HomeMy WebLinkAboutShoreline HMP - HMP Habitat Managment Plan - 5/25/2021 Shoreline Habitat Management Plan
with Buffer Mitigation
TAX PARCEL #
223255005002
PROJECT ADDRESS
181 NE Steelhead Dr S
Belfair, WA 98528
PREPARED FOR
Pat Hall
pat@pathallconstruction.com
PREPARED BY
CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING
477 PARPALA RD.
NASELLE, WA 98638
509-942-9309
ryan@craterluc.com
May 25, 2021
Ryan E. Crater Date
Principal Planner and Ecologist
CRATER LAND USL
C O N S U L T I N G
Wotlonds-St,-,-Sho,dro.-Zoning
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction & Summary......................................................................................1
Chapter2. Methods ..............................................................................................................3
2.1 Data Review .......................................................................................................3
2.2 Field Investigation ..............................................................................................3
Chapter 3. Site Conditions and Project Impact ....................................................................4
3.1 Site Vicinity and Subject Parcel .........................................................................4
3.2 Critical Areas ......................................................................................................5
m 3.2.1 Stream .......................................... 5
3.2.2 Wetlands .............................................................................................6
3.3 Listed Species ....................................................................................................7
3.4 Environmental Baseline Conditions ...................................................................9
3.5 Project Impacts ................................................................................................11
3.5.1 Direct Effects .....................................................................................11
3.5.2 Temporary Direct Effects ..................................................................11
K 3.5.3 Indirect Effects...................................................................................12
3.5.4 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................12
Chapter 4. Regulatory Considerations ...............................................................................13
4.1 Existing Structures, Uses, and Lots— SMP/MCC 17.50.120(1)(e)&(f) ............13
4.2 No Net Loss and Mitigation - SMP/MCC 17.50.110(B)(1)................................14
4.3 Vegetation Conservation - SMP/MCC 17.50.110(B)(4) ...................................16
4.4 Water Quality and Quantity- SMP/MCC 17.50.110(B)(5) ...............................16
Chapter 5. Buffer Mitigation ...............................................................................................18
5.1 Mitigation Summary .........................................................................................18
5.2 Timing ..............................................................................................................18
5.3 Plantings ..........................................................................................................18
5.4 Project Sequencing ..........................................................................................19
5.5 Performance Standards ...................................................................................20
5.5.1 Survival ..............................................................................................20
5.5.2 Contingency ......................................................................................20
5.5.3 Invasive Species................................................................................20
5.6 Monitoring ........................................................................................................20
5.7 Maintenance .....................................................................................................21
5.8 Surety Bond .....................................................................................................21
Chapter 6. Best Management Practices ............................................................................22
Chapter7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................24
Chapter 8. References & Resources ..................................................................................25
i
Tables
Table 1. Associated Regulations ............................................................................................1
Table 2. Summary of Subject Parcel ......................................................................................2
Table 3. Summary of Proposed Project..................................................................................2
Table4. Site Information.........................................................................................................5
Table5. Stream Information ...................................................................................................6
Table 6. Summary of Protected Species On-Site...................................................................7
Table 7. WSDOE Watershed Assessment...........................................................................10
Table8. Plant Schedule........................................................................................................19
Table 9. Plant Survival Benchmarks ....................................................................................20
Table10. Cost Breakdown .....................................................................................................21
Figures
Figure1. Recent Aerial Photo ................................................................................................4
Figure2. Topography .............................................................................................................4
Figure 3. Stream Information .................................................................................................6
Figure 4. Area of Assessment ..............................................................................................10
Appendices
Appendix A. Site Vicinity Map
Appendix B. Proposed Project Map
Appendix C. Site Photos
Appendix D. DNR Stream Map
Appendix E. National Wetlands Inventory Map
Appendix F. 303(d) Map & Clean-up Site Info.
Appendix G. National Heritage Program Map
Appendix H. WDFW PHS Report
Appendix I. USFWS IPaC Report
Appendix J. NOAA EFH Report
Appendix K. Preliminary Client Site Plan
Appendix L. Native Plant Sources
Appendix M. Qualifications
ii
y In
Chapter 1 . introduction & Summary
Crater Land Use Consulting(CLUC)has been contracted by Pat Hall(Client)to prepare a Shoreline Habitat
Management Plan (SHMP) and No Net Loss Report for the proposed replacement of an existing Mobile
Home (single wide)with a new Manufactured Home. The proposed replacement is being requested under
the provisions of Title 17.50.120(1)(e)for the lateral expansion of an existing factory build home located on
parcel number 23255005002. This provision of the code is being used as the proposed location is within
jurisdiction of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Proposed development plans are
included as part of this report for informational purposes. The entire lot is encumbered by the prescriptive
stream/shoreline buffer of associated with Mission Creek a Type S water body. Buffer mitigation measures
are being proposed within this report to address"No Net Loss"of critical area functions found both on and
adjacent to the project site. The general purpose of this report is to comply with Mason County's regulations
regarding critical habitat areas located within shoreline jurisdiction.
Standard mitigation measures are proposed to be implemented in accordance with Mason County Code as
well as other non-prescriptive mitigation measures that are listed as part of this report. Impact avoidance
measures and management recommendations have been developed so that the proposed project will result
in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions to the greatest extent possible.
Table 1. Associated Regulations
REGULATION
RCW 90.58&WAC 173-27
MCC 17.50—Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
MCC 7.50.120—Existing Structures, Uses and Lots
MCC 8.52.170—Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
MCC 17.04—Rural Lands Development Standards
MCC 17.05—Administrative Procedures
This SHMP is designed to identify habitat within the project area and discuss potential impacts that are
anticipated as a result of the proposed project. This report will include information on the presence of
potentially regulated shoreline/critical areas,corresponding Ordinary High Watermark(OHWM)on site,and
it will list all protected species occurring within the project vicinity. In this report are findings, conclusions,
and recommendations regarding the following:
■ Site description, brief project description and areas of assessment;
■ Background information, research, and identification of regulated critical areas and fish and
wildlife habitat on-site and within the project vicinity.
■ Existing conditions site maps of the subject property detailing critical areas identified on-site with
standard buffers and setbacks;
■ Site plan with location of the proposed project;
■ Documentation of avoidance and minimization measures;
■ Buffer modifications and Buffer Enhancement Plan;
11Page
HALL •NET LOSS ••' PARCEL" 11 11CONSULTING, i
■ Best management practices;
■ Supplementary information necessary for regulatory review.
The tables below summarize the findings of this report. Please note that measurements listed are
approximate.
Table 2. Summary of Subject Parcel
ITEM TOTAL AREA
Parcel#223255005002 0.25 ac10,998 sf.
