species of fish and wildlife have a primary association, and areas that contain habitats and species of local importance, the shoreline is classified as a FWHCA per MCC 8.52.170(b), and a 100-foot buffer and additional 15-foot setback is required under MCC 8.52.170(d). 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 9 May 5,2014 Table 4. Shoreline Information Summary SHORELINE INFORMATION SUMMARY Water Body Hood Canal WRIA 15 ,�• Local Jurisdiction Mason County Shoreline Designation Rural Residential Buffer 100-foot FWHCA buffer/ 200-foot SMA jurisdiction Estuarine intertidal aquatic PHS Documented Habitat habitat,Geoduck,Oyster beds Location of Shoreline Relative to Project The marine shoreline is located in the southeast portion of the site adjacent to a concrete bulkhead. The shoreline setback/FWHCA buffer is highly modified and was previously used as a maintained yard by adjacent property owners. This area contains cement terracing and Buffer Condition paths with a brick fireplace and roadway interrupting more functional buffer areas located on steep slopes. Buffer vegetation adjacent to the shoreline primarily consists of mowed lawn, English ivy, a small stand of large trees, and various ornamental species. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soandview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 10 May 5,2014 Chapter 5. Potential Impacts Analysis As the site is already modified and as no in-water work is proposed as part of the redevelopment actions,no significant impacts to the FWHCA or sensitive species have been identified. In addition, best management practices (BMPs) proposed for the project along with approved temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) measures will minimize any potential for indirect impacts to habitats and species in the Hood Canal. The interrupted and developed condition of the FWHCA buffer in the area precludes significant impacts by the proposed project. An analysis of impact minimization and potential impacts on regulated fish and wildlife habitats and priority species from the proposed project is detailed below. 5.1 Project Sequencing Almost the entire property is encumbered by steep slopes, existing roadway, intertidal areas, or regulatory setbacks. Careful planning efforts are necessary to ensure the proposed development minimizes fish and wildlife habitat impacts. The site is divided into northwest and southeast portions by NE North Shore Road with the northwestern portion extensively encumbered by steep slopes with recent landslides in adjacent areas. A geotechnical analysis has determined that northwestern areas are unstable for placement of a single-family residence; however, it is able to support a septic drain field. As a result, the single-family residence must be located between the roadway and bulkhead. The septic drain field may be placed in northwestern portion of the property and away from the shoreline area. The only potential buildable area on the property for the single-family residence is approximately 1,530 square feet is size; however, almost all of the 1,530 square feet is encumbered by the roadway and shoreline setback/FWHCA buffer. In order to minimize potential impacts to the shoreline, the septic tank should be located landward of the residence. Therefore, the single-family residence is proposed to be located entirely within the shoreline setback/FWHCA buffers. However, this portion of the FWHCA buffer is highly modified and lacking functional habitat, and locating the single-family residence in this area will result in minimal habitat loss as opposed to locating in the northwestern portion of the property that contains relatively undisturbed forest and steep slopes. In addition, locating the single-family residence adjacent to other residences will cluster development and preserve the open space to the northwest of NE North Shore Rd. This site design also minimizes potential impacts by placing the septic drain field and the septic tank outside of the FWHCA buffer area while locating the single-family residence in previously-modified areas lacking habitat. 5.2 Regulatory Considerations The proposed project is located in unincorporated Mason County. The site investigation identified the shoreline of Hood Canal on the subject property. The FWHCA buffer area is modified and lacking quality habitat, being separated from the shoreline by the bulkhead and modified for use as a maintained yard. As the property contains shellfish areas, saltwater shoreline, areas with Federal or State protected fish and wildlife species, and areas that contain habitats and species of local importance, the shoreline is classified as a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) per MCC 8.52.170(b), and a 100-foot buffer and additional 15-foot setback is required under MCC 8.52.170(d). Due to the extensive site constraints discussed above, the proposed single-family 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 11 May 5,2014 residence must be located within the FWHCA buffer. MCC 8.52.170(d)(2) allows special provisions for buffers and setbacks on lots created prior to December 5, 1996, and which are located on saltwater.The special provisions state: (i) Where an existing residence is on one side of and within one hundred fifty feet of the lot line of the subject lot, and no more than two hundred feet from the shoreline OHWM, the setback on the subject lot is determined by an imaginary common line drawn from the shore-side roof line of the existing residence and across the subject lot to a point which is one hundred feet from the OHWM along the far lot line of the subject lot. (See Figure 2). The common line set back may be more or less than one hundred feet from the OHWM,provided, however, that.• A. The buffer shall not be less than twenty feet in width from the OHWM and a minimum setback from the edge of the buffer is fifteen feet;and B. There shall be a maximum buffer of one hundred feet from the OHWM with the balance of the setback established by the common line to be a building setback area. C. If the resulting buffer is less than one hundred feet, it will be enhanced for wildlfe function which will include at a minimum planting with native vegetation. D. If the resulting buffer is less than one hundred feet, the development of site outside the buffer shall also use best management practices such as those in Appendix C to limit impacts to the resource. Due to the small size of the buildable area, maintaining a minimum buffer 20 feet and a minimum setback of 15 feet is not feasible, and the proposed single-family residence is unable to conform to code standards set forth in the MCC. As the strict application of the code standards would significantly interfere with or prevent reasonable use of the property, the proposed project will require a variance permit. The design of the project is compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area. The building footprint will be approximately 875 square feet, with a total area less than 1,500 square feet of livable space for the two-story residence. Using the Mason County Assessor's publically available data, sizes of properties in the area were evaluated. The residence sizes of adjacent properties ranged from 509 square feet to 1,736 square feet, and an average residence size of 1168 square feet was identified in the immediate project vicinity as demonstrated in Table 5 below. The proposed project is consistent with sizes of adjacent residential structures. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 12 May 5,2014 Table 5. Summary of Pro erd in the Area Neighboring Parcels Direction From Subject Residence Size (developed only) Property (square feet) 32224-50-00023 Northeast(adjacent) 509 32224-50-00019 Northeast 1736 32224-50-00018 Northeast 1120 32224-50-00015 Northeast 1584 32224-50-00014 Northeast 1280 32224-50-00013 Northeast 1580 32224-50-00024 Southwest(adjacent) 682 32224-50-00026 Southwest 540 32224-50-00027 Southwest 1020 32224-50-00029 Southwest 1032 32224-50-00084 Southwest 1690 32224-50-00083 Southwest 1245 Average: 1168 In addition, the location the proposed structure is similar to other adjacent structures. As the bulkhead runs adjacent to the shoreline for a significant distance on either side of the subject property, and all residences in the area are located less than 20 feet from the bulkhead and OHW, the project location is consistent with adjacent property land use. Locating the proposed residence in the shoreline setback/FWHCA buffer is consistent with adjacent uses, and the design of proposed residence is in accordance with the square footage and footprint size of adjacent residences. 5.3 Project Impacts An analysis of project effects to Federal-and State-listed species and species of local importance that have potential for presence in the vicinity is detailed below. Potential project impacts are evaluated based upon specific habitat components that would be altered or removed and the degree to which such alteration may occur; the abundance and distribution of the habitat components; the distribution and population levels of the species (if known); the possibility of direct or indirect impacts to the species and/or habitat,and the potential to mitigate for adverse effects. 5.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects Potential direct effects from the project upon species identified in Chapter 4.2 of this report primarily include construction noise, loss of a minor landscaped area, and establishment of new impervious surfaces. However, the proposed project area is highly modified, and no shoreline habitat will be lost. In addition, potential effects on water quality elements such as sedimentation, chemicals, excess nutrients and other runoff/stormwater inputs from the subject property are a potential source of impacts to listed species; however, appropriate stormwater treatment will be provided, and potential impacts from the septic system are fully mitigated by locating the discharge elements of the septic system out of the shoreline setback/FWHCA buffer and the storage tank landward of the single-family residence. The project also proposes BMPs and TESC measures 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 13 May 5,2014 during construction as outlined in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP);therefore,no calculable impacts to water quality are anticipated. No in-water work is proposed, no terrestrial sensitive wildlife species were identified onsite, and residential development of the site is proposed over existing cleared and disturbed areas between the bulkhead and roadway; therefore, no direct impacts to protected habitats and species have been identified. Assembly of the septic drainfield will cause temporary disturbance to the forested northwest portion of the property. However, disturbance will be minor as an existing road leads to the project area, and the location of the septic system is proposed in a previously partially cleared upland area. It should also be noted that the drainfield is located more than 200 feet away from OHW. 5.3.2 Short-Term Effects Potential fish and wildlife habitat is located in adjacent areas; therefore,the proposed project actions have three primary mechanisms for short-term impacts to sensitive species and associated habitats via altered hydrology and water quality from direct runoff, potential sedimentation and associated turbidity from land clearing and grading actions,and terrestrial construction noise during the actions. Impact minimization measures are proposed to contain and manage runoff and sedimentation within the project area. Potential hydrologic and water quality as well as sedimentation impacts are being addressed through BMPs and TESC as detailed in the SWPPP (Barghausen, 2014). Due to the project's limited potential for construction runoff and sedimentation as a properly managed construction site, decreases in water quality and/or increases in turbidity as a result of construction are not expected and are not considered a project impact. In addition, impacts to the local environment from project noise may occur within a 4,524 foot radius over Hood Canal and a 2,539 foot radius over land as discussed in Chapter 2.3. Noise from project activities can adversely affect wildlife with various behavioral and/or health-related consequences (WSDOT, 2010). As the noise generated by the action is anticipated to fall short of disturbance thresholds for sensitive terrestrial species (USFWS, 92dBA for murrelets for example) and no sensitive terrestrial habitat was identified in the action area,the short-term effects to sensitive species due to noise are anticipated to be minor and localized due to the topography of the land portion and the avoidance of in-water work as terrestrial noise will not impact aquatic species such as fish and marine mammals. 5.3.3 Long-Term Effects As no terrestrial sensitive wildlife species were identified onsite, and residential development of the site is proposed over existing cleared and disturbed areas between the bulkhead and roadway, no direct impacts to protected habitats and species have been identified due to the project. Long-term effects of the project upon fish and wildlife habitat and species are anticipated to be minimal due to the fact that habitat features are limited within the project location. Project actions will include site clearing and establishment of new impervious surfaces such as driveways and roof areas. However, the proposed project area is highly modified with much of the area already containing concrete paths,walls, and stairways,and little to no functional shoreline habitat will be lost. Water quality elements such as sedimentation, chemicals, excess nutrients and other inputs from subject property runoff/stormwater are a potential source for long-term impacts on listed species; 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 14 May 5,2014 however, appropriate stormwater treatment will be provided, and potential impacts from the septic system are minimized by locating all elements of the septic system out of the FWHCA buffer and landward of the single-family residence. Therefore, no measurable impact to water quality elements is anticipated as a result of the project. In addition,habitat management recommendations contained in Chapter 6 are proposed to further minimize any long-term effects due to the project. No in-water work is proposed and no impacts are anticipated to areas waterward of the bulkhead. 5.4 Determinations of Effect While not required under MCC, examination of project effects under the methods and procedures established under ESA provide a proven mechanism for evaluating project effects on ESA-listed species, and as such, are examined herein within a local context. 5.4.1 Critical Habitat Critical Habitat is defined in Section 3 of the ESA as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) which may require special management considerations or protection, and (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed,upon a determination such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Critical habitat for a listed species contains Primary Constituent Elements (PCE's),as defined below. Primary Constituent Elements: In accordance with Section 3(5)(A)(1) of the ESA and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas are occupied at the time of listing to propose ESA-listed species' critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. These features are the PCE's laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for conservation of the species. These include, but are not limited to: (1) Space for individual and population growth for normal behavior. (2) Food,water, air, light,minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) Cover or shelter; (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring, and (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species. Essential habitat types for salmon and steelhead species can be generally described to include the following. (1) juvenile rearing areas; (2) juvenile migration corridors; (3) areas for growth and development to adulthood; (4) adult migration corridors; and (5) spawning areas. Within these areas, essential features of critical habitat include adequate: (1) substrate, (2) water quality, (3) water quantity (4) water temperature (5) water velocity, (6) cover/shelter, (7) food, (8) riparian vegetation, (9) space, and (10) safe passage conditions. The actual regulatory descriptions of Critical Habitat for each ESU can be found at the end of this Federal Register:Vol. 65,No. 32,Wednesday February 16, 2000. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants U-C Habitat Management Plan 15 May 5,2014 5.4.2 Species Determinations ESA-listed Species ESA-listed species potentially found in Mason County are evaluated in depth in the sections below to determine impacts of the project. Table 5.Determination S ary for ESA-listed species potentially found in Mason County Species/Habitat Scientific Name Determination of Effect Bull Trout SalveRnus confluentus No Effect Canary Rockfish Sebastespinniger No Effect Chinook Salmon Oncorhyncus tshauvytscha No effect Chum Salmon,Hood Canal Oncorbyncus keta No effect Humpback Whale Megaptera noweangliae No Effect Killer Whale Oranus orca No Effect Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus May Effect,Not Likely to Adversely Affect Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina No Effect Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss No Effect Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata No Effect Taylor's Checkerspot Euphydryas editha taylori No Effect Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes rubemmus No Effect Bull Trout and Critical Habitat Salvelinus confluentus—Threatened,listed November 1, 1999 Critical habitat designated October 18, 2010 USFWS identifies bull trout with potential for presence in Mason County. Critical habitat for bull trout was identified in the Hood Canal marine environment. However, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. Therefore, the proposed project actions will have No Effect on Bull Trout. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore, the proposed activities will have No Effect upon Bull Trout Critical Habitat. Canary Rockfish Sebastes pinniger Threatened,listed July 27,2010 Canary rockfish have been documented throughout the Puget Sound (Miller and Borton 1980), although numbers are relatively low compared to other rockfish species (Palsson, et al2009, NMFS 2008a). Rockfish larvae are pelagic, often occupying the surface of open waters,under floating algae, detached seagrass, and kelp. Juvenile canary rockfish settle onto nearshore water habitats with rocky or cobble substrate that support kelp growth at 3 to 6 months of age, and move to progressively deeper waters as they grow (Love et al. 1991; Love et al. 2002). Juvenile rockfish recruitment is likely to be found in areas with shallow high—relief zones with crevices and sponge 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 16 May 5,2014 d (Love et al 2002 . Adults are most common between 300 to 600 feet water gardens � depth,) sometimes associated with depths between 40 to 1,560 feet deep (Love et al 2002). The likelihood of juveniles or adults of ESA-listed rockfish within the project's relatively shallow and non-vegetated habitats is highly discountable, as the nearshore habitat is largely lacking any eelgrass, kelp, or other aquatic vegetation preferred as foraging substrates by juvenile and larval rockfish (BergerABAM, 2012). Deeper portions of Puget Sound provide suitable habitat for adult and juvenile rockfish. In addition, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. The establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore,the proposed project will have No Effect on Canary Rockfish. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and Critical Habitat Oncorhynchus tshagytscha—Threatened,listed (reaffirmed)June 28,2005 Critical habitat designated September 2, 2005 USFWS identifies Chinook salmon with potential for presence in Mason County. Critical habitat for Chinook salmon was identified in the nearshore marine areas of Hood Canal. However, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. In addition,the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment,BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. Therefore, the proposed project actions will have No Effect on Puget Sound Chinook Salmon. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore, the proposed activities will have No Effect on Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat. Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon ESU and Critical Habitat Oncorhynchus keta—Threatened,listed (reaffirmed)June 28,2005 Critical habitat designated September 2, 2005 USFWS identifies Chum salmon with potential for presence in Mason County. Critical habitat for Chum salmon was identified in the nearshore marine areas of Hood Canal. However, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. Therefore, the proposed project actions will have No Effect on Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore, the proposed activities will have No Effect on Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum Salmon Critical Habitat. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants L11C Habitat Management Plan 17 May 5,2014 Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae—Endangered,listed December 2, 1970 Humpback whales range from southern California through the Aleutian Islands while feeding in the Pacific Ocean (NMFS, 1991). However, Humpback whales are rarely present in the south Puget Sound. They are more likely to remain in outer coast waters during migration. There were reported humpback whale sightings in the Puget Sound in 1976, 1978, and two in 1988 (Calambokidis, et al, 1990). Due to the unlikelihood of humpback whales entering Hood Canal, the lack of suitable habitat in the vicinityof the Action Area, the lack of impact mechanisms to the marine environment, P and the avoidance of in-water work,the project will have No Effect on Humpback Whale. Southern Resident Killer Whale and Critical Habitat Orcinus orca—Endangered,listed November 15,2005 Critical Habitat designated November 2006(71 FR 69054) Southern Resident Killer Whale may be found in the Puget Sound, Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca during spring through fall (Wiles, G J., 2004). The website www.orcanetwork.org indicates sightings in Hood Canal are infrequent but may occur periodically. However, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on marine species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. Due to the unlikelihood of killer whales entering Hood Canal, the lack of impact mechanisms to the marine environment, avoidance of in-water work, and the lack of effect on prey species, the proposed actions will have No Effect on Southern Resident Killer Whales. Almost the entire Puget Sound has been designated as Critical Habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whale, excluding areas that are less than twenty feet deep during periods of high tide (NMFS,2012). Under the ESA, "Critical Habitat" is defined as: (1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to conservation, and those features may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation." The proposed project will have no long-term effects on marine areas where water is deeper than twenty feet at periods of high tide. Therefore,the proposed project will have No Effect on Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat. Marbled Murrelet Bracbyrbampus marmoratus—Threatened,listed 1992 Critical habitat designated May 1996(SO CFR Part 17.11) The Action Area does not contain suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelet as nests and roosts are found primarily in old growth forests. There may be nesting habitat located outside of the Action Area in the Cascade or Olympic mountain ranges. Foraging habitat can be found in Hood Canal waters as marbled murrelet are opportunistic feeders (WDFW PHS). The marbled murrelet flies long distances between nesting and foraging habitats, and there still may be a flight path over the site. There were no identified areas with critical habitat for marbled murrelet in the vicinity of the subject property (USFWS 2008, USFWS, 1996). The most likely presence of marbled murrelet would be from the species passing over the Action Area en route to foraging sites. Lack of suitable habitat near the Action Area make marbled murrelet presence in the Action Area unlikely. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 18 May 5,2014 Sound resulting from project activities will be below precautionary harassment/injury guidelines for ESA-listed species that may be present in the proposed project area. The estimated threshold of harassment/injury for murrelets is approximately 92 dBA at nest sites and at a nesting site the disturbance threshold is an estimated 70dBA .(WSDOT, 2010). Noise levels may be as high as 84 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but will attenuate at a maximum of 4,524 feet. Since there are no nesting sites near the project,terrestrial noise will have no effect on ESA-listed species. USFWS, 2011, discusses Primary Constituent Elements of Critical Habitat for marbled murrelets: (1) trees with potential nesting platforms and, (2) forested areas within 1/2 mile of potential nest trees with a canopy height of at least % of the site potential tree height. No critical habitat or essential habitat elements are found within the vicinity of the Action Area (WDFW, 2011); there will be No Effect on Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat. Due to the project producing little noise and the short duration of activities,the proposed project has No Effect on Marbled Murrelet. Spotted Owl Strix Occidentals—Threatened,listed June 23, 1990 Nesting or foraging habitats may be located in the Olympic or Cascade mountain ranges; however, there is no suitable spotted owl habitat on or within close proximity to the proposed project area. It is highly unlikely a spotted owl will be in or near the project vicinity. The Northern Spotted Owl Conservation does not document any spotted owl sites within or near the proposed action area. Terrestrial sound resulting from construction equipment will be well below precautionary harassment/injury threshold guidelines for ESA-listed species that may be present in the proposed project area. The estimated threshold of harassment/injury for spotted owl is approximately 92 dBA at nest sites and at a nesting site the disturbance threshold is an estimated 70dBA. Terrestrial noise levels may be as high as 84 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but will attenuate at a maximum of 4,524 feet. Since there are no nesting sites near the project, terrestrial noise will have no effect on the spotted owl. Unlike marbled murrelets that may have a potential nest to forage flight path over the proposed project, the spotted owl nests and forages in forested areas and does not have any reason to be near or flying over the proposed project area. Due to the lack of presence, and the project producing little noise which will be brief in duration, the proposed project will have No Effect on Spotted Owl. Puget Sound Steelhead DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss—Threatened,listed May 11,2007 USFWS identifies steelhead trout with potential for presence in Mason County. However, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. Therefore, the proposed project actions will have No Effect on Puget Sound Steelhead. Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata—Threatened,listed October 3,2013 Critical habitat designated October 3, 2013 (SO CFB Part 17.11) The Action Area contains no suitable habitat for the streaked horned lark. The streaked horned lark is found primarily in prairie habitat or unvegetated to sparsely-vegetated open habitats (WSDOT, 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants'u Habitat Management Plan 19 May 5,2014 2013). They can be found in developed areas such as airports and agricultural lands. There were no identified areas with critical habitat for streaked horned larks in the vicinity of the subject property (USFWS, 2013). Lack of suitable habitat near the Action Area makes streaked horned lark presence in the Action Area extremely unlikely. Sound resulting from project activities will be below precautionary harassment/injury guidelines for ESA-listed species that may be present in the proposed project area. The estimated threshold of harassment/injury for streaked horned lark is approximately 92 dBA at nest sites and at a nesting site the disturbance threshold is an estimated 70dBA. Noise levels may be as high as 84 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but will attenuate at a maximum of 4,524 feet. Since there are no nesting sites near the project, terrestrial noise will have no effect on the streaked horned lark. Unlike marbled murrelets that may have a potential nest to forage flight path over the proposed project, the streaked horned nests and forages in open prairie and agricultural areas and does not have any reason to be near or flying over the proposed project area. Due to the lack of presence, and the project producing little noise which will be brief in duration, the proposed project will have No Effect on Streaked Horned Lark. Due to a lack of habitat in the vicinity of the project, there will be No Effect on Streaked Horned Lark Critical Habitat. Taylor's Checkerspot Euphydryas editha taylori—Endangered,listed October 3,2013 Critical habitat designated October 3, 2013 (50 CFR Part 17.11) The Action Area contains no suitable habitat for Taylor's checkerspot. Taylor's checkerspot is found primarily in open prairie and grass/oak woodland habitat (WSDOT, 2013). There were no identified areas with critical habitat for Taylor's checkerspot in the vicinity of the subject property (USFWS, 2013). Lack of suitable habitat near the Action Area makes Taylor's checkerspot presence in the Action Area extremely unlikely. No mechanisms for direct effects to Taylor's checkerspot are proposed from project actions as no suitable habitat is present within or in the vicinity of the Action Area. Since there is no suitable habitat near the project, terrestrial noise will have no effect on ESA- listed species. There will be No Effect on Taylor's Checkerspot Critical Habitat. Due the high unlikelihood of Taylor's checkerspot presence in the vicinity of the project and a lack of mechanisms for impact,the project will have No Effect on Taylor's Checkerspot. Yelloweye rockfish Sebastes entomelas'Threatened,listed July 27, 2010. Yelloweye rockfish are considered relatively rare in the Puget Sound, and they are observed more frequently in north Puget Sound than in southern areas (Miller and Borton 1980). Rockfish larvae are pelagic, often occupying the surface of open waters, under floating algae, detached seagrass, and kelp. Juvenile rockfish recruitment is likely to be found in areas with shallow high—relief zones with crevices and sponge gardens (Love et al 2002). Juvenile yelloweye rockfish do not typically occupy intertidal waters and shallow habitats (Love et al. 1991). Adults are most common between 300 to 600 feet water depth, sometimes associated with depths between 40 to 1,560 feet deep (Love et al 2002). The likelihood of juveniles or adults of ESA-listed rockfish within the project's relatively shallow and non-vegetated habitats is highly discountable, as the nearshore habitat is largely lacking any eelgrass, kelp, or other aquatic vegetation preferred as foraging substrates by juvenile and larval rockfish (BergerABAM, 2012). Deeper portions of Puget Sound provide suitable habitat for adult and juvenile rockfish. In addition, no mechanisms are proposed that would have a measurable impact on the marine environment. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants u-c Habitat Management Plan 20 May 5,2014 fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. The establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore,the proposed project will have No Effect on Yelloweye Rockfish. PHS-listed Species and Species of Local Importance PHS-listed species and species of local importance potentially found in Mason County are evaluated in the sections below to determine impacts of the project. Due to the number of species and lack of Federal regulation,these species have been grouped in order to provide more efficient evaluation. Table 6. Determination Summary for PHS-listed species potentially found in Mason County Group Species/Habitat Scientific Name Determination of Effect Cascades Frog Rana cascadae Coastal Tailed Frog Ascaphus truei Amphibians Olympic Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton olympicus Not Likely Affect Adversely Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas Bald Eaglet Haliaeetus leucocephalus Brandt's Cormorant Pbalacmcorax penicillatus Common Loon Gavia immer Shoreline- Common Murre Uria aalge Not Likely to Adversely Associated Birds Affect Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentaks Golden Eagle Aquila cbgsaetos Northern Goshawk Accrpitergentilis Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus boreaus Peregrine Falcon Fako peregrinus Terrestrial Birds Pileated Woodpecker Dgocopus pileatus Not Likely Affect Adversely Purple Martin Progne subis Vaux's Swift Cbaetura vauxi Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana Yellow-billed Cuckoo CoccyZus americanus Black Rockfish Sebastes melanops Brown Rockfish Sebastes auriculatus Coastal Res./Searun Cutthroat Oncorhymbus clarki Fishes Copper Rockfish Sebastes caurinus No Effect Greenstriped Rockfish Sebastes elongatus Olympic Mudminnow Novumbra hubbsi Pacific Cod Gadus macrocephalus Pacific Hake Merluccius productus 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants'1 Habitat Management Plan 21 May 5,2014 Pacific Herring Clupea pallasi Pacific Lamprey Lampetra tridentata Quillback Rockfish Sebastes makger Redstripe Rockfish Sebastes proriger River Lamprey Lampetra ayresi Sockeye Salmon Oncogncbus nerka Walleye Pollock Tberagra cbakogramma Yellowtail Rockfish Sebastes jlavidus Terrestrial Johnson's Hairstreak Mitoura jobnsoni No Effect Invertebrates Puget Blue Plebefus icarioides blackmorei Marine Newcomb's littorine snail Algamorda nemcormbiana No Effect Invertebrates Olympia Oyster Ostrea lurida Gray Whale Escbricbtius robustus Marine Mammals No Effect Pacific Harbor Porpoise Pbocoena pbocoena Reptiles Western Pond Turtle Clemmys maramorata Not Likely to Adversely Affect Fisher Martes pennanti Keen's Long-eared Bat Myotis keenii Olympic Marmot Marmota olympus Terrestrial Not Likely to Adversely Mammals Pygmy Shrew Sorex boyi Affect Roosevelt Elk Cervus elapbus mosevelti Townsend's Big-eared Bat j Cognorbinus tmvnsendii Western Pocket Gopher Tbomomys maZama Amphibians The amphibians that may occur within Mason County are primarily associated with the Cascade and/or Olympic mountain ranges or stream environments. As none of these exist onsite, it is highly unlikely that any amphibians are located within the Action Area. The only potential suitable habitat for amphibians is located in the northwest portion of the property,which contains mature forest.As the project proposes only temporary disturbance in previously-disturbed locations and presence of these species is unlikely in the Action Area,the project is not likely to adversely affect amphibians. Shoreline-Associated Birds The shoreline area may provide foraging opportunities for shoreline birds; however, the loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no significant impacts to shoreline-associated bird habitat or functionality.The only potential suitable bird habitat is located in the northwest portion of the property, which contains mature forest. Sound resulting from project activities will be below precautionary harassment/injury guidelines for ESA-listed species that may be present in the proposed project area. Noise levels may be as high as 84 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but will attenuate at a maximum of 4,524 feet. As the project proposes only temporary disturbance of potentially-suitable habitat in previously-disturbed locations and noise levels are below precautionary levels, the project is not likely to adversely affect shoreline-associated birds. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 22 May 5,2014 Terrestrial Birds The terrestrial birds that may occur within Mason County have specific habitat needs. The only species with potential to use onsite habitat include pileated woodpecker,purple martin,Vaux's swift, and western bluebird. The only potentially-suitable habitat is located in the northwest portion of the property, which contains mature forest. Sound resulting from project activities will be below precautionary harassment/injury guidelines for ESA-listed species that may be present in the proposed project area. Noise levels may be as high as 84 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but will attenuate at a maximum of 4,524 feet. As the project proposes only temporary disturbance of potentially-suitable habitat in previously-disturbed locations and noise levels are below precautionary levels, the project is not likely to adversely affect terrestrial birds. Fishes No mechanisms for direct effects to fishes are proposed from project actions. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on fishes. Terrestrial Invertebrates No mechanisms for direct effects to terrestrial invertebrates are proposed from project actions. The only protected terrestrial invertebrates that may occur within Mason County are the Johnson's hairstreak and Puget blue butterflies. According to V DFW,Johnson's hairstreak habitat is primarily old-growth or mature second-growth forests, and it is considered to be old-growth obligate. It is dependent on mistletoe,which is parasitic to conifer trees, for breeding and food. Neither mistletoe nor old-growth was observed onsite. Puget blue habitat consists of forest clearings or prairies with lupine present. The only known Puget blue populations occur in the Tenino Prairies south of Olympia. As it is extremely unlikely that Johnson's hairstreak or Puget blue will occur onsite due to lack of suitable habitat,the project will have no effect on terrestrial invertebrates. Marine Invertebrates Of the two marine invertebrate species, only Olympic oyster is likely to occur within the vicinity of the project.According to WDFW,Olympic oyster is known to occur in Hood Canal, to the north of the project site. However, no mechanisms for direct effects to marine invertebrates are proposed from project actions. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water habitat or functionality for this species. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. The indirect and direct effects are expected to be highly discountable, and no work is proposed below OHW; therefore, the proposed project will have no effect on marine invertebrates. Marine Mammals No mechanisms for direct effects to marine mammals are proposed from project actions. Temporary increases in terrestrial noise will have no effect on fish species. The loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline will cause no measurable impacts to in-water 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants LW Habitat Management Plan 23 May 5,2014 habitat or functionality. In addition, the establishment of appropriate stormwater treatment, BMPs, and TESC measures will prevent measurable impacts to water quality due to increased impervious surfaces or temporary sedimentation from construction. It is unlikely that marine mammals will venture far enough into Hood Canal to reach the Action Area of the proposed project. Due to the unlikelihood of marine mammals reaching the project area, the lack of mechanisms for impact, and avoidance of in-water work,the proposed actions are not likely to adversely affect marine mammals. Reptiles The only protected reptile species that may occur within Mason County is western pond turtle. According to WDFW, western pond turtle occurs in streams, ponds, lakes, and permanent and ephemeral wetlands. None of these exist onsite, and it is unlikely that western pond turtles are located within the Action Area. The only potential suitable habitat onsite is located in the northwest portion of the property, which contains mature forest. As the project proposes only temporary disturbance in previously-disturbed locations and presence of these species is unlikely in the Action Area, the project is not likely to adversely affect reptiles. Terrestrial Mammals Many of the terrestrial mammals that may occur within Mason County have specific habitat needs or are endemic to certain locations. The only species with potential to use onsite habitat include Keen's long-eared bat and Townsend's big-eared bat. The only potentially-suitable habitat onsite is located in the northwest portion of the property, which contains mature forest. Sound resulting from project activities will be below precautionary harassment/injury guidelines for ESA-listed species that may be present in the proposed project area. Noise levels may be as high as 84 dBA at 50 feet from project activities but will attenuate at a maximum of 4,524 feet. As the project proposes only temporary disturbance in previously-disturbed locations and presence of these species is unlikely in the Action Area,the project is not likely to adversely affect terrestrial mammals. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 24 May 5,2014 I Chapter 6. Habitat Management Recommendations Based on direct observations during the site visit, the subject property contains a marine shoreline area with fish and wildlife habitat suitable for sensitive species located adjacent to the project area. The project area is cleared of native species with the exception of one stand of approximately four large trees adjacent to the road and is otherwise landscaped with non-native ornamental and invasive species and manicured lawn. The subject property located northwestern of the project area, across NE North Shore Road primarily contain mature mixed coniferous and deciduous trees as well as shrub and emergent plants suitable for wildlife habitat. The most suitable location for the proposed single-family residence is found within the FWHCA buffer between existing structures. This chapter provides recommendations for construction and best management practices as well as fish and wildlife habitat management recommendations for the proposed project. 6.1 Construction Sequencing and Best Management Practices Project staging should be located over existing impervious and/or cleared and disturbed surfaces. During site clearing and demolition,the existing concrete elements and all debris should be removed using typical demolition procedures and transported offsite to an approved facility. Once the site is cleared, TESC measures consisting silt fencing, plastic sheeting, and seeding of disturbed soils should be installed and actively managed for the duration of the project. Once all foundation work and underground utilities are installed and the site is finish graded,the entire site should be seeded to permanently stabilize the soils and prevent erosion; however, silt fencing should remain in place until completion of construction activities. BMPs should be implemented to avoid and minimize disturbance to critical areas and associated buffers to the maximum extent practicable. A concrete wash water collection basin should also be installed away from the FWHCA buffer prior to commencement of construction activities. All equipment staging and materials stockpiles should be kept out of the buffer to the maximum extent, and the area will need to be kept free of spills and/or hazardous materials. No heavy equipment or machinery should be operated on the beach. All fill material and road surfacing should be sourced from upland areas onsite or from approved suppliers, and will need to be free of pollutants and hazardous materials. Construction materials along with all construction waste and debris should be effectively managed and stockpiled on paved surfaces and kept free of the remaining buffer area. Following completion of the residence, the entire site should be cleaned and detail graded using hand tools wherever necessary, and TESC measures will need to be removed. In addition, permanent stormwater treatment features will need to be implemented. 6.2 Habitat Management Recommendations The following habitat management recommendations are provided to protect the marine shoreline and fish and wildlife habitat: • TESC measures should be installed prior to site clearing, including silt fencing should be installed around construction activities prior to and maintained throughout the construction period; • All applicable construction BMPs should be used during land disturbing activities; 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 25 May 5,2014 • Stormwater runoff from driveway and landscape surfaces should to be properly treated prior to direct release to Hood Canal; • Any future improvements to the shoreline area such as bulkhead replacement or addition of a dock should attempt to avoid impacts to habitat and species to the maximum extent practicable; • Confine new work to existing disturbed areas, such as existing building footprints, decks, walkways,driveways,and landscaped features to the maximum extent feasible; • Use of chemicals and herbicides should be avoided in upland areas adjacent to the bulkhead, • Plant native shrubs and groundcovers in disturbed areas to help retain soils, filter stormwater, and increase biodiversity of macroinvertebrates (i.e.-insects); • Maintain and preserve non-hazardous native tree and shrub species already on-site; • Remove non-native invasive plants growing in the FWHCA buffer, such as Engish ivy and Himalayan blackberry, and replant these areas with native shrubs and ground covers; • Do not place clearing debris, yard waste, or trash within the fish and wildlife buffer or on adjacent slopes,and • Keep heavy equipment and vehicles off shoreline. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan 26 May 5,2014 Chapter 7. References Code of Federal Regulations. 2013. Cowardin, L.M. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service.Washington D.C. Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations. Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 1730-1 BLM RS p g ST- / / 98/005+1730. Envirovision, Herrera, and AHG 2007. Protecting Nearshore Habitat and functions in Puget Sound. An Interim Guide. The Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group. htW://wdfw.wa.gQv/hab/ahg/nearshore interim guide october 2007 final draft.pdf Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle,Washington. Lichvar, Robert W. and John T. Kartesz. 2009. North American Digital Flora. National Wetland Plant list, version 2.4.0. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NW, and BONAP, Chapel Hill, NC. Mason County Code. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2003. HCD Stormwater Online Guidance for Analyzing Stormwater Effects. NOAA Fisheries Service,Northwest Region.March 2003. Olson, P. and E. Stockdale. 2008. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark on Streams in Washington State. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program,Lacey,WA. Ecology Publication#08-06-001. Pojar,J. and A. MacKinnon. 2004. Plants of the Pacific Northwest: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia,and Alaska (Revised). Lone Pine Publishing,Vancouver,B.C. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States&Carabell v. United States EPA/USACE. December 2,2008. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Ver2.0), ed.J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MSS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service. Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Washington D.C. Washington State Department of Transportation. 2013. Biological Assessment Preparation: Advanced Training Manual,Version 02-2013. 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants Ur Habitat Management Plan 27 May 5,2014 N Ilk i _ t pan fir• 46" It oto � .ML . o l � � O, ♦ j. T T r C4 off Appendix B Background Information This Appendix includes a Mason County Topographic Map (B1), USFWS National Wetland Inventory map (B2),and Priority Habitat and Species Map (B3). 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants'Lc Habitat Management Plan May 5,2014 Appendix B1. Mason Count Topographic Ma pp Y p Mason County Map NE MURO q0 NE KAAiN A00 i .�► ,tea,. . .� �� � I� orb Aft LZ!:TATIC: UAB:11TY. TLt:,►�ae1:o N•t•e this trap tom•.t beec:tt:ed it r_^»^,.�eten �'�•�.^.Cif c�r�:e tms zv tl zi chest:rs art tttntty,st::xrt rr,4 reliab!t HoIrv%-a,Mum C.—=,y trskts no LEGEND ;.rantat or-w'.Lcy to its K..f3,y as to Iabtlirg,Ournretors,oc F:Kr..ert as:cv:ior.of r.y rrap harm:acnittd h+-rt Tte ttivzZanes depicted by chest Uu re 4VOximate. aa�]s ( s♦dMai l ar+011, is we we rwolunly scot to M*:.v;cc trpcttits str,Sr3s,rb we twiedod!c :�xratioeal pvrpasts mly MAW.Coxt_•Gan ros tsrarw any cep!:tt*lftry•Cc N µ 'rah City of Snetlun :espoesiXtry risttl trrc the at o`ttass=V is a mwxm w irteWed by\t»oa Cowy. G...rt A Stria nt � �:cvnty!