Mission Creek 82'of shoreline Type S Prescriptive buffer: 150'
Buffer Setback: 15'
Buildable area without buffer reductions 0 ac—entire parcel is encumbered
Table 3. Summary of Proposed Project
ITEM TOTAL AREA
Existing Mobile Home 14'x 16', 896 sf(Demo Permit BLD2021-00440)
Proposed SFR(Manufactured Home) 24'x 44', 1056 sf
Buffer Modification Area 6,785 sf
Buffer Enhancement Area 2,281 sf
2 1 P a g e
HALL SHMP/NO NET LOSS REPORT00 t0
Chapter 2 . Methods
2.1 Data Review
CLUC first researched existing information on potential wetlands and streams documented within the
project area vicinity. Our search for pertinent and applicable data and maps consisted of a review of the
United States Geological Survey(USGS)topographic map,the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) maps and database, the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, and the United States Department of
Agriculture — National Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Web Soil Survey. Additional
information was obtained from Washington State Department of Natural Resources(DNR)Forest Practices
Application Review System (FPARS), WDFW SalmonScape mapping application, Washington State Lidar
Portal, Mason County geographic information system(GIS)data, Mason County Shoreline Master Program,
and numerous orthophoto graphic resources and similar GIS mapping resources available from Esri
ArcGIS.
2.2 Field Investigation
Lead Ecologist Ryan Crater investigated the parcel for the presence of regulated critical areas on March
9 Y 9 P P 9
20, 2020. The site was walked to identify potential jurisdictional wetlands and fish and wildlife habitats that
would be regulated under the Mason County Code (MCC), Mason County Shoreline Master Program
(SMP), and state and federal agencies with jurisdiction. Special consideration was given to areas where
project activities may come within close proximity to forested areas, to fish and wildlife habitat conservation
areas, to wetlands or streams, or their buffers. The actual high-water mark of Mission Creek was walked
and recorded on-site with a handheld GPS unit.
3 1 P a g e
Chapter 3 . Site Conditions and Project Impact
3.1 Site Vicinity and Subject Parcel
The proposed project site is located in Mason County at 181 NE Steelhead Dr S, Belfair, WA 98528 (see
Appendix A: Site Vicinity Map).The Mason County tax parcel number is 223255005002.It currently contains
a mobile home with associated driveway, municipal waterline, and existing septic. The proposed project
site is in a neighborhood that is dominated by residential uses and undeveloped land.The subject parcel is
vaguely rectangular(irregular) in shape,with properties in the immediate vicinity being of a similar size and
shape. Of the parcel's 0.25 total acres, the entirety is encumbered by the standard 150' Type S stream
buffer.
The terrain on-site is gently sloping from Steelhead Dr. toward Mission Creek. Slope is approximately 4%
heading downhill in an easterly direction across the subject parcel. The homesite itself has been leveled
and graded in the past for the existing mobile home in addition to site preparation work observed while
conduction field work for this project. A silt fence was observed being in place on site separating the site
work from the adjoining critical area.
Figure 1. Recent Aerial Photo
Google Earth historic imagery from 2013. More recent
imagery is available,but it is poor quality and does not show
the stream. The white roof of the existing mobile home is
partially visible beneath the trees.
Figure 2. Topography
Basemap from Washington State Lidar Portal
(Olympics_south_opsw_2019_dtm). 10-foot Contour lines
a ► in blue and subject parcel boundary in black from Mason
County. OHWM (pink line) recorded via handheld GPS on
March 20,2021.-CLUC map May 2021
4 Page
HALL •NET LOSS REPORT
Table 4. Site Information
SITUS ADDRESS 181 NE Steelhead Dr S, Belfair, WA 98528
TAX PARCEL# 223255005002
SECTION/TOWNSHIP/RANGE SEC 25, TWP 23N, RNG 2W
JURISDICTION Unincorporated Belfair(Mason County)
ZONING Rural Residential(RR5)
LAND USE 19- Residential-Vacation and Cabin 05
PARCEL SIZE 0.25 acres(10,998 sq.ft.)
PARCEL SHAPE Irregular(vaguely rectangular)
SITE CONDITION Existing mobile home w/associated municipal water/septic/driveway
ELEVATION Garmin GPS altitude reading: 31.42 within subject property.
WATERBODIES ON-SITE Mission Creek
WRIA 15 Kitsap
HYDROLOGIC UNIT CODE 171100180103—Little Mission Creek—Frontal Hood Canal
(HUC)#
3.2 Critical Areas
3.2.1 Stream
The subject lot boarders Mission Creek and its associated floodplain and is approximately 15 miles long
including associated tributaries. The main channel is approximately 11 miles long, originating north of the
subject parcel in Kitsap County, and draining into Hood Canal to the south. The DNR Forest Practices
Application Mapping Tool (FPAMT) indicates that the nearest of Mission Creek's numerous tributaries are
a Type F stream approximately 1000 feet south of the subject parcel, and another Type F stream
approximately 1,600 feet to the north. See Appendix D for the DNR Stream Map.
Mission Creek itself is classified as a Type S(Shoreline)stream. MCC 8.52.170 lists a 150-foot prescriptive
buffer for this type of stream,with a 15-foot building setback. The Washington State Department of Ecology
lists Mission Creek as a Category 5 — 303(d) waterbody along much of its length, including the stretch
associated with the subject parcel.
Habitat conditions associated with Mission Creek on site were observed to be healthy but constrained by
dense rural residential development on lots a half of acre in size or less. This section of Mission Creek is
located within the lower 25% of the drainage basin just before discharging into Hood Canal.
Based upon field observations and a review of existing information, no plant species listed as threatened,
endangered, or sensitive by the Washington State Natural Heritage Program are known or likely to occur
on the subject property or its immediate vicinity (see Appendix G).
5 1 P a g e
HALL SHMP/NO NET LOSS REPORT-PARCEL#223255005002-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,MAY 2021
Table 5/Figure 3. Stream Information
Stream Name Mission Creek
Water Course ID 203767
SMP Jurisdiction
Environmental Residential
j� Designation
DNR Water Type S
Buffer Width 150 feet
Floodplain Yes-Zone A(FIRM
Map 53045C)
Winter Steelhead,
Documented Fish
Cutthroat, Coho and
Use Chum.
The creek runs perpendicular to the proposed site of the replacement
Location of Stream structure. The distance between the replacement structure and the
Relative to Project OHWM is-42 feet. The replacement structure will be located -5 feet
further away from the creek then the exiting mobile home.
Flows from north to south and has approx. 15 miles of stream length
Basin and Flow (including tributaries) draining out of a basin area of approximately 13
Information square miles. Headwaters of Mission Creek is Mission Lake and its
associated wetlands.
Dense residential development exists along this reach of Mission
Creek within the prescriptive shoreline buffer. Approximately 150+
lots are within 100 feet of Mission Creek with many of these having a
fully vegetated buffer of 50 feet or less. There are areas of dense
vegetation along the creek, predominantly consisting of cedar(Thuja
Riparian/Buffer Condition plicata), alder(Alnus rubra), Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii), and
big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). Shrubs consist of salmonberry
(Rubus spectabilis),willows (Salix spp.) and various herbs with sword
fern (Polystichum munitum) being the predominant species adjacent
to the site. Some areas along this section are slowly eroding during
heavy flow events.
3.2.2 Wetlands
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map indicated one riverine wetland category, which is directly
associated with Mission Creek. Aside from this, no wetlands were listed within the proposed project area
or greater vicinity. See NWI map in Appendix E. The Mission Creek wetland category is as follows:
21.27-acre Riverine habitat is classified as a R3UBH:
System Riverine (R) : The Riverine System includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within
a channel, with two exceptions: (1) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent
mosses, or lichens, and (2) habitats with water containing ocean-derived salts of 0.5 ppt or greater. A
6 1 P a g e
HALL i NET LOSS 'i' PARCEL 4223255005002- D USE CONSULTING,
channel is an open conduit either naturally or artificially created which periodically or continuously contains
moving water, or which forms a connecting link between two bodies of standing water.
Subsystem Upper Perennial (3) : This Subsystem is characterized by a high gradient. There is no tidal
influence, and some water flows all year, except during years of extreme drought. The substrate consists
of rock, cobbles, or gravel with occasional patches of sand. The natural dissolved oxygen concentration is
normally near saturation. The fauna is characteristic of running water, and there are few or no planktonic
forms. The gradient is high compared with that of the Lower Perennial Subsystem, and there is very little
floodplain development.
Class Unconsolidated Bottom(UB) : Includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats with at least 25% cover
of particles smaller than stones(less than 6-7 cm), and a vegetative cover less than 30%.
Water Regime Permanently Flooded(H) : Water covers the substrate throughout the year in all years.
3.3 Listed Species Information (USFWS, WDFW, NOAA)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) Endangered Species Act(ESA) listed species and critical
habitats impacting the project site were identified for the purposes of this report, along with Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitat Species (PHS), and NOAA Fisheries
Essential Fish Habitat(EFH) and protected species. See Appendices H-J for supporting documentation.
Table 6. Summary of Protected Species On-Site
CRITICAL PRESENT
PROTECTION EFFECT DETERMINATION
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME HABITAT IN ACTION
STATUS ON-SITE AREA DETERMINATION FACTORS'
Marbled Brachyramphus ESA No Not Likely No Effect 1,3,4,7
Murrelet marmoratus Threatened
Streaked Eremophila ESA No Not Likely No Effect 1,3,4,7
Horned Lark alpestris strigata Threatened
Yellow-billed coccyzus ESA No Not Likely No Effect 1,3,4,7
Cuckoo americanus Threatened
Western Pond Actinemys WA State Occurrence Not Likely No Effect 3,4,5,6,7
Turtle marmorata Endangered
Salvelinus ESA May Affect, Not
Bull Trout confluentus Threatened No Yes Likely to Adversely 5,6
Affect
Salvelinus May Affect, Not
Dolly Varden malma PSAT No Yes Likely to Adversely 5,6
Affect
Winter Oncorhynchus PHS Listed Occurrence May Affect, Not
Steelhead mykiss Occurrence Migration Yes Likely to Adversely 5,6
Affect
7 Page
HALL SHMPINO NET LOSS REPORT-PARCEL#223255005002-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,MAY 2021_1
Resident May Affect, Not
Coastal clarki Oncorhynchus OccPHSurrence
Listed Occurrence Yes Likely to Adversely 5,6
Cutthroat clarki Occurrence Migration Affect
i
Oncorhynchus PHS Listed May Affect,Not
Cutthroat clarki Occurrence Occurrence Yes Likely to Adversely 5,6 C
Affect j
Oncorhynchus PHS Listed Breeding May Affect,Not
Coho kisutch Occurrence Area Yes Likely to Adversely 5,6
Occurrence Affect
Oncorhynchus PHS Listed Breeding May Affect,Not
Fall Chinook tshawytscha Occurrence Area Yes Likely to Adversely 5,6
Affect
Fall Chum Oncorhynchus PHS Listed Breeding May Affect,Not
Yes Likely to Adversely 5,6
keta Occurrence Area Affect
Oncorhynchus PHS Listed May Affect,Not
Chum keta Occurrence Occurrence Yes Likely to Adversely 5,6
Affect
'DETERMINATION FACTORS
5.No in-water or shoreline work will occur for this project.
1.No critical habitat exists within the project vicinity.
6.BMPs will be implemented to reduce sedimentation and
2.No additional clearing of vegetation will occur. contamination of the aquatic environment.
3.Habitat on-site is not ideal. 7.BMPs will be implemented to reduce disturbance from
4.Any species presence on-site would likely not be more construction activity.
than transitory.
■ Bird Species
The habitat on-site does not meet the ideal habitat requirements of the marbled murrelet. Habitat features
that are typically associated with this species include mature forest ecosystems with trees greater than 100-
200 years of age, large standing snags of similar age class, and an intact and mature multi-level forest
canopy ecosystem, which does not exist on-site. The forest habitat that is present on site is fragmented by
surrounding roads and residential development. Nevertheless, it is still possible, though not likely that the
marbled murrelet could be found on-site, particularly given the subject parcel's proximity to large tracts of
forestland in the greater surrounding area. Transitory or anomalous presence may be possible, but such
presence will not be significant enough to anticipate any major, lasting impact to this species from the
proposed project.
The remaining two(2) protected bird species, yellow-billed cuckoo and streaked horned lark also lack ideal
habitat within the project vicinity. Yellow-billed cuckoos are associated with open deciduous woodlands
covering many acres. Streaked horned larks are associated with prairies and open undeveloped coastal
habitat. The dense coniferous forest habitat and residential development in the project vicinity do not meet
the typical habitat requirements of either species, leading to the conclusion that it is unlikely that either
species would be found on-site.Transitory or anomalous presence may be possible, but such presence will
not be significant enough to anticipate any major, lasting impact to these species from the proposed project.
8 1 P a g e
c
■ Western Pond Turtle
Habitat on-site is suitable for the western pond turtle,though not ideal. The potential for species presence
is low due to an overall lack of suitable habitat in the greater vicinity. Habitat features on-site include
undercut banks, some small emergent logs for basking, and sun exposure. The river itself is not suitable
for overwintering due to increased flow during the rainy months. Frequent seasonal highwater events are
evidenced by streambank erosion on-site, making the bank itself inadequate shelter for overwintering.