>sur+loN{CAR 1 s w r"Kt IIXI M►iim Carry•N!ta%!e it sire!t,mlifr_t tv-tdestal,:ozstq;a!tu1. serial,or tart Z=sIts ofary ktrS t�h::sef,tra rt:t'=iced to.loss efan:i:ipa:N pra4ts P a.e•!t Ccamm•u ontr Cwrmt ar becdn rtsic 'E .•in.at afot re!irr-e c-the r:irl=mi. :.rtur Yei ed tn It ``wcbon7 � taus E Ye9-M AK-0 Cc-.Zfy GIS (J� Tovrnsl+pS S Pupa Land 3 Mah,La-0 1}J W.Public«'ctks DI SheItcn.NVA➢SaSi 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Sotmdview Consultants u.c Habitat Management Plan May 5,2014 w o * o ish o A c e Wildlife5&11 (p b National Wetlands Inventoiv o Apr 30,2014 N Wetlands - Freshwater Emergent - Freshwater FMMd/Shrub O, - Estuarine and Marine Deepwater C - Emanne and Manna - Freshwater Pond Lake rt - Rnenne sy M otherCD a � I o I 'r 0 9 nr, nr amrw anw tnw. tti rib..m�an oft WA SaMce ep.ai a �nwaw aNaW W uaaa N aoo--us wM b uyr nwaafa"M an E User Remarks: � �+b C) 0 N H o A WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE z PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORTCD E z SOURCE DATASET: PHSPlusPublic Query ID: P140423135739 • REPORT DATE: 04/23/2014 1.58 PM tz ro W 0 . i Na me ame Site Name Priority Area Source Entity o AccuracyFederal Status Sensitive Dat a Scientific Name Source Dataset Occurrence Type State Status Resolution Geometry Type Source Record More Information(URL) PHS Listing Status Notes Source Date Mgmt Recommendations ESTUARINE INTERTIDAL WA Aquatic Habitat NA WA N US Fish and Wildlife Service NWIPOLY Aquatic habitat N/A AS MAPPED Polygons httpl/www.ecy.wa. PHS Listed `CITI Geoduck Not Given Presence NA NIA N WDFW P� Shellfish—Summary Presence N A AS MAPPED Polygons NIA PHS Listed Oyster Beds Not Given Presence NA NIA N WDFW p) Shellfish—Summary Presence WA AS MAPPED Polygons a NIA PHS Listed (fj CD CD `! A ON G N O Appendix C Site Plans 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road' Soundview Consultants uc Habitat Management Plan May 5,2014 i N "'i i10 SITE PLAN FOR COMBINED LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHORELINE/RESOURCE/DEVELOPMENT wow E REGULATIONS VARIANCE 6 � eW�� �� ��� s 0 -� W3� h 4.1 E CH -� FOUyD-I PIPE ° o CH 2Q13)_.— s W S i 5 A. o o'o HORIZDN DATUM(NAB 83/91)-BASIS OF BEARINGS;GB: xmn,», d z z n acwLe: -o' ii% ///�i/ /� /J/ /J/ //I% \_ / / /— r ',u w.n"'°.a,vx�.s':a"mn mx:a ai ,- LL W z< VEERTI CAL DATUM-NAVD 88:_ z o i P.CUVERf " ///% / WELL / / ! / �j' _ p..e.��>-.v� x,.:a.�x —1 J. /JRTII B3}/ // ' / //���. i' ✓ srt xwm„sa«,mnx wme. ..aa. W o / / f i CPP OUIYERT / ��� / j - ��w.,°,Fa,SURVEY a x, xwa m.a ~ ca v- m A:E. x� »x PROCEDURE/NV2R TTn,� 0 F MISTER ' �' �J` / / / ^✓/ /-WELII HEAD / �• ! •\ vKLLry WP CALCULATED SITE AREkn ,.1(9 fE f.OT'3944Br/ " 5�T RERAFt/ R STD.GRATE �a �,PD RIY=26.05� �✓ :oun<w.o.,do o x�r��,a. //046 •.,:' , 18•C .E.W==4.2,5• /��� i'9i wm,w Mu,>,�. w im Iane:.va1 TAX ACCOUNT or NUMBER,.ma» 40R SLOPE t - ` t AJQ-kFt= /i �i TOE OF /I\ TEL ( �- ��- /RGo ISER .'i•��'^� ./ '/ /jT" /% /� REFERENCE SURVEYS: STINSON.e�.NDTESu:: � W SET WASHER, j ^�\ ,, .», a N cc 1 I /MACBq I /KEYSTONE �eskts /�� _`� `�' 3 6:PVC CULVER /j'J2'/COME. RT /� /r JNALL / WOOD STEPS % / SS < Lu ui jI r, / � -ERTf43.634 -/ ' /� "'-=�'7 -• / j rlC' ---1' »s j / j -�.r z Y d eE O Ljj /CAP 0 / LS14531 I 5' A11C PA CONC. STEPS- a= E E AFf 370 a sb [` q. E OHI.B� Wa CONC.STEP S CULVERTPROPOSm BULDM ENVELOPE I.E N=I6 " �'` j 2W X 36 t2 STORY) nA iMii.a.x..,or=v Y / /•, BLDG AREA= / MAX 81ZE•1600 S.F. ® ' 982t S.F. l PLANTER f i SHOWER WOOD `)S FENCE CONC.STEP Yam, pP o}•f eMrcw lu«o:vov OIR, f 1 2NO LEVEL/FlNISH FLOOR=23.32' ;„ 8 TEPS/TO 3•D.I.CULVERT \ NISH FL00R.=15.85' ^' H Q$CKI I.E.=9.B6' / �, — ^,c• / 3•D.L CIAYF�/ -� 'W ^' aor. veau vrnwwox R- N TI N /;��%; �////„/,• SLOPE ANALYSIS MAP FOR y, S H O R E L I N E/RESOURCE/D E V E L O P M ENT � ^aeEE Z W�•_ REGULATIONS VARIANCE a��.ax�� o� m3� /��Z // 11 1 O o soA�:1•.Yo. // / // / j{1 1 1 I ox a � // �/ // / / / I � I ( / ! J •� � HORIZONTAL MNY NAO 83 91 -8ASI5 OF BEARINGS: > W m x� J N< ��.�,.'u.�, S" —=—= i/////%////////////%//)//!/////�///��///%////iJ///i///j am/// /� lJ�/////!///i//ii///r///r//�f/(//// II I!II 1\t�I.}.I II II III I I � a ✓ �E - �xo"°`�a��.�, ,.x . �.�®"x.°... 'H�;°,'m <a o� 0p°T""°AaMNAVD88: d3~�W�,*i.NxiC°"R04 � of cWi F m ::�j AREA F 40% SLOPE //r�//(//! � �I / i 1 i f(�/ /�\ I ` I I I I Isl I i I I I e dill, DATES OF SURVEY: mow».>u m.uwu,mu 8 y W o r=x=,r PROCEDURE„wm mJwo s mrsa ra wv¢ s ¢ F �a CALCULATED WE AREA: sµn a u ! "�!��- TAX ACCOUNT nUYBER} co x. n co REFERENCE 111V Y. 5: 2 l/ SURVEYOR'S NorEs: cc cc ¢ a j� �' //i/i/ j//-%; r it•A:�;:4UY i9U7PEii --1-• 1 J/!%//// //�%//�j �/XL!//!�/!/% W n W L Id CL o p.o °` N a z � � � AREA OF // /://'%/ y �""`..,-ia,r ♦ V-,.; /// /40% SLOPE20 ® 1�«sml %r / '/ ' / /� / /� ii�r :i -1� //�j/Pt / on cx�n,ex MS�oae a & woca'imwl / %// -/ i� +�?"� / `JJ /j/ ® � : //-'_Imo�/_/_� ,�` ,,,M,� ,' //�! //�i/J/J/i�i ws ;-a'--i_�"r EGA).-•��,"m, f,�,. /�//�� '�Ti� � nA ,wx. - // l l ,. % / Jay/ ./7•" , -s ,� v�-� / j a r a �v��i / / //� J f." /''mow.•✓ N� Nil _ 6 W p n t Appendix D Biologist Qualifications All field inspections, jurisdictional wetland determinations, OHW determinations, habitat assessments, and supporting documentation, including this Habitat Management Plan prepared for Northeast North Shore Road, were prepared by, or under the direction of, Racheal Villa and Hannah Blackstock of Soundview Consultants . Racheal Villa, Senior Scientist Racheal Villa is a professional Senior Scientist and fisheries biologist with a diverse background in both freshwater and marine ecology with emphasis in salmonid life histories and habitat. She has experience in assessing marine, shoreline, stream, and wetland systems, reporting on biological evaluations,permitting,and site assessments. Racheal earned a Bachelor's of Science degree in Fisheries Biology from the University of Washington, Seattle, with additional graduate level training in salmonid behavior and life history; restoration of fish communities and habitats in river ecosystems; biological problems with water pollution; and biomonitoring and assessment. In addition, she has received formal training from the Washington State Department of Ecology in Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark, the revised Washington State Wetland Rating System, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach, and Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects from the Washington State Department of Transportation. She is also a Pierce County qualified Fisheries Biologist. k,t4e 5/05/2014 Racheal Villa Date Soundview Consultants LLc 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor,WA 98335 (253) 514-8952 Office (253) 514-8954 Fax rcheal@soundviewconsultants.com 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants tl.c Habitat Management Plan May 5,2014 1 Hannah Blackstock, Staff Scientist Hannah Blackstock is a Staff Scientist with a background in both forest and wetland ecology and fisheries biology and experience with various Federal agencies. Hannah earned a Bachelor's of Science with a double major in Environmental Science and Resource Management as well as Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences at the University of Washington. Hannah has an extensive knowledge of restoration ecology,ranging in topics such as soils,plant familiarity, hydrology, and wetland ecology. Furthermore, she has been certified by the Washington Department of Ecology in the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach and has received training from the PNW Invasive Plant Council on the identification of newly emerging invasive plant species. She is also a Pierce County Qualified Fisheries Biologist. 5/05/2014 Hannah Blackstock Date Soundview Consultants LLc 2907 Harborview Drive Gig Harbor,WA 98335 Office: (253) 514-8952 ext. 004 Fax: (253) 514-8954 hannah@soundviewconsultants.com 1186.0006 NE North Shore Road Soundview Consultants LIIC Habitat Management Plan May 5,2014 •rJ�:� _ arl Earth ,: Solutions •:�,--'. :,� _ �+1 � r�. _ r .t - .`r.an •• •1. r �' fc1+f rw- f L- 1 :fir• !•• NWLLC FWk- "� V'�.•.��' r' ��fF. 6r j y .art ''`���±.�. .:�, 'tee ... y •��*-� •� } ` -r 7 1, � '�: � - c _�",!.'irk••'.aB�i,� 11�.,�, d I_ .�`r�l• -,- "i' : 6�"•:.._��'- t� �e •`�{�+�:a.4! y ,a -�r-��j-vs�'-�f�� — ��•,.� �'k. SST.��5`+�1���`Y^ _ :_. '���•.- �3=' .�- � ,;�•,� �;.� ��� ,r�. PREPARED FOR WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS C/O BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. March 21, 2014 Stephen H. Avril ~ Staff Geologist Al a a 7 a �SS1JNAL Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED WILSON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 10801 NORTHEAST NORTH SHOREROAD MASON COUNTY (BELFAIR), WASHINGTON ES-3283 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 — 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Ph: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 Toll Free: 866-336-8710 IMPOP1801 IAhOM Geolechnical providedSubsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. The following information is , Geotechnical Services Are Performed for • elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or weight of the Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects proposed structure, Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of • composition of the design team,or their clients.A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- • project ownership. neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer.Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique,each As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client.No changes---even minor ones--and request an assessment of their impact. one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which —not even you—should apply the report for any purpose or project they were not informed. except the one originally contemplated. Subsurface Conditions Can Change Read the Full Report A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical the time the study was performed.Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- engineering report did not read it all.Do not rely on an executive summary. ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by:the passage of Do not read selected elements only. time;by man-made events,such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events,such as floods,earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on tions.Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors to determine if it is still reliable.A minor amount of additional testing or Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique,project-specific fac- analysis could prevent major problems. tors when establishing the scope of a study.Typical factors include:the client's goals,objectives,and risk management preferences;the general Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional nature of the structure involved,its size,and configuration;the location of Opinions the structure on the site;and other planned or existing site improvements, Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where such as access roads,parking lots,and underground utilities.Unless the subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken.Geotechnical engi- geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional erwise,do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the • not prepared for you, site.Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly— • not prepared for your project, from those indicated in your report.Retaining the geotechnical engineer • not prepared for the specific site explored, or who developed your report to provide construction observation is the • completed before important project changes were made. most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final • the function of the proposed structure,as when it's changed from a Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your parking garage to an office building,or from a light industrial plant report. Those recommendations are not final,because geotechnical engi- to a refrigerated warehouse, neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion.Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical have led to disappointments,claims,and disputes.To help reduce the risk engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or of such outcomes,geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform explanatory provisions in their reports.Sometimes labeled"limitations" construction observation. many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers'responsi- bilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own responsibilities A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to and risks.Read these provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical Misinterpretation engineer should respond fully and frankly. Other design team members'misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Lower that risk by having your geo- Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after The equipment,techniques,and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- submitting the report.Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.Contractors can study.For that reason,a geotechnical engineering report does not usually also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report.Reduce that risk by relate any geoenvironmental findings,conclusions,or recommendations; having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or conferences,and by providing construction observation. regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs vironmental information,ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data.To prevent errors or someone else. omissions,the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable,but recognize Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,construction, that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. operation,and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.To be effective,all such strategies should be Give Contractors a Complete Report and devised for the express purpose of mold prevention,integrated into a com- Guidance prehensive plan,and executed with diligent oversight by a professional Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make mold prevention consultant.Because just a small amount of water or contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations,a num- they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent costly problems,give con- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report,but preface it with a While groundwater,water infiltration,and similar issues may have been clearly written letter of transmittal.In that letter,advise contractors that the addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the are conveyed in-this report,the geotechnical engineer in charge of this report's accuracy is limited;encourage them to confer with the geotechnical project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- engineer who prepared the report(a modest fee may be required)and/or to formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- need or prefer.A prebid conference can also be valuable.Be sure contrac- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed tors have sufficient time to perform additional study.Only then might you in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, growing in or on the structure involved. while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical Some clients,design professionals,and contractors do not recognize that engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.Confer plines.This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE the 1eit Pee111 11 E1rt0 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106,Silver Spring,MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail:info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE,Inc.Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part by any means whatsoever,is strictly prohibited,except with ASFES specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE,and onty for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation. IIGER06045.0M r Earth Solution NWLIC March 2014 ES-3283 Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Washington Federal Savings c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 — 72nd Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Mr. Tom Barghausen Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Wilson Single-Family Residence, 10801 Northeast North Shore Road, Mason County (Belfair), Washington". The site is generally underlain by advance outwash deposits comprised of gravel, sift, and sand in a medium dense grading to dense condition. Groundwater was not observed at the test pit locations during the fieldwork (March 2014). In our opinion, the proposed construction of a single-family residence, septic drainfield, and associated improvements as currently planned is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations detailed in this report are followed. Based on our study, the proposed residential structure should be supported conventional shallow foundation bearing on dense native soil or structural fill. The steep slopes located on-site and should be considered sensitive. Site designs should be developed in a manner which minimizes impacts to the slopes and associated buffers. Geotechnical recommendations related to the proposed site development are provided in this geotechnical engineering study. If you have questions regarding the content of this report, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Stephen H. Avril Staff Geologist 1805 - 136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 449-4704 • FAX(425) 449-4711 Table of Contents ES-3283 PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 General 1 Project Description ........................................................... 1 Surface............ ................................................................ 2 Subsurface 3 GeologicSetting.................. ..................................... 3 Groundwater 4 Critical Area Assessment 4 Landslide Hazard Assessment ........................... ....... 4 Erosion Hazard Assessment 4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.................. 5 Analysis of Proposal and Mitigating Measures............. 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................... 5 General 5 Site Preparation and Earthwork 6 Foundation Excavations 6 In-situ Soils 6 ImportedSoil.......................................... ................. 6 Structural Fill Placement 6 Slope Fill Placement... .................................... ... ....... 7 Erosion Control 7 Foundations 7 Slab-on-Grade Floors...... ... ................................................ 8 Seismic Considerations......................... ................................ 8 RetainingWalls......... ........................................................ 8 Excavations and Slopes ................................................... 9 Utility Support and Trench Backfill.............................. ...... ... 9 Drainage............ ... ............................................................ 9 LIMITATIONS..................... ......................................................... 10 Additional Services.................. .......................................... 10 Earth Solutions INK LLC Table of Contents Cont'd ES-3283 GRAPHICS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Test Pit and Hand Hole Location Plan Plate 3 Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Plate 4 Footing Drain Detail APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Sieve Analysis Results Earth Solutions NW,LLC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED WILSON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 10801 NORTHEAST NORTH SHORE ROAD MASON COUNTY (BELFAIR), WASHINGTON ES-3283 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed single-family residence to be constructed on the south side of Northeast North Shore Road in the Belfair area of Mason County, Washington. The approximate location of the subject property is illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The purpose of this study was to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development including the proposed house to be located along the shoreline and associated septic system to be located on the slope located north of Northeast North Shore Road. Our scope of services for completing this geotechnical engineering study included the following: • Subsurface exploration including excavation of four test pits, two using an excavator, and two using hand tools; • Engineering analyses, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents were reviewed as part of preparing this geotechnical engineering study: • Boundary and topographic survey prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, dated April 3, 2013; • Mason County Ordinance 17.01, Geologic Hazards. Project Description We understand the property will be developed with a single-family residence designated as Lot 39. An on-site septic drainfield is to be located on the ascending slope above Northeast North Shore Road in conjunction with associated improvements for the proposed residential development. The approximate limits of the subject property are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Earth Solutions NW, LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 2 March 21, 2014 The residential structure planned for the property is to be located north of the bulkhead at the shoreline. Final Plans were not available at the time of production of this study; however we anticipate the new home will likely consist of relatively lightly-loaded wood-framing supported on conventional foundations. Based on our experience with similar developments, we anticipate wall loads on the order of 1 to 2 kips per lineal foot and slab-on-grade loading of 150 pounds per square foot (psf). An on-site septic system for the lot will be incorporated into site designs. The system is proposed to be located on the ascending slope north of Northeast North Shore Road. Current design details include installation of a septic tank along the north side of right-of-way which will then pump effluent up the hill to a drain field. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report, and provide supplement recommendations. Surface The subject site is located east of the intersection between Northeast North Shore Road and Northeast Canyon Drive in the Belfair area of Mason County, Washington. The site consists of a single residential parcel which is bordered to the north, west, and east by forest; and to the south by the Hood Canal. The proposed residential structure is to be constructed behind a bulkhead at the shoreline, south of Northeast North Shore Road. The proposed location of the septic system associated with the residence is to be sited on the ascending slope located north of Northeast North Shore road. A natural slope ascends about 150 feet on the north side of Northeast North Shore Road. Vegetation across the slope consists of forest growth with a moderate understory. The slope is currently undeveloped and no indications of past grading were observed at the time of the site visit with the exception of a pathway cut into the hill which runs towards the north. The proposed building envelope is to be located on the north side of the bulkhead located at the shoreline. The bulkhead appears to be in good condition, is approximately eight feet in height measured from the beach elevation. There is a lawn area located behind the bulkhead which was likely backfilled using fill during construction to create a level area currently being used as a side yard to the existing single-family residence. Rockeries are located to the north of the side yard area, which ascend towards the road grade approximately six feet. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 3 March 21, 2014 Subsurface A representative of ESNW observed, logged and sampled four test pits. Two test pits were excavated on the slope using an excavator; and two test pits were excavated adjacent to the bulkhead using hand tools. The hand-excavated test pits were located within the proposed building footprint for purposes of assessing soil conditions, characterizing and classifying the site soils and assessing the near-surface groundwater conditions. Limited amounts of fill may exist behind the bulkhead at the shoreline. However, the soil conditions observed behind the bulkhead at the test pit locations were in a dense condition during our fieldwork (March 2014). The approximate locations of the test pits are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the soil logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. We observed the test pits which were excavated by ADC to supplement the subsurface conditions within the proposed location of the septic system. The soil conditions observed at the proposed septic system location were similar in nature to those encountered at the test pits observed by ESNW which were located down-slope from ADC test locations. The subsurface conditions observed at the proposed septic system location consisted of poorly graded gravel with silt and sand (Unified Soil Classification GP-GM) in a dense condition. Medium dense grading to dense poorly graded gravel with silt and sand (GP-GM) was encountered extending to the limits of exploration (11 feet below existing site elevations at the test locations). It is our opinion that the subsurface conditions across the slope; including Lot 39, Lot 40, and at the proposed location of the low-impact septic system are relatively consistent. No signs of groundwater or a confining layer were observed at any of the test pit locations. Geologic Setting The referenced geologic map of Washington Northwest Quadrant (Dragovich et. al.) 2002, identifies Advance outwash (Qga) across the site and surrounding area; and glacial till (Qgt) to the north of the slope located on the north side of Northeast North Shore Road. The glacial till is mapped for off-site regions to the north of the subject site. The Washington State Web Soil Survey (SCS) generally describes the near-surface soil deposits, and indicates the site is underlain by Everett gravelly sandy loam. These soils are described as excessively well drained, forming on terraces. The erosion hazard for these soils is described as low to moderate. In general, the soils observed at the site are consistent with the map designations as described by the SCS resource. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 4 March 21, 2014 Groundwater Groundwater seepage was not encountered at the test pit locations at the time of our fieldwork (March 2014). In our opinion, perched seepage zones may be encountered in the deeper site excavations, such as utility excavations. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater seepage flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. Critical Areas Assessment As part of our report preparation, we assessed the site in terms of critical areas as defined in the Mason County Municipal Code Chapter 17.01.100 — Landslide Hazard Areas, 17.01.104 Erosion Hazard Areas, 17.01.102 Seismic Hazard Areas, and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. The Washington State On-Line Coastal Atlas identifies the slope located to the north of Northeast North Shore Road as having an intermediate slope stability rating. It is our opinion that the slope on the subject site will have a low susceptibility to sliding due to the relatively large granular (gravelly) nature of the soil present in the substrate; as opposed to typical advance outwash soil which is typified by more fined grained sands with silt and gravel. Landslide Hazard Assessment Based on review of the referenced topographic survey, the ascending slope along portions of the northern site is inclined more than 40 percent with a vertical relief of over ten feet in areas; and is estimated to be on the order of 150 feet in height. The slope is vegetated with a mixture of deciduous, fir, and cedar trees with a moderate understory. There were no signs of slope failure such as head scarps, bare slopes or groundwater seeps along the surface during the slope reconnaissance conducted during the fieldwork. In our opinion, the steep slope along the western and southern site boundary would exhibit a low to moderate risk for shallow landslide hazard activity in the present condition. We would expect landslide activity to be limited to surficial debris flow type failures. Our reasoning for this conclusion is that ESNW observed no signs of bedrock, or a consolidated silty layer of soil within the substrate than can be considered a plane of weakness; which would increase the risk of a slope failure if excess moisture is introduced to the slope subsurface conditions. Erosion Hazard Assessment The slopes throughout the majority of the site are underlain primarily by course grained deposits. The soils encountered during our fieldwork would exhibit a low to moderate erosion hazard. In our opinion, the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction, and the incorporation of the recommendations provided in this report, will adequately mitigate the erosion hazard at the site. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 5 March 21, 2014 The proposed septic system will be located within a steep slope area. The site soils consist of silty sand overlying dense gravel. Given the soil gradation and density, and the groundwater conditions across the site, in our opinion the risk of seismically induced liquefaction is low. In our opinion, the proposed development plans will not increase the risk of landslides on the slope located above Northeast North Shore Road where the proposed low-impact septic system to be constructed, given the relative density and granular nature of the underlying substrate present on the slope; and the low volume of discharge estimated to be released by the low- impact septic system. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas The subject site includes shoreline habitat area at the southern portion of the property. As part of the production of this report, we reviewed the proposed site layout. The proposed site development includes construction of a single-family residence to be sited behind (north) of the bulkhead currently located adjacent to the beach on the Hood Canal. It is our understanding that there will be no alteration to the bulkhead or beach area on the site. As such it is our determination that there will be no deleterious impacts to the critical shoreline on the property given best management practices (BMP) are undertaken to mitigate possible erosion/migration of soil via stormwater runoff from the development envelope into surrounding critical areas. Analysis of Proposal and Mitigating Measures Based on review of the referenced site plan, limited alterations are planned for the steep slope or landslide hazard areas on the subject site during construction of the septic system. The proposed residential structure is located in an area where grading would be minimized. The proposed location for the septic system is sited on a level area within the slope complex. In our opinion, the proposed development will not increase the potential for instability along the steep slopes and therefore conforms to the Critical Areas Requirements outlined in Chapter 17 of the Mason County Code. In our opinion, the potential for debris flow activity can be adequately mitigated by controlling surface water runoff above the slopes, and maintaining vegetative cover on the slopes. This assessment does not account for unforeseen or changed conditions or the slope conditions uphill from the subject site. Surface water should not be allowed to flow over or pond above the slopes and vegetative cover should be maintained along the existing slopes. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, the proposed construction of a single-family residence and associated on-site septic system is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include foundation support, maintaining slope stability, and structural fill placement and compaction. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 6 March 21, 2014 In our opinion, the soils generated from cuts throughout the site are suitable for use as structural fill. The soils encountered at the exploration sites generally have a moderate sensitivity to moisture, and placement and compaction of these soils during wet weather conditions may be difficult. In our opinion, imported material should be used for structural fill if the native soils cannot be moisture conditioned for adequate compaction results. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of WA Fed and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork The primary geotechnical considerations during the proposed site preparation and earthwork activities will involve building pad area subgrade preparation, structural fill placement and compaction. Foundation Excavations In our opinion, the new residence can be supported on continuous or spread footings. Soil suitable for adequate foundation support should be encountered between one to three feet below existing site elevations within the proposed development envelope. If adequate bearing conditions are not exposed at the design footing elevations, overexcavation and backfill with suitable structural fill material will be necessary. In-situ Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, the coarse-grained soils encountered at the test sites are generally suitable for use as structural fill. The moisture sensitivity of the native soils can be generally characterized as moderate with respect to the poorly graded gravel with silt and sand. The soils encountered at the test sites were generally in a moist to wet condition at the time of the exploration (March 2014). Imported Soil Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well-graded granular soil with a maximum aggregate grain size of six inches, and a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Structural Fill Placement In general, areas to receive structural fill should be sufficiently stripped of organic matter and other deleterious material. The majority of the organic matter associated with trees, brush, root balls, and groundcover should be removed from the fill areas. The geotechnical engineer should observe cleared and stripped areas of the site prior to structural fill placement. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 C/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 7 March 21, 2014 Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab-on-grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes, retaining wall, and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in maximum 12-inch loose lifts and compacted to a relative compaction -of 95 percent, based on the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557-02). Slope Fill Placement In general, fill placement on the steep slope areas should be avoided. Fill can be placed elsewhere on site to accomplish the design grading. ESNW should review the final grading plans to confirm the recommendations in this report are incorporated. Erosion Control Temporary erosion control measures should include, at a minimum, silt fencing placed along the downslope perimeter of the construction envelope, and a construction entrance consisting of quarry spalls, as needed, to minimize off-site soil tracking and to provide a firm surface. Surface water should not be allowed to flow over any temporary or permanent slopes. Interceptor drains or swales should be considered for controlling surface water flow patterns, as appropriate. A representative of ESNW should observe the erosion control measures, and provide supplemental recommendations for minimizing erosion during construction, as necessary. Foundations Based on the results of our study, the proposed residential structure can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent native soil or structural fill placed over competent native soil. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are encountered at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill may be necessary. For design the following parameters can be used for the foundation design: • Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf • Passive earth pressure 250 pcf • Coefficient of friction 0.40 The passive earth pressure and friction values provided above assume the foundations are backfilled with structural fill. A factor-of-safety of 1.5 has been applied to these passive resistance and friction values. For short term wind and seismic loading, a one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can be assumed. Earth Solutions Nw, LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 8 March 21, 2014 With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of approximately one-half of an inch. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Slab-On-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on competent native soil or structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. If a vapor barrier will be used, it should be a material specifically designed for that use and should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Seismic Considerations The 2009 International Building Code specifies several soil profiles that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. If the project will be permitted using the 2009 IBC, based on the soil conditions observed at the test sites, Site Class D, from table 1613.5.2, should be used for design. The 2012 IBC recognizes ASCE for seismic site class definitions. If the project will be permitted under the 2012 IBC, in accordance with Table 20.3-1 of ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Site Class D, should be used for design. In our opinion, liquefaction susceptibility at this site is low. The relative density and gradation of the site soils is the primary basis for this designation. In our opinion there is little risk of lateral spread due to the soil gradation and relative density. Retaining Walls Retaining walls should be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. For preliminary design, the following parameters can be assumed for retaining wall design: • Active earth pressure (yielding condition 35 pcf (equivalent fluid) • At-rest earth pressure (restrained condition) 55 pcf • Traffic surcharge (passenger vehicles) 70 psf (rectangular distribution) • Passive earth pressure 250 pcf (equivalent fluid) • Coefficient of friction 0.40 • Allowable soil bearing capacity 2,500 psf Earth Solutions NW, LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 9 March 21, 2014 Additional surcharge loading from foundations, sloped backfill, or other loading should be included in the retaining wall design. Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. The geotechnical engineer should review retaining wall designs to verify the earth pressure values have been incorporated into design, and to provide additional recommendations. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable (surface seal) soil, if desired. A rigid, perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and connected to an approved discharge location. Where desired, the use of a sheet drain in lieu of free draining backfill can be considered. However, the geotechnical engineer should review the proposed use of sheet drain, and provide supplement drainage recommendations. Excavations and Slopes The Federal and state Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA/WISHA) classifies soils in terms of minimum safe slope inclinations. Based on the soil conditions encountered during our fieldwork, the site soils would generally be classified by OSHA/WISHA as Type C. Temporary slopes over four feet in height in Type C soils should be sloped no steeper than 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical). The geotechnical engineer should observe temporary and permanent slopes to verify that the inclination is appropriate, and to provide additional grading recommendations, as necessary. If temporary slopes cannot be constructed in accordance with OSHA/WISHA guidelines, temporary shoring may be necessary. Permanent slopes should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V, or flatter, and should be planted with an appropriate species of vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion. Utility Support and Trench Backfill In our opinion, the soils observed at the test sites are generally suitable for support of utilities. Excessively loose, organic, or otherwise unsuitable soils encountered in the trench excavations should not be used for supporting utilities. In general, the on-site soils observed at the test sites should be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations, provided the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary at some locations prior to use as structural fill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable specifications of the city or county jurisdiction. Drainage Groundwater seepage was not observed at the test locations explored during March 2014. Localized zones of groundwater seepage may be encountered in the site excavations and utility excavations. Temporary measures to control groundwater seepage and surface water runoff Earth Solutions NW,LLC Washington Federal Savings ES-3283 c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers Page 10 March 21, 2014 during construction will likely involve interceptor trenches, sedimentation ponds, and sumps areas. In our opinion, perimeter drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building footing foundations. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 3 of this report. Where conveyance will occur over sloped areas of the site, we recommend using fuse-welded joints, HDPE UV-resistant piping and anchors. The approved discharge point should incorporate an energy dissipator system. Water discharge shall not occur on or above the steep slope areas of the site. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test sites may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW,LLC I 04. 98528 r :A _� G rr : lt{6r10 «tBVOd Hiy� _ 1 Ln i ore � 1 P 7w { WAIL FWD 1rV E 9859-2 s �r Wry Ad _ a Tim des Llr v Reference: NORTH f I 1 Mason County, Washington Map 17 Seven County Street Atlas v,_ ByAGood Map Company, Inc. Vicinity Map 2008 Wilson Lot 39 Mason County, Washington NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be Drwn. GLS Date 03/11/2014 Proj. No. 3283 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information Checked SHA Date Mar. 2014 Plate 1 resulting from black&white reproductions of this plate. i i k \\ 4 YA!\ \ Lot 38 \ 'a \ �ewatr r Zy Y ,{� `Y`c,SS�bnmaryDrainfield �s ` \ / \ \ .c" .:.fir �-' ��. �t•�� ��\ Lot t 5. Gv v \ Proposed I �� ' :a' tgx \ Reserved Drainfeld Pro sedgyk k \ 3 ry. l_� t \ Lot 39 Lot 41 \ u *gt5R so' q " zEr� Well Radius Approximate ■— �/ / �` ;�+ ` �, k`'� e.,.,i i Drainfield Location / well, � \ TP-2 Approximate \\ `I Proposed t39d Drainfield Location I I I I �l F,: _ / I 1 I \ Transport Pipe_ LEGEND ro osed =`. 32es+dence —!—Approximate Location of 11-Gsting I Ppropos TP-1 I ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No. /� , Residence—• Se tic ES-3283, Mar. 2014 / HH-2I NORTH —I—Approximate Location of HH-1 I ESNW Hand Hole, Proj. No. 1 ES-3283, Mar. 2014 w{= Subject Site 0 40 80 160 1 Existing Building 1°=80' Scale in Feet Proposed Building All r' r' 1 1 NOTE:The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements,but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of Test Pit and Hand Hole Location Plan existing and/or proposed site features.The information illustrated Wilson Lot 39 is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study.ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes Mason County, Washington or interpretation of the data by others. NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be D�n GLS Date 03/11/2014 Proj. No. 3283 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information Checked SHA Date Mar. 2014 Plate 2 resulting from black&white reproductions of this plate. i i 18" Min. j i ° 0 ° O ° o O ° U. ° 00 ° 0 �O o 0 o o ° ° o O° o 0 ° O p O p d i °Oo 0 0 ° 0 0o ° ° ° 0°0° o 0 0 o ° ° c oo °0 0 ° O ° °°p o0 00o (50 00 ° ° o ° ° ° ° �° 0 ° o 0 O ° 0 0 ° o O ° ° ° °p o0 0 0 0 Oo oQ° o . o o o ° ° ° o 0o oop0° °o oo oo0 0°°° oo°p ° ° °°° °o 0 0 0o o° o °o ° Structural o ° ° ° ° ° o o Fill opgo oo0.00p ° o ° °p ° o g ° 0 °° ° o ° °° ° 0 °° ° 0 ° 0 04 o o ° °o o ° °o 0 0 ° ° o B o - I 00 s° ° 0 000 b c O 0 Oo o° 0 o O 0 0 ti•�J•J�•tij ti•5 •ti •r• Perforated Drain Pipe NOTES: (Surround In Drain Rock) • Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing#4 should be 25 to 75 percent. • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOT TO SCALE of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING � recommendations. • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: Y Earth0 0 Solutions NWLLC o 0 0 0 Solutions 1, ° Free Draining Structural Backfill ° ° and Environmental Sciences 0-rti rtij; 1 inch Drain Rock RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Wilson Lot 39 Mason County, Washington Drwn• GLS Date 03/13/2014 Proj. No. 3283 I Checked SHA Date Mar. 2014 Plate 3 I Slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2" (Min.) Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: • Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. • Surface Seal to consist of SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOT TO SCALE 12" of less permeable, suitable NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material. Drain Rock FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Wilson Lot 39 Mason County, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 03/13/2014IProj. No. 3283 Checked SHA I Date Mar. 2014 1 Plate 4 Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 1 B05-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425- 49-4704 Fax: 425- 49-4711 CLIENT Washington Federal c/o Barghausen PROJECT NAME Wilson Lot 39 PROJECT NUMBER 3283 PROJECT LOCATION Mason County,Washington DATE STARTED 3/3/14 COMPLETED 3/3/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Novastar GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 12" AFTER EXCAVATION — w _ U L = o `� a w Co TESTS U a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION v n-� �J Qz O U) 0 TOPSOIL TPSL, ,, 1.0 Brown silty SAND with gravel,medium dense,moist(Duff) MC=7.40% SM 3.0 -increased gravel content ° Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand,dense,moist 0 5 0 MC=9.90% ° Fines=5.70% o GP- ° GM o ° 0 �O 10 T.0 11.0 Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 11.0 feet. c a 0 Cn z c� a co of N d m J LL! Z Ul I Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449.4711 CLIENT Washington Federal c/o Barqhausen PROJECT NAME Wilson Lot 39 PROJECT NUMBER 3283 PROJECT LOCATION Mason County,Washington DATE STARTED 3/3/14 COMPLETED 3/3/14 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Novastar GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES _Depth of Topsoil&Sod 16":fems AFTER EXCAVATION — w m^ �w a- w 00 TESTS O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION QZ C7 co 0 TOPSOIL TPSL'--' i.5 0 Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand,dense,moist o ' -cobbles 0 0 5 0 -increased sand content GP- " GM 0 0 n a MC=10.20% o 10 10.0 Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. 4 a O C7 Z) C7 d U m N f" m J E LU W Z Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER HH-1 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Washington Federal c/o Barghausen PROJECT NAME Wilson Lot 39 PROJECT NUMBER 3283 PROJECT LOCATION Mason County,Washington DATE STARTED 3/3/14 COMPLETED 313/14 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR ESNW Rep GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD Hand Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF DRILLING — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 4":grass AFTER DRILLING -- w r Q' U Wa? C6 CL O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q Z C9 En 0 PSL °'' 0.5 TOPSOIL SM Brown silty SAND with gravel,medium dense to dense,moist �.s Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand,dense,moist GP- ° GM 3.0 Hand Hole terminated at 3.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of hole at 3.0 feet. a 0 c� z a c� of N d H 2 0] J W Z W C7 Earth Solutions NW BORING NUMBER HH-2 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 SAWXR1Bellevue,Washington 98005 PAGE 1 OF 1 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT _Washington Federal Go Barghausen PROJECT NAME Wilson Lot 39 PROJECT NUMBER 3283 PROJECT LOCATION Mason County,Washington DATE STARTED 3/3/14 COMPLETED 3/3114 GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE DRILLING CONTRACTOR ESNW Rep GROUND WATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD -Hand Auger AT TIME OF DRILLING — LOGGED BY SHA CHECKED BY SHA AT END OF DRILLING — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 4":grass AFTER DRILLING — EL }W a-+K W m TESTS v a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Z (� C0 0 TPSL 10.5 TOPSOIL Brown poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand,medium dense,moist MC=13.20% )O GP_ GM -becomes dense QlQ 6 3.0 Test pit terminated at 3.