There is no substantial woody or obstructive upland vegetation above to the riverbank within the subject
parcel,so this area could potentially be suitable for overwintering or nesting, though the density of the grass
and other herbaceous vegetation is not ideal. No signs of species presence were observed during the field
investigation.
Species presence on-site is ultimately very unlikely due to inappropriate habitat and human disturbances
in the greater vicinity, and the limited population of the species to begin with. Much of Mission Creek is
heavily shaded, to the point where the stream is barely visible or even completely shrouded in tree cover
from an aerial view. The subject parcel happens to be situated on one of the only sun-exposed stretches in
the immediate vicinity. Overland travel of the species into the area is inhibited by human disturbances such
as roads, fences, and other development, as well as areas of dense forest underbrush.Additionally, a lack
of adjacent wetland areas (see Appendix E NWI map) means that the turtles would have to travel a large
distance through challenging terrain and human disturbance to reach the sub-par habitat and contaminated
water offered by Mission Creek. This leads to the conclusion that it is unlikely the western pond turtle would
be found on-site. Transitory or anomalous presence may be possible, but such presence will not be
significant enough to anticipate any major, lasting impact to this species from the proposed project.
■ Fish Species
Stream habitat in Mission Creek is suitable for all fish species listed in Table 6 above. The likelihood of
finding any one of these species year-round is high enough that their presence should be assumed. An
impact rating of May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect is appropriate for this project. No in-water work
is proposed. The project itself is of a limited nature as construction of the proposed structure will occur off-
site. During demolition and removal of the existing mobile home, Best Management Practices listed in
Chapter 6 will ensure that the stream is protected. Buffer Mitigation will further protect the stream and
enhance habitat, including the removal of a chain link fence and other debris from the water, and the
planting of a robust vegetated buffer between the stream and the proposed development.
3.4 Environmental Baseline Conditions
The environmental baseline represents the existing set of conditions, to which the effects of the proposed
action are subsequently added. The environmental baseline is defined as"the past and present impacts
of all federal, state, and private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated
impacts of all proposed federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or informal
Section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the
consultation process," (50 CFR 402.02).
Mission Creek originates approximately eight(8)miles north of Lynch Cove(Hood Canal)in Kitsap County.
Shoreline development is concentrated on the lower portion of the stream, beginning near the subject
parcel, and continuing to the mouth. The majority of Mission Creek runs through undeveloped timberland.
There is one (1) remediated Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) Clean Up Site within a
one (1) mile radius of the subject parcel, located downstream along Mission Creek. This site previously
contained soil contamination of benzene, lead, diesel, gasoline, and other non-halogenated organics. The
9 1 P a g e
HALL •NET LOSSI1 112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING, 1
WSDOE water quality assessment rates Mission Creek as a Figure 4. Area of Assessment
Category 5, placing it on the 303(d) list. Category 5
waterbodies are defined by WSDOE as"Water bodies whose f z
r'r s e
designated uses (such as for drinking, recreation, aquatic 11.
habitat, and industrial use) ... are impaired by pollutants
...identified in the water quality assessment as Category 5:
Polluted water that requires a water improvement project."
A 2009 WSDOE funded study by Mason County and the Hood ;
Canal Salmon Enhancement Group found that "...the more
developed regions in the lower segment of [Mission Creek]
watershed is strongly associated with fecal coliform pollution"
(Mason pp. 34). Given the level of development on lower
Mission Creek, it is unlikely that this situation has been �� f
significantly improved in the last 12 years. �
Data from the WSDOE Puget Sound Watershed
Characterization Project echoes the finding that overall, the vicinity of the subject parcel has lower water
quality ratings than the undeveloped area upstream. In fact, ratings are worse across most categories. The
overall rating is for the Sum of Freshwater Index Components is 16 out of a possible 20 in the developed
shoreline areas, and 18 in the undeveloped shoreline areas immediately adjacent. This category assesses
"Local salmonid habitats-the quantity and quality of habitats for all salmonids present or potentially present
in the assessment unit. Downstream salmonid habitats - the quality and quality of salmonid habitat
downstream of the assessment unit. Hydrogeomorphic features — all extant wetlands and undeveloped
floodplains in the assessment unit" (WS DOE 2020).
Table 7. WSDOE Watershed Assessment— Immediate Site Vicinity
FACTOR TYPE RATING
Water Flow Overall Degradation Moderate*
Water Flow Overall Importance Moderate-High*
Water Quality Sediment Moderate*
Water Quality Phosphorus Moderate*
Water Quality Metals Moderate*
Water Quality Nitrogen Low*
Water Quality Pathogens Moderate*
Fish and Wildlife Habitats Sum of Freshwater Index 16**
Components
*Ratings in this category range:Low,Moderate,Moderate High,and High.**Ratings in this category range from 1 (worst)to 20
(best).
The relative capacity to generate and transport sediment to aquatic systems during a storm was rated
Moderate forthis area. Land uses such as forestry, urban and rural residential development,and agriculture
can cause sedimentation of nearby waterways to occur. According to WSDOE, areas that generate
relatively high quantities of sediment typically have higher gradients, more erosive soils, and an extensive
change in native land cover. Residential development is likely a major contributing factor to this rating.
101Page
PARCELHALL SHMP/NO NET LOSS REPORT- ' 0, CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,MAY 2021
Waterflow Overall Importance for the subject parcel and greater vicinity is rated as Moderate-High,
indicating that impacts to Mission Creek must be accounted for and avoided with any new development.
According to WSDOE, "When precipitation is'delivered' as either rain or snow, there are physical features
that control its surface and subsurface movement within an assessment unit. These physical features
include land cover, storage areas such as wetlands and floodplains, areas of higher permeability and
recharge and areas that discharge groundwater.These areas are considered'important'to the overall water
flow process."
Finally, Degradation to Overall Water Flow processes was rated Moderate High by WSDOE. This category
"assesses the overall 'relative' degradation to the Delivery, Surface Storage, Recharge, and Discharge
components of the water flow process for analysis units. Degradation to these processes results in the
accelerated movement of surface flows downstream." This accelerated delivery increases downstream
flooding and erosion, which degrades aquatic habitat over time. Sediment entering streams has potential
to harm or kill aquatic plants and insects, both which provide habitat and food for fish. Sediment can also
destroy gravel spawning beds and resting pools needed for fish reproduction.
Based on this readily available data, CLUC has determined that the environment in the project vicinity and
within Mission Creek has consistently been impacted by residential and other development, including roads.
In addition, it is reasonable to assume that the existing environmental conditions in the vicinity have also
been degraded by other organic and inorganic pollutants, deforestation, and other anthropogenic changes
that are typically associated with urbanization in the greater Puget Sound area.
3.5 Project Impacts
This section describes anticipated permanent and temporary impacts associated with the project and the
proposed minimization measures to address these impacts. It is important to note that measures were taken
to avoid, reduce, and minimize impacts associated with this project; however, some minor impact to critical
areas may be unavoidable due to the nature of the project. Impact avoidance and minimization was
practiced to the furthest extent possible. The analysis of impacts and determination of effects in this report
are based on prior experience with other applicable projects and review of relevant literature. Critical area
impacts likely to result from the project are listed here and are discussed in the following paragraphs.
3.5.1 Direct Effects
The main potential direct effect to the critical areas and habitat on-site will be the land expenditure or
physical area occupied by the development above what is currently being occupied.Additionally, there will
likely be an increased human presence on the site once the new home is installed and occupied. Run-off
from landscaping activity could have a direct impact, though it will be mitigated by implementing proper
drainage systems and foregoing the use of fertilizers and pesticides when at all possible.
3.5.2 Temporary Direct Effects
Temporary direct effects caused by the proposed project include:
• Sedimentation from earthmoving activities associated with the removal of the existing mobile home
and installation of the manufactured home. Sedimentation will be minimal due to the previous
development.The use of silt fencing and geo-textile fabric during construction will further mitigation
sedimentation.
° Noise will come from a variety of tools and equipment over the course of the installation. It will be
short term and intermittent and is expected to be a maximum of 80-90 dBA in the immediate work
vicinity.
111Page
HALL SHMP/NO NET LOSS REPORT-PARCEL#223255005002-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,MAY 2021
° Water pollution from incidental release of fuel or other contaminants: Accidental spills of fuel or
other contaminants are a possible effect at most all construction sites. As outlined in Chapter 8,
Spill Prevention Control measures and BMPs shall be implemented during the proposed project.
3.5.3 Indirect Effects
Indirect effects are those effects reasonably certain to result from the proposed action at a later time.
Possible indirect effects from the proposed project include:
• Cumulative impacts over the long-term planning period for like actions.
° The use of outside resources in the construction and occupancy of the home. The Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA) identifies the construction of new single-family homes as one of the most
significant sources of life cycle environmental and resource use impacts in the U.S.
3.5.4 Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are defined as "those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal
activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the action subject to consultation,"
(50 CFR 402.02). Cumulative impacts are difficult to access. Continued growth and urbanization is likely to
detrimentally impact fish and wildlife resources.
This single project is not expected to have a cumulative effect. In the event that all remaining undeveloped
residential lots located along Mission Creek are eventually developed, there could be some cumulative
impact, though it is the opinion of this report that this scenario is not likely to occur in the foreseeable future;
There are 22 total lots containing or directly bordering the creek within the housing development where the
subject parcel is located. Of those, 11 lots (or 50%) appear undeveloped from satellite imagery.
Development downriver to the south is of a similar density. To the north, the river is not touched by
development at all as it flows through timberland for the majority of its total length. Even if all of the
still impacted due to zoning.
residential riverfront lots were developed,the majority of the river would sti I not be p g
Additional non-prescriptive mitigation measures have been proposed to address both direct and cumulative
impacts associated with the project.The project has been designed to comply with all applicable regulations
regarding site location, dimensional standards, and similar requirements.
121Page
Chapter 4. Regulatory Considerations
The proposed replacement of the existing mobile home with a new manufactured home is to occur within
150 feet of a Type S Waterbody identified within this report as Mission Creek. Proposed development
actions located adjacent to a Type S stream are typically prohibited within 150 feet if other areas on site
are outside of the prescriptive buffer to locate the development. With no available area on-site to locate the
proposed replacement structure outside of the stream buffer the applicant is seeking relief through the
provisions of Title 17.50.120 Existing Structures, Uses and Lot. Specifically, subsection (1)(e)for the lateral
expansion of structures into areas prohibited by the current bulk, dimensional or performance standards.
A description of each major element of the proposed project is included below. A regulatory overview
addressing the requirements of each element is laid out in the subsequent sections of this chapter.
Replacement of Grandfathered Factory Built Home
Demolition and removal of an existing 896 square foot mobile home with a 1,056 square foot manufactured
home is being proposed. As the existing home is under 1,000 square feet, a new factory built home up to
1,120 square feet(or 125% of the existing home's size) is allowable without a variance.
Buffer Reduction
Mission Creek runs through the subject parcel from north to south. 82 feet of shoreline is located on the
eastern side of the property. Mission Creek's 150-foot Type S stream buffer covers the entire subject parcel.
The proposed reduced buffer is approximately 35 to 45 feet wide.These widths represent a 70 to 77 percent
reduction of the standard buffer within the subject parcel. Being that the required relief from the standards
to allow for reasonable use is greater than 25 percent,the project will be required to obtain approval through
a Shoreline Variance for a buffer reduction greater than 25 percent.
Buffer Mitigation
Enhancement is being proposed within the 2,281 square feet of retained buffer on-site. Dense planting of
trees, shrubs, and ferns will provide greater protection of the stream from the proposed development than
currently exists. 74 native plants, including three (3)tree species, three(3)shrub species, and one (1)fern
species will be planted to add diversity, enhance the buffer, and stabilize the shoreline. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) listed in Chapter 6 of this report will also be implemented to ensure minimum disruption
of buffer habitat on-site.
Removal of a length of chain link fence will restore the stream and improve its function. Any other manmade
debris observed will also be removed.
4.1 Existing Structures, Uses and Lots - SMP/MCC 17.50.120(1)(e)&(f)
This section addresses existing structures, uses, and lots that were lawfully constructed or established prior
to the effective date of the Mason County SMP, but that do not meet the Program's standards.
Consultant Comment: The existing Mobile Home was established prior to the effective date of the existing
provisions of Title 17 and eight (8). County records available online show that a septic evaluation was
completed on the property in March of 1996 by the County Health Department including an"As Built" Septic
Plan dated 1981 for a three (3) bedroom Mobile Home being available. The existing structure appears to
meet the provisions for being considered a grandfathered factory built home and eligible for consideration
of this reasonable relief provision.
131Page
Lateral expansion of structures into areas prohibited by current bulk, dimensional or performance standards
shall require a Variance, with the following exception: For the replacement of grandfathered factory built
homes, a greater building footprint than existed prior to replacement may be allowed in order to
accommodate the replacement of a factory built home that is less than 1,000 square feet with another
factory built home that does not have the same size and shape. A proposed increase less than 25% of the
existing home's footprint shall not require a Variance. Applications for such replacements shall include a
Habitat Management Plan that identifies measures to protect habitat and mitigates for unavoidable impacts.
The replacement home may be no closer to the shoreline than the existing residence.