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of hole at 3.0 feet. N 0 t� L_ a m m N a m J Q LU W Z W C� Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ES-3283 Earth Solutions NW,LLC Earth Solutions NW GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,WA 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT WA Fed do Bamhausen PROJECT NAME Wilson Lot 39 PROJECT NUMBER ES-3283 PROJECT LOCATION Mason Co U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S,SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 � 65 �� 60 y 55 m o: Z 50 LL 45 Z u1 40 w 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 10 1 0.1 0,01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse I medium fine Specimen Identification Classification ILL PL PI Cc CU O TP-1 6.Oft. Brown Poorly Graded GRAVEL with Silt and Sand,GP-GM 0.35 84.74 a 0 m 5 Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay O TP-1 6.0ft. 37.5 14.491 0.938 0.171 58.6 35.7 5.7 W W N_ ZQ_ K i Report Distribution ES-3283 EMAIL ONLY Washington Federal Savings c/o Barghausen Consulting Engineers 18215 —72"d Avenue South Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Mr. Tom Barghausen Earth Solutions NW,LLC i 1995035 MASON CO WA 09/05/2012 03:42 PM DEED FlllllllIRST AMERICAN TITLE 057362 Rec Fee: $75.00 Pages: 4 lllfll lil ill#IIIlIII IIIiI#IIII IIII IIIII IIII#IIIII IIIII IIII IIII NO... .. lot WA R. CtSE 012i AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: PT Washington Federal Attn: Foreclosure Department 425 Pike Street rAQS , Mason C=* Seattle, WA 98101-2334 Wilson,Garry R.&Diane L., 1452.1213831 i$-149Lo -i S DT EE'S DEED The GRANTOR, Bis te, Marshall & Weibel, P.S., as present Trustee under that Deed of Trust, re' particularly described, in consideration of the premises and r rted to , hereby rants and cones without warrant to payments, Y g Y Y Washington Fed 1 f Washington Federal Savings, GRANTEE, that real property, situat County, State of Washington, described as follows: Assessor' r rty ax Parcel/Account Number(s): 32224-50-00024, 32224-50- 00025, 2 - -00925 reviated Legal: Lot 39 and 40,Cady's Sunrise Beach w/tidelands Legal Description attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit ITALS: This conveyance is made pursuant to the powers, including the power of sale, conferred upon said Trustee by that certain Deed of Trust between Garry R Wilson and Diane L Wilson Husband and Wife, as Grantor, to Washington Services, Inc., a Washington Corporation as Trustee, and Washington Federal Savings as Beneficiary, dated January 24, 2006 recorded on January 31, 2006 as No. 1859647. 2. Said Deed of Trust was executed to secure, together with other undertakings, the payments of a promissory note according to the terms thereof, in favor of TRUSTEE'S DEED- 1 kwatrusteesdeedlender Washington Federal Savings and to secure any others s of money which might become due and payable under the terms of said D of Trust. Washington Federal Savings is now known as Washington Fed 3. The described Deed of Trust provides that rea roperty conveyed therein is not used principally for agricultural or fan�nin oses. 4. Default having occurred in the oblig ons s ed and/or covenants of the Grantor as set forth in "Notice of T e Sa ' described below, which by the terms of the Deed of Trust ma opera a power to sell, the thirty-day advance "Notice of Default" was smi to the Grantor, or his successor-in- interest, and a copy of said Notice d or served in accordance with law. 5. Washington Federal being then the holder of the indebtedness secured by said Deed of Trust, delivere o said Trustee a written request directing said Trustee to sell the described prope ac dance with law and the terms of said Deed of Trust. D 6. The defaults s to the "Notice of Default" not having been cured, the Trustee, in c i the terms of said Deed of Trust, executed and on May 25, 2012 r rded ' e office of the Auditor of Mason County, Washington, a "Notice of tee' ale"of said property as Instrument No. 1989866. 7. The to , its aforesaid "Notice of Trustee's Sale", fixed the place of sale as at n en ance of the Mason County Courthouse located at Fourth & Alder ee the City of Shelton, a public place on August 24, 2012 at 10:00 am and n or ce with law, caused copies of the statutory "Notice of Trustee's Sale" e transmitted by mail to all persons entitled thereto and either posted or served o ninety(90) days before the sale; further, the Trustee caused a copy of said otice of Trustee's Sale" to be published once between the thirty-five (35) and enty-eighth (28) day before the date of sale, and once between the fourteenth 14) and seventh (7) day before the date of sale in a legal newspaper in each county in which the property or any part thereof is situated; and further, included with this Notice, which was transmitted or served to or upon the Grantor or his successor-in-interest, a "Notice of Foreclosure" in substantially the statutory form,to which copies of the Grantor's Note and Deed of Trust were attached. 8. During foreclosure, no action was pending on an obligation secured by said Deed of Trust. 9. All legal requirements and all provisions of said Deed of Trust have been complied with, as to acts to be performed and notices to be given, as provided in Chapter 61.24 RCW. TRUSTEE'S DEED-2 fcwa1,wt.dced1,nder 1995035 Page 2 of 4 09/05/2012 03:42:38 PM Mason County, WA 10. The default specified in the "Notice of Trustee's Sale' t having been cured ten (10) days prior to the date of Trustee's Sale and . ation secured by said Deed of Trust remaining unpaid, on August 24, the a of sale, which was not less than 190 days before the date of d It ' the obligation secured, the Trustee then and there sold at public auction d Grantee, the highest bidder therefore, the property hereinabove desc ' t um of$327,325.32. Dated: September 61, 2012 i ho , ite arshall & We' , P.S. illi L. Bishop, Jr., Pr i nt State of Washington s County of King On this day o ember, 2012 before me, the undersigned a Notary Public in and for the Stat f W ington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared William L. Bi resident of Bishop, White, Marshall & Weibel, P.S., the corporation t ex ed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the said instrument to be the e vol tary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein en ed and on oath states that they are authorized to execute the said instr n ESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the date and year first pbpve tten. . ,jjlSg j� , QLLY 3u ' Molly Sus Biell `O ` � y 1- %, Notary Public in and for the State of ti s Nor y Washington, residing at: King Co. rm— ' My Commission Expires: 10/20/15 0 ecrc - 2p- 5 - TRUSTEE'S DEED-3 fmatrussteesdeedlender 1995035 Page 3 of 4 09/05/2012 03:42:38 PM Mason County, WA Legal Description Eabibit"A" LOTS THIRTYNINE(39) AND FORTY(40),CADY, SE BEACH,VOLUME 4 OF PLATS,PAGE 8,RECORDS OF MASON CO GTON. TOGETHER WITH ALL TIDELANDS OF TH SECON -CLASS,FORMERLY OWNED BY THE STATE OF WASHING IN FRONT OF,ADJACENT TO,OR ABUTTING UPON SAID LO . TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO ERP UAL,NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS,EGRESS ITY PURPOSES,20 FEET IN WIDTH, AS DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 1, 1996,AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 637056. APN: 32224-50-00025 APN: 32224-50-00024 APN: 32224-50-00925 i I • i NOTICE OF TRUSTEE'S SALE-6 Fewentwwfl 18_2010 1995035 Page 4 of 4 09/05/2012 03:42:38 PM Mason County, WA I P�ON.STATFO� MASON COUNTY MO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o N Planning Division o N Y o~ P O Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 1864 (360)427-9670 Site Inspection October 23, 2006 WILLIAM OLSEN NE 10811 N. SHORE RD BELFAIR WA 98528 Case No.: SP12006-00237 Parcel No.: 322245000024 Project Description: TO DETERMINE SETBACKS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Dear Applicant Pursuant to your application, a site pre-inspection (SPI)was performed on your property. Below you will find comments made regarding the proposed development and its critical values. In some cases, setbacks for development from shorelines, steep slopes, streams, and wetlands must be included in your specific proposal; these setbacks are included as part of the comments listed below. This information is based on County and State regulations as they exist to date. These regulations may change and may affect the requirements for development of the subject property. Please contact me at(360)427-9670, ext. 294 if you have questions. Sincerely, Charles Mead McCov III Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department 10123/2006 Page 1 of 2 SP12006-00237 i Site Inspection 10/23/2006 Case No.: SP12006-00237 Comments: The zoning designation is Rural Residential 5, and the shoreline envirommnetal designation is Urban. Three adjoining parcels were inspected. one parcel has an existing single-family residence that could be replaced entirely if desired by the applicant within the existing foot print. A one-time horizontal 10% expansion of the existing footprint would be permitted if said expansion were not toward the resource, but forward of the minimum 35-foot minmium required setback distance from the shoreline. Vertical expansion is allowed to 35 feet above finished construction grade, as long as, it is no closer than 15 feet from the face of the existing bulkhead or shoreline ordinary high water mark. The waterfront parcel adjacent to the above mentioned parcel has no upland portion to build upon, it is an extemely small area requiring that a resource ordinance variance be approved to construct a dwelling forward of the 35-foot minimum setback requirement from the face of the bulkhead. There is a 10' minimum setback distance from the county-right-of-way. These setback reqirements essentially eliminate the building envelope on the property, thus requiring the resource ordinance variance to build. i The third property is on the upland side of North Shore Road and would require a building permit and Geotechnical Report for any future proposed structural development of the site. All three properties and their proposed developments could be included in the same Geotechnical Report document. 10/23/2006 Page 2 of 2 SP12DD6-00237 AAA _ MASON COUNTY LUUb PLEASE PRINT PLANNING DEPT. PRE-INSPECTION APPLICAVMN I COUNTY 5205 00 Fa Required I. Owner: ,15, Applicant: Site Address: ,rx ti - Applicant Address: Owner Address: D, / E�z City: St Zip City: / St._Zip 2 XS��_ Phone:) day Phone: ,3��.� day t Phone: ��G-/ -sua Cc// ttiag Pla er: r Email Address: JU.-AanpA,—,V I' ,eyrc��/�, e�- S om .Pi yp of Use 2 2 Z ✓_ Water Body ¢ 2. Parcel No. S o _ p o O�¢ Parcel No._9 Z 2 Z 4 -�_- o o a Z S- 7/1 3 7 E L Legal Description: Ca4 J'S' 5� r s�-k 6-e.a c A 7R 40 TZ 3. Purpose of Pre-Inspection: To c1 i (-A 5%c 4 loc4S' QNd o f L /L'h c t C= 4. Use of building: A'5 t S 5. Do any of the following exist on or adjacent to property?: slope( ) saltwater(k lake fl ) river( ) pond( ) wetland( ) seasonal runoff( } other stream seasonal creek } Directions to Site: Ga /O v If the information is incomplete, then Mason County must disclaim any errors resulting from deficiencies in the original application. Pre-inspection reports remain valid only until development changes occur in the vicinity which affect the lot evaluated in this inspection,or the laws regulating development of the site change after the time of inspection. Applicant Signature: L.c/ n-� Date: '5-ho 0 Ifyou would like to be on site during inspection,please check here: W Return application to: Department of Community Development,Planning Division P.O. Box 186 Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670 Please include a$205.00 check or money order payable to Mason County Treasurer When completed,this form becomes part of the parcel file. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:Accepted by: Date: MORE ON BACK SIDE Revised: 01/18/06 Please illustrate below the proposed building site in relation to critical areas (slopes,streams, lakes,wetlands, etc.).existing improvements, as well as property lines. APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED.WITHOUT ADEQUATE ILUSTRATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AND WILL BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT. Departmental Review (For Office Use Only) Planning Department Findings: ` EXHIBIT A , E 4k, p8 � wy �U k3l c, - •N l� Tp Lor ' l� sG am- {wo BuiLbin(a Forst blli�irS kh� -t- L-ro c G�f3t r� \U /won Pia DC�n 2Cti�,�uG2/QPr �oJ t-�.-Intcln(uULtlh Qh(�t:t 1� '.txrn1� wL cif st 1 �coo, (1 G Barghausen Parcels 32224-5G-"24 & 32224r50-"25 Habitat Management Plan Review October 101h,2014 For: Kristen French Robert W. Johnson,PLLC PO Box 1400 Shelton, WA 98584 E S Uzi I C� ssM MARINE SURVEYS Et ASSESSMENTS 521 Snagstead Way Port Townsend WA 98368 (360) 385-4073 marine.surveys.incCgmail.com October 13,2014 Kristen French Robert W.Johnson,PLLC PO Box 1400 Shelton,WA 98584 Subject: Barghausen Parcels 32224-50-00024 & 32224-50-00025 HMP Review Dear Mrs.French: Marine Surveys&Assessments was contacted by you to provide a review of the Habitat Management Plan and application materials (Geotech report, applications forms,design, code compliance... etc.) for the Barghausen Parcels 32224-50-00024&32224-50-00025 proposal for variance with particular emphasis on the scientific soundness of the report and proposed project. Please find below a list of our comments which focused primarily on any errors,missing analysis, and understated impacts in regards to the Habitat Management Plan and application materials as per your request. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions in regards to our comments or the Habitat Management Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. Cordially, Amy Leitman Marine Surveys&Assessments Marine Surveys&Assessments Barghausen Habitat Management Plan Review Pg.2 Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Comments 1. In Section 2.2 on page 2,there is the statement,"Construction of the proposed single-family residence must occur between the bulkhead and NE North Shore Road within the 100-foot buffer due to lack of buildable land in the steeply sloped forested areas." In the Mason County document Justification for Combined Variance Application, Lot 39 Cady's Sunrise Beach(Received June 11, 2014),there is the statement, "Over 96percent of the area of _Lot 39 lies northerly of North Shore Road,virtually all of which classified as a significant landslide hazard area due to slopes in excess of 40 percent."The same statement is made in the Mason County Department of Community Development Staff Report for this project on page 5. Also contained in the Staff Report(page 5) is the statement,"The proposed location of new residence utilizes the existing flat area above the concrete bulkhead on the south side of the property,the only location where special engineering would not be required, as would be needed for a proposed building on the north or upland side of the property." However, in the geotech report for this project produced by Earth Solutions NW LLC (ESNW), dated March 21, 2014,there are the following statements on page 4: Critical Area Assessment-The Washington State On-Line Coastal Atlas identifies the slope located to the north of Northeast North Shore Road as having an intermediate slope stability rating. It is our opinion that the slope on the subject site will have a low susceptibility to sliding due to the relatively large granular(gravelly)nature of the soil present in the substrate; as opposed to typical advance outwash soil which is typified by more fined grained sands with silt and gravel. And: Landslide Hazard Assessment-Based on review of the referenced topographic survey, the ascending slope along portions of the northern site is inclined more than 40 percent with a vertical relief of over ten feet in areas; and is estimated to be on the order of 150 feet in height.The slope is vegetated with a mixture of deciduous, fir, and cedar trees with a moderate understory. There were no signs of slope failure such as head scarps, bare slopes or groundwater seeps along the surface during the slope reconnaissance conducted during the fieldwork. In our opinion,the steep slope along the western and southern site boundary would exhibit a low to moderate risk for shallow landslide hazard activity in the present condition. We would expect landslide activity to be limited to surficial debris flow type failures. Our reasoning for this conclusion is that ESNW observed no signs of bedrock,or a consolidated silty layer of soil within the substrate than can be considered a plane of weakness; which would increase the risk of a slope failure if excess moisture is introduced to the slope subsurface conditions. The phrases seen in the geotech report,such as, "intermediate slope stability rating" and"low susceptibility to sliding' and"No signs of slope failure"and"low to moderate risk for shallow landside hazard activity"all seem to differ from the phrases seen in the Staff Report and the Habitat Management Plan, such as, "lack of buildable land""and significant landslide hazard area." The statement above from the Staff Report, "The proposed location of new residence utilizes the existing flat area above the concrete bulkhead on the south side of the property,the only location Marine Surveys &Assessments Barghausen Habitat Management Plan Review P9.3 where special engineering would not be required, as would be needed for a proposed building on the north or upland side of the property."seems to imply that because applicants would need additional engineering to construct a home on steeper property is ample justification for not including that area as a possible building site. Code requirements often force many builders to spend more money on engineering than they-would like—that is no reason to abandon the code. 2.According to the HMP,the site inspection of the beach area was conducted in April of 2014 at a low tide(page 5, Chapter 3. Methods). WDFW strongly prefers that Eelgrass/Macroalgae Habitat Interim Surveys be conducted between June 1 and October 1 "to insure that the full extent of eelgrass and macroalgae can be more accurately mapped." In addition,dimensions of the area actually surveyed should be reported. Qualitative distribution of macroalgae found in the area should also be recorded. The only information reported in the HMP was"sparse patches of red algae, likely Gracilaria sp was noted in the lower intertidal area"(Section 4.1,page 7). In Section 4.3 (page 9), it is stated,"The intertidal area contains sparse patches of red algae, likely Gracilaria, and no other special elements of herring breeding habitat(i.e.rooted kelp, eelgrass, and/or other available structures for egg deposition as identified during the assessment."Because survey details as mentioned above were not included in the HMP,the survey is incomplete.As mentioned above,the survey was also conducted outside the preferred survey window as proscribed by WDFW,adding another element of uncertainty to the survey findings. 