Consultant Comment: The project proposes to demolish and remove an existing 896 square foot Mobile
Home and replace it with a new 1,056 square foot Manufactured Home. The maximum size increase
allowed under this provision would be a total of 224 square feet for a total of 1,120 square foot maximum
allowed for a replacement structure. The proposed replacement home is 1,056 square feet, which is 64
square feet under the maximum dimensional standard allowed for under the SMP. The proposed project
meets the minimum standards to allow for the replacement of the existing Mobile Home with a new
Manufactured Home without having to require a Variance. This Habitat Management Plan has identified
measures to protect habitat and mitigate for unavoidable impacts. The replacement home will no closer to
the shoreline than the existing residence. The proposed footprint will be located five (5) feet further away
from the stream then the existing structure.
A grandfathered structure or structural footprint that is moved any distance on the subject parcel or
changed in shape shall increase its conformity with the Program and with property line setback
requirements (per the Development Regulations) to the maximum extent practicable provided:
i. It does not increase any intrusion to any critical area buffer or setback and provided its
conformity with property line setback requirements(per the Development Regulations) is
increased to the maximum extent practicable;
ii. Unless recommended otherwise by a fish and wildlife habitat professional or a by the author of
a Geotechnical Report, any remaining structural components(such as a foundation)shall be
removed from the abandoned footprint. A Habitat Management Plan shall be submitted that
includes enhancement of the abandoned footprint with riparian vegetation (upland of the OHWM
only) as well as mitigation for the new footprint;
Consultant Comment: The replacement structures footprint will be slightly moved away from Mission
Creek. The building footprints of old and new structures do overlap, but the new structure will be a slightly
different shape and size. Limitations of the lot and existing septic/driveway prevent any further conformity
with the SMP as it relates to the location of the new structure on-site. The foundation of the abandoned
footprint shall be removed. Buffer enhancement measures are proposed between the shoreline and the
new/old footprints.
4.2 No Net Loss and Mitigation - SMP/MCC 17.50.110(B)(1)
a. Except when specifically exempted by statute, all new shoreline use and development, including
preferred uses and uses that are exempt from permit requirements, shall be located, designed, constructed,
conducted, and maintained in a manner that maintains shoreline ecological functions.
Consultant Comment: The proposed project is compatible with the existing residential uses in the area
and with uses planned for the area under the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Master
Program. Specifically,the comprehensive plan,zoning, and Mason County Shoreline Master Program both
plan for and allow residential development to occur within this area.
The proposed development has been located as far away from the critical area as possible and is located
over the footprint of former development on the lot.Any potential loss to current ecological functions will be
141Page
addressed with proposed buffer enhancement features in areas of the existing buffer, which are described
in Chapter 5 of this report. No net loss of ecological functions is anticipated as a result of this project.
b. Proponents of new shoreline use, and development shall employ measures to mitigate unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline
resources.
Consultant Comment: Buffer enhancement is being proposed as part of this project to ensure that no net
loss of ecological functions will result from the approval of the project Building Permit Application. Best
Management Practices to protect buffer and shoreline habitats will be implemented for both the construction
and occupancy phase of the project (see Chapter 6.)
c. Mitigation measures shall be applied in the following sequence of steps listed in order of priority:
Consultant Comment: Items iii, v, and vi are applicable to this project. Comments are below each.
i. Avoiding the adverse impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
ii. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by
using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
iii. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment;
Consultant Comment: Minor in-stream restoration work is proposed that will include the removal of an
existing chain link fence from the river. A Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)would need to be secured from
the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to the removal of the chain link fence from
creek. A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination may need to be issued by Mason County
prior to the issuance of an HPA if not otherwise exempted from SEPA review. Any other manmade debris
observed associated with the chain link fence such will also be removed.
iv. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations;
v. Compensating for the adverse impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources
or environments;
Consultant Comment: Buffer enhancement measures are being proposed to improve the existing buffer
area, which will both improve on-site habitat and ensure a healthy and densely vegetated buffer is
maintained into the future.
vi. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective
measures.
Consultant Comment: Enhancement work should be monitored and reviewed by CLUC or another a
qualified person(s) annually for five (5)years to ensure that the enhancement area is healthy and meeting
the Performance Standards listed in Chapter 5 of this report.
d. In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower priority
measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined to be infeasible or
inapplicable.
Consultant Comment: The best possible mitigation measure within the subject parcel given current
conditions and the scope of the proposed project is to enhance the existing buffer area with native
vegetation and clean manmade debris from Mission Creek associated with the failed chain link fence in the
creek. This approach has been determined appropriate for this specific project.
e. Required mitigation shall not exceed a level necessary to assure that proposed uses or development will
result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
151Page
Consultant Comment: Vegetation is proposed to be planted within the prescriptive buffer area between
the stream and the proposed new development.The intent of the proposed enhancement will be to achieve
a densely vegetated buffer with diversity of species and canopy layers to ensure no net loss of shoreline
ecological functions will result should the project be approved.
f. Mitigation actions shall not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline uses fostered by the
policies of the Shoreline Management Act.
Consultant Comment: No adverse impacts from the proposed shoreline mitigation are anticipated as a
result of this projects approval and implementation. The proposed shoreline mitigation will have a long-term
positive impact in that it seeks to increase the site conformity to existing critical area standards to the
greatest extent possible and allow for reasonable use of the property by the owner.
g. Compensatory mitigation measures shall occur in the vicinity of the impact or at an alternative location
within the same watershed or marine shoreline reach that provides greater and more sustainable ecological
benefits.
Consultant Comment: Compensatory mitigation will occur in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
project,within the buffer area separating the proposed structure from Mission Creek. The location proposed
for native plantings will provide the greatest ecological benefit possible given the size of the property.
h. Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms or
conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. See the Fish & Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas chapter of the Resource Ordinance (MCC 8.52.170.J) for detailed requirements for
Habitat Management Plans, mitigation, monitoring, maintenance, and bonding.
Consultant Comment:The requirements of MCC 8.52.170.J are fully addressed in Chapter 5 of this report
and include all plans for mitigation, monitoring, maintenance, and bonding.
,r i. Land that is constrained by critical areas and buffers shall not be subdivided to create parcels that are
only buildable through a Shoreline Variance.
Consultant Comment: Lot subdivision is not being proposed for this project.
4.3 Vegetation Conservation - SMP/MCC 17.50.110(B)(4)
a. Unless otherwise specified, all new shoreline uses and development shall comply with the buffer
provisions of this program to protect and maintain native shoreline vegetation.
Consultant Comment: The buffer area on-site is currently cleared of existing vegetation except for a few
cedar trees and a small strip of vegetation located along Mission Creek. No further clearing of buffer
vegetation is necessary to accomplish the project.
b. Vegetation clearing in shoreline jurisdiction shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate
approved shoreline development.
Consultant Comment: No additional clearing of the buffer area above that which is the minimum
necessary to accomplish the project is being proposed.
4.4 Water Quality and Quantity - SMP/MCC 17.50.110(13)(5)
a. Shoreline use and activity shall incorporate measures to protect and maintain surface and ground water
quantity and quality in accordance with all applicable laws.
Consultant Comment: Appropriate BMPs should be used both during and after construction to maintain
quantity and quality of water sources on-site and within the natural drainage paths.
161Page
b. All shoreline uses and activities shall use stormwater and erosion control and treatment methods during
both project construction and operation. At a minimum, erosion control methods shall require compliance
with the provisions of MCC Chapter 14.48 (Stormwater Management) and 17.80 (Low Impact
Development).
Consultant Comment: BMPs shall be used to control pollution from stormwater. BMPs shall be used to
comply with the standards in MCC Chapter 14.48.A list of BMPs for the construction and occupancy phases
of the project are included in Chapter 6 of this report.
c. Where permitted, on-site sewage systems shall be located and designed to meet all applicable water
quality, utility, and health standards. The owner must be in compliance with the current edition of Mason
County Public Health On-site Standards and Mason County Board of Health On-site Sewage Regulations.
Consultant Comment: Use of existing septic and/or installation of new septic shall be approved by Mason
County Public Health prior to project start.
d. Materials used for components that may come in contact with water shall be made of materials approved
by applicable state agencies for use in water. Wood treated with creosote, chromated copper arsenate,
pentachlorophenol, or other similarly toxic materials is prohibited for use in the Aquatic environment. Tires
and tire by-products shall not be used for construction where they would contact the water. Where
chemically-treated materials are the only feasible option, materials shall use the least toxic alternative
approved by applicable state agencies for use in water. Treated wood elements shall incorporate design
features to minimize abrasion by vessels, pilings, floats or other objects.
Consultant Comment: No in-water or immediately water adjacent work is being proposed under this
project.
e. Shoreline developments adjacent to areas suitable for aquaculture shall practice strict pollution control
procedures. As required by MCC 8.52.170.D.2, design and siting of all new construction and major new
development shall not adversely impact water quality.
Consultant Comment: No in-water or immediately water adjacent work is being proposed under this
project. The proposed project site is separated from the shoreline by a modest vegetated buffer which will
be enhanced and dutifully maintained.
171Page
HALL SHM� iNET LOSS •i' •" It it D USE CONSULTING, i
Chapter 5. Buffer Mitigation
5.1 Mitigation Summary
■ Removal of any man-made debris from the river, including a chain-link fence.
■ Buffer Enhancement between the riverbank and the proposed development.
5.2 Timing
Removal of the chain link fence and any other man-made debris should occur as soon as possible. Start of
the manufactured home installation is tentatively scheduled forthe spring/summer of 2021 and should occur
after the receipt of all required permits and approvals.Work will be completed in less than six months during
daylight working hours normal to a residential neighborhood in order to minimize the duration of temporary
construction related impacts as much as possible. Estimated start of buffer enhancement is slated to begin
immediately following or during construction between October of 2021 and March of 2022 during cooler
and wetter weather. All species will be planted within a five (5) day period. The optimal time for planting is
from February to March, though planting can begin as early as October. Cooler and wetter weather is
preferred to avoid shock for the young trees. To ensure optimal survival, and that the plants do not dry out
after installation, temporary irrigation measures may be necessary.
5.3 Plantings
Proposed plantings are intended to enhance(to the greatest extent possible) under-vegetated areas of the
reduced buffer of Mission Creek within the subject parcel. The outcome of the proposed plantings will be
to achieve increased plant diversity, density, and canopy layers.
Work will include planting up to 17 trees, 31 shrubs, and 26 ferns within the reduced buffer on-site (see
map in Appendix B). If the plant species listed within this report are not available, substitutions must be
similar in nature providing the same habitat benefit as those proposed. Alternative species require pre-
approval by a qualified specialist and/or regulatory staff at Mason County.
All plant materials used for the enhancement actions will be nursery grown stock from a reputable local
source. Only native species are to be used; no hybrids or cultivars will be allowed. Plant material provided
will be typical of their species or variety; if not, they will exhibit normal densely developed branches and
vigorous, fibrous root systems. Plants will be sound, healthy, free from defects and all forms of disease and
infestation.
Trees will be spaced a minimum of 10-foot on center from other plantings as a minimum standard. Shrubs
will be a minimum of five (5)-foot on center, and ferns will be four (4)-foot on center. Placement will be
sporadic and determined by a qualified biologist at the time of enhancement.As the proposed planting area
does have existing native vegetation, the intent of this plan is to enhance any existing vegetation and
establish vegetation in areas where it is currently lacking. Plant quantities listed in this report are estimates
derived after careful review of conditions within the enhancement zone.
The proposed buffer restoration map (Appendix B) is an estimate of the area to be revegetated and is not
a survey. Deviation from conceptual location is reasonable for implementation of the planting plan in the
field.All alterations in location, species, and spacing shall be recorded by the installation team and qualified
specialist for compliance reporting purposes and in the preparation of an as-built plan.
181Page
HALL •NET LOSS 'OR 01 !! 2021
Table 8. Plant Schedule
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME # SIZE SPACING "COST PER TOTAL COST
PLANT
Willow species Salix sp. 8 2 gallons 10'on center $ 17.50 $ 140.00
Western red cedar Thuja plicata 5 2 gallons 10'on center $ 17.50 $87.50
Big leaf maple Acermacrophyllum 4 2 gallons 10'on center $ 17.50 $70.00
Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis 14 1 gallon 5'on center $9.75 $ 136.50
1
Sala] Gaultheria shallon 8 1 gallon 5'on center $9.75 $78.00
Evergreen Vaccinium ovatum 9 1 gallon 5'on center $9.75 $87.75
Huckleberry
Western sword fern Polystichum munitum 26 1 gallon 4'on center $ 11.25 $292.50 '
TOTAL COST $892.25
Cost estimates from Sound Native Plants— Olympia, WA. Price subject to change. This figure is an estimate and plants may be
obtained from a wide variety of vendors across the region. See Appendix L for a list of native plant sources from the Washington
Native Plant Society.
5.4 Project Sequencing
A. CLUC (or another qualified contractor) will mark where each plant should be placed in the field.
Prior to planting, CLUC (or another qualified contractor) will monitor for invasive and nonnative
species within the enhancement area and oversee any surface preparation for planting.
B. A qualified plant installation specialist will source, procure, and plant the trees (under the
supervision of CLUC if so requested by the client). No tilling of the ground will occur. Holes for each
plant will be dug individually and will be two to three times the width of the container.All excavation
work, though minor will only be performed during dry weather. All species will be planted within a
five (5) day period between October and March. All plantings should occur during the winter
dormancy period. All installed vegetation shall be marked with colored flagging to facilitate
monitoring inspections.