3. In Section 4.1,there was no mention of the deck attached to the bulkhead and extending out over the upper intertidal area.However,the deck is shown in Appendix C—Site Plans and measures approximately 12' by 15' (approximately 180 ft2). There is no information about the age of the deck or decking material. In addition, it is our understanding that the deck is not permitted. Shade caused by overwater structures can have a negative impact on juvenile salmon migration behavior by forcing them to school at the edges of such structures before moving around them this, in turn, can provide a possible advantage to predators and cause increased mortality. It would seem appropriate to offer as part of a mitigation program to remove the deck from the site.This would help restore function and value to the upper intertidal area. 4. In Section 4.1 (page 6), there is no data concerning the actual area of the lower parcel that contains impervious surfaces.All that is mentioned are concrete stairs, cement terracing,paths and a patio with an outdoor fireplace. The actual square footage of existing impervious surfaces in the lower section as compared to proposed impervious surfaces(house footprint, driveway, etc) should be stated. In addition,there is no description of the actual size,density and area covered by the"one stand of approximately 4-5 large trees"on the proposed building area. It is not clear from the information in the HMP if that stand of trees will remain. Since the phrases "the loss of highly modified upland habitat adjacent to the shoreline" (page 17, for example) and"little to no functional habitat will be lost" (section 5.3.3,page 14) are present in several places later in the HMP,the actual density, area and size of these important riparian trees should be reported to Marine Surveys &Assessments Barghausen Habitat Management Plan Review Pg.4 determine if their presence is as insignificant as represented in the HMP. The above phrases seem to condone building a residence on the site just because it is"highly modified' and it is not"functional habitat."However,a"highly modified"parcel has more functional habitat value than a house and driveway. 5. In Section 5.3.1 (pages 13 and 14), it is stated that,"In addition,potential effects on water quality elements such as sedimentation, chemicals,excess nutrients and other runoff/stormwater inputs from the subject property are a potential source of impacts to listed species; however, appropriate stormwater treatment will be provided..."However,there are no details for what "appropriate stormwater treatment" actual entails. The only reference to this issue is seen in Section 6.2 (page 26)where it is stated,"Stormwater runoff from driveway and landscape surfaces should be properly treated prior to direct release to Hood Canal."This statement is equally vague. The reason that the HMP has vague information about the stormwater system is that the Mason County Planning Department has stated that the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has not even been created.Therefore, it;would seem premature for the HMP to state that, "appropriate stormwater treatment will be provided"and that, "Stormwater runoff from driveway and landscape surfaces should be properly treated prior to direct release to Hood Canal." Given the proximity to the marine environment and the increase in impervious surface area caused by the house construction, it would seem very important to know exactly how stormwater runoff will be treated before stating that stormwater will have no impact on"water quality elements" as is stated in the first paragraph on page 15 of the HMP and to state that there will be "No Effect" on the fish species mentioned in Table 5 on page 16. 6. Section 5.4.2 (Pages 16-17).There is no critical habitat analysis for juvenile bocaccio rockfish. Critical habitat was proposed for both juvenile canary and bocaccio rockfish in the project area in(Federal Register/Vol. 78,No.151 /Tuesday,August 6, 2013/Proposed Rules). 7. Section 5.4.2 (page18). Hood Canal is not included in the areas designated as critical habitat for Southern Resident killer whales. (Federal RegisterNol. 71,No.229/Wednesday,November 29,2006/Rules and Regulations.Page 69069. 8. Section 6.2(page26)There is no mention of additional plantings in the HMP aside from"Plant native shrubs and groundcovers in disturbed areas to help retain soils, filter stormwater and increase biodiversity of macroinvertebrates (i.e. - insects)." The Staff Report did recommend that 400 ft2 of native vegetation be planted on the south and east side of the parcel.However,there are no details concerning the types of native vegetation required.Usually,mitigation planting requires a mixture of larger trees and shrubs,rather than just native groundcovers.Actual planting plan drawings are also usually a part of all planting plans and indicate species,number of plants and locations. Marine Surveys&Assessments Barghausen Habitat Management Plan Review Pg.5 Staff Report Comments 1. Under Section B (page 4), it is stated, "This same section requires that urban shoreline lots not have more than 60%impervious surface area. Estimated impervious surface area of the residence, deck, sidewalks, and driveway is close to 4 percent of the upland and shore side property. It is not clear why the part of the parcel on the north side of the highway is considered an"urban shoreline lot."That part of the lot is not on the shoreline.Using the upland area square footage in the calculation of estimated impervious area seems misleading. Section C. Review Standards for a Variance Item 2. Page 5 Staff response: The subject parcels are almost an acre in total size, but the site is highly constrained by physical features. The property is bisected by North Shore Road which has a 60 foot right of way along the shoreline. Over 96 percent of the area of subject property lies northerly of North Shore Road, virtually all of which is classified as a significant landslide hazard area due to slopes in excess of 40 percent. See Item 1 under Habitat Management Plan above. Item 3.Page 6 Staff Response The findings in that HMP conclude that low impacts to habitat or the use of the site by salmonid species are expected to occur. The HMP effects analysis is based on incomplete information concerning the mitigation of stormwater impacts on the marine environment, i.e. the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has not been provided;therefore, it would seem premature to make the effects determinations that were presented in the HMP. Justification for Combined Variance Applications—Lot 39 Cady's Sunrise Beach comments: Criteria 1. Pages 1-2 In addition to the above, even if this slope wasn't considered a landslide hazard area, it is unlikely that a building could be physically constructed on this side of North Shore Road due to the severe gradient. It is easier to build "down"a slope using a stepped foundation than it is to build"up"a slope. Removing material from the hillside above the toe for the purpose of constructing a house and foundation also has the potential to undermine the slope,further exacerbating the potential for instability of the slope and for erosion to occur onto North Shore Road. It may be"unlikely"that a building could be constructed in that area,but it may be possible with the appropriate building methods and geotechnical engineering. Material does not necessarily Marine Surveys &Assessments Barghausen Habitat Management Plan Review Pg•6 have to be removed from the slope to construct a house.Large"pilings" of metal or concrete could be installed in the hillside for support of the structure. There are perhaps other methods that could be used that would not require"undermining"the slope. These may be more expensive,but would result in no loss of habitat function and value to the area that is adjacent to the important marine habitat area. Criteria 3.Page 4 In addition to the above considerations, the applicant retained Soundview Consultants LLC to prepare a comprehensive ('Habitat Management Plan". This plan is included with this submittal. This study meets the criteria outlined in the Mason County Code and confirms that the subject proposal should have no adverse impacts to Fish or Wildlife Habitat. See the Item 3 response above in the comments to the Staff Report. Marine Surveys&Assessments Barghausen Habitat Management Plan Review Pg.7 ti l 51b t C� II r�� • ' Nor . �r a .,+ � ter.. AI• a� '��. _ ram.— _ ;�� «i - '•� Ilk '016 t _ Y + a FJ • ,fir ''•r•,���!'r��.5 �I �� �/ /' / ��I ..' Y i copNrp MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street 1RS4 PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us MEMORANDUM RE: Bar hausen Variances Hearin Review 14 2 14 g g Examiner Re ie Oct. 0 Potential site characters or setbacks that could be proposed to lessen impacts: Using the proposed site plan, project can be proposed as: West side setback: 5 ft. East side setback: 5 ft. path easement + 5 ft. = 10 ft. Front road setback: 0 ft. Shore setback: diagonal line from west (at 6 ft. from bulkhead and west side property line & upland side of planter box) to the east (at 10 ft. from bulkhead and east side property line). With these setbacks, the residence footprint would be 35 feet across the parcel; and 20 feet deep on the west side, 25 feet deep near the septic tank location, and 12 feet deep near the steps at bulkhead on the east side. Second story at east side could include uncovered deck at southeast corner to lessen view impacts to the east side property Barghausen 10 14 2014 hearing memo 1 L)AL>erl I M N r ' G/WASHE�� /KEYSTONE / 56315 - / gWALL �' V OOD STEPS X 25.45 / l / a / S44 V'34"E 21.35' .� IR �FEN2 ` � < / ATE �—J 9-30 ,. ; x OHW 3.14'— \ 31 � 2.17 / \ <,528.94 .06 x 7A.76 " / . �� i / �/s \'�/ \ ` X 0.63 / =20.0' �w .69 7 ♦ / 5' ALKI 24: / �♦ CONC. STD X18 63705 \ S� 31� „�0 1079 , 0.69 13 ';0.•9 . -,° FIRE P CE �OHW=4.69' \ �'10.71 PO / CONC. STEPS ♦♦ N • 4 CULVERT a v .91 ems, ,�. �� PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE N N I.E. N=16.27' ` °� '°�• ' 25' X 35' (2 STORY) ° �6 ' MAX SIZE=1500 S.F. ►G AREA= ' .24 10.04 / ) ±2_ S.F. p ` PLANTER /4�* - a OWER i X a .10 7.3, �/ ♦, iZ7S 1.56 1225 CONC.ENCE P STEPS / C� ,0.02 - .19.9 / 0.f0 X o.% / ' , O 0�1�=4.44 � N \ 16A5 2ND LEVE � FINISH FLOOR=23.32 � N N 17.61 7.6 " D.I. CULVERT % INISH FL00R�15.85' N N / N I.E.=9.86' From: Allan Borden ]C �� To: Tom Barghausen CC: Allan Borden Date: 10/30/2014 3:19 PM Subject: Fwd: Barghausen decision on three Variances Attachments: Barghausen decision Tom Barghausen: I am forwarding the Variance cases decision issued yesterday AM. Look it over as it is long and detailed. Page 7, first paragraph of the Findings mentions project modifications (noted as Exhibit 24). Do you have the written memo or document that states the possible modifications to the proposed footprint that you supplied to the Hearing Examiner at the Oct. 14th hearing. If you have the memo / document, Mason County would need a copy to complete the Variance case record, to understand the approved footprint shape and area. Thanks in advance. Allan Borden Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 365 From: Allan Borden To: Phil Olbrechts CC: Allan Borden Date: 12/2/2014 2:24 PM Subject: Clarification of Barghausen variances site plan Attachments: Barghausen 11 17 14 email site plan options.pdf Phil Olbrechts: Regarding VAR2014-00005; SHR2014-00014; DDR2014-00043 The applicant Barghausen Consulting Engineers and the neighbor to the east of the subject property (represented by Kristin French) are seeking some confirmation regarding the site plan that you reviewed at the public hearing on October 14, 2014. Mr. Barghausen sent me a October 17, 2014 email with two site plan options that locate the building envelope (reduced to 20 ft. deep by 30 ft. wide) in respect to front and side property lines and the shoreline (bulkhead) setback. That email with two site plan options is attached as a PDF. Mr. Barghausen states in his message that option one to reduce the building footprint is closest to what he provided to you at the public hearing and provides a uniform 5-ft. setback from the bulkhead. Option two moves the envelope footprint farther from the southeast and southwest corners, more away from the bulkhead, close to the front (road) property line, and towards a point on the southwest side property line. This option is supported by the neighbor to the east of the subject property (represented by Kristin French), as the issue of potential view obstruction from the east (brought up at the hearing), is reduced. The view obstruction is reduced as well as from the west. Of the two options for site plan as reviewed, option two addresses more of the issues brought up at the hearing (smaller footprint envelope, less view blockage for the east and west, less potential tree removal, more area to use for buffer restoration plantings). Option two in the attachment is the preferred alternative for the envelope of the future residential building proposed. Please respond whether it is agreeable to use option two as part of the decision document, so the applicant has a specific site plan to use when the application for proposed building is submitted in the future (two to three year period). Thanks for your consideration. Allan Borden Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 ext. 365 -)AL �XIMIN ;G/WASHEP' KEYSTONE S# 6 315 -/ / / � � '34'E 21.35' / 211.75 `A / Q 44 1RN FE�Ie-� . . /3 ATE12 \ / %- ,,. �� AP 31 a �6 / 9s rl,w 9.75 + 2.17,2&94 / IX 000, x0.63 / =20.0' 5' A / `� CONC. STEM/ lo. MENT e\ N F, xt6. 637055 III / � V I • „ 0 ,079 � 69 cJ ll F 3 24.1� .13 10A ,0f Ol l Y�=4.69' \ o l PO / CONC. ,ErtEPS ♦ N �' CU LVERT .39 .91 1 � �,20 / PROPOSED BUILDING ENVELOPE I.E. N=16.27 102. `�'" �' / 25' X 35' (2 STORY) - a0 10326 _ _ / IG AREA 24` ° 10.04 'E / MAX SIZE=1500 S.F. x if / 1 d � 4 s i'�/ Vv ;2± S.F. l PLANTER x 2' 2.37 v- tL OWER , ,0. 9.10 �� 12.7 , 1.66 100D � � I0. 44 •� � Q` � ,2d5 ,� CONC. ENCE 16 y� Q� 10.02 - ,9.4' STEPS / ♦, j ' 0.10 / x 0.66 i d 10.12 G ,a,s OHUG=4.44� 10 /le.6i O �P / 2ND LEVE��FINISH FLOOR=23.32' N N 3.96 N » I � = 15.85 D.I. CULVERT INISH FL00 N � N I.E.=9.86' / 6