C. CLUC (or another qualified contractor)will complete an As-Built Installation Plan for submission to
the county within one (1) month of planting.
D. Client will monitor growth and adhere to best management practices outlined within this report.
E. CLUC (or another qualified contractor) will perform an annual site visit in the late summer of
monitoring years 1 -4 and will provide a Monitoring Report to the county no later than October 1 of
that year.The Monitoring Report will suggest needed corrections and adjustments to the plan based
on survival of planted species determined in each report.
F. CLUC (or another qualified contractor) will provide final site inspection and Monitoring Report to
Mason County by October 1 of year 5. Failure to meet survival benchmarks (listed below) by the
end of the monitoring period will require an additional year of monitoring. Monitoring should
continue annually in the same fashion until benchmarks are met.
191Page
HALL • NET LOSS •O• PARCEL" !i i! CONSULTING, i
5.5 Performance Standards
The following performance standards are targeted for the proposed enhancement identified within this
report.These performance standards are necessary for the evaluation of success achieved in implementing
the proposed enhancement.
5.5.1 Survival
Table 9. Plant Survival Benchmarks
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5
PLANT 80 percent 80 percent 80 percent
SURVIVAL 100 percent 100 percent minimum minimum minimum
5.5.2 Contingency
Individual plants that die in the first or second year must be replaced (at a 1:1 ratio) with native species
suggested by a qualified biologist and approved by Mason County.After the second year, if mortality of the
installed vegetation exceeds 20 percent, all dead materials above that threshold will be replaced at a 1:1
ratio. If mortality is related to an inappropriate species for the site conditions, adjustments to the Plant
Schedule may be made to replant with a species more likely to survive. Other actions include changes to
or adoption of a watering schedule, or integrated pest management(excluding pesticide use).
5.5.3 Invasive Species
Invasive vegetation will be removed from the restoration area and continue to be removed as they are
established. Washington State-listed or county-listed noxious weeds observed in any area of the mitigation
site must be eradicated with no part of the plant remaining. Non-native species will include less than 10%
cover in the mitigation area during the monitoring period. Due to the close proximity of the enhancement
area to the shoreline, use of pesticides for noxious weed control should be avoided. Continued manual
removal is the appropriate course of action for this area.
5.6 Monitoring
CLUC, or other persons qualified to evaluate the buffer enhancement, shall implement the Vegetation
Management Plan. Upon installation of vegetation, CLUC or another qualified person(s)will create an as-
built plan to submit to Mason County within 30 days of completing the work. Following the installation, a
monitoring report shall be provided via email to the Mason County Planning Department no later than
October 1 of monitoring years 1-5. Enhancement work should be reviewed by CLUC or another a qualified
person(s) to ensure that the enhancement area is healthy and meeting the Performance Standards listed
in this report. It is suggested that monitoring occur in late summer or early spring as these are the ideal
time of year to assess the health of the plantings.
The as-built plan should establish at least five (5) photo points on-site that portray the planting area from
each side of the property. These points should be maintained and used to capture the vegetation's growth
over the five (5) year monitoring period for inclusion in the yearly monitoring report. The as-built plan may
include a brief letter that consists of a summary of actions and associated maps and pictures, and other
information deemed necessary by Mason County. Five (5) years post planting, a review of the vegetation
within the buffer enhancement area shall be completed and a final Monitoring Report provided to Mason
20 1 P a 9 e
HALL i NET LOSS 'i' PARCEL0 112-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING, i
County. This document should be a determination of success regarding vegetation coverage, health, and
sustainability.
The annual monitoring reports should include the following minimum information:
1. Observations of species survival;
2. The use of the site by wildlife species;
3. Any disturbance caused by the development and its effect on protected zones and associated
aquatic habitat;
4.Any occurrence of exotic species and its removal within the restoration zones;
5. Replacement of vegetation since planting.
6. Any corrective measures that may be deemed necessary to provide desired conditions.
7. Any maintenance actions taken.
5.7 Maintenance
Maintenance of the enhancement area should consist of all actions necessary to promote survival of the
planted native vegetation. Actions may include irrigation during the dry season, mulching, fertilizing and
similar measures. Broadcast fertilization, however, will not be used.
5.8 Surety Bond
An estimated cost breakdown for plants, biologist, and monitoring services is provided in the table below to
assist in calculating the bond amount should one be required. For the purposes of this report, no amount is
listed for plant installation labor and other associated supplies. A fair market quote from a qualified plant
installer will be necessary to complete any bond amount calculations. CLUC does not provide plant
installation services but can obtain a quote from a third-party contractor and coordinate service for an
additional fee if requested.
Table 10. Cost Breakdown
ITEM TOTAL COST
Plants $892.25
Installation Coordination (CLUC or another qualified professional) $840.00
Plant Installation—Quote to be obtained by a qualified plant installer $N/A
Installation supplies—Quote to be obtained by a qualified plant installer $N/A
As-Built Installation Plan(CLUC or another qualified professional) $840.00
Monitoring Reports(CLUC or another qualified professional)— $6,300.00
5 reports($1,260/standard report)
TOTAL COST $8,872.25
21 Page
Milian
i •i' •" 11 11 " i 1
Chapter 6. Best Management Practices
Minimization measures and BMPs will be utilized during project activities and afterward to avoid impacts to
listed species and their habitats. Conservation measures will focus on minimizing construction noise and
the possibility of spills, preventing soil erosion, and minimizing impacts to buffer and shoreline vegetation.
Special measures will be taken to ensure that all waste materials will be disposed of off-site and in
accordance with applicable regulations, adequate materials and procedures are readily available on the
site to respond to unanticipated weather conditions or accidental releases of materials, and that a protocol
for contacting WDFW is readily available in the event that activities are observed to result in water quality
problems. The following mitigation measures will be undertaken in conjunction with the proposed project in
addition to those prescriptive mitigation measures imposed through Mason County Shoreline Critical Areas
regulations:
• Marking of critical areas setbacks prior to clearing or construction activities.
• All existing native vegetation on the shoreline shall be preserved.
• All existing native vegetation within the standard stream buffer outside of the proposed
development area/building envelope should be retained in its native condition to ensure no net loss
of ecological functions.
• Equipment will be cleaned and checked for leaks off-site daily before commencing work.
• Establishment of proper construction access.
• Control of surface flow within the work areas and containment of sediment within the work areas.
• The contractor will prepare a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan for this
project.Any potential spills will be handled and disposed of in a manner that does not contaminate
the surrounding area. Adequate materials and procedures to respond to unanticipated weather
conditions or accidental releases of materials (sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons, etc.) will be
available on site. The SPCC Plan will also ensure the proper management of oil, gasoline and
solvents used in the operation and maintenance of construction equipment and that equipment
remains free of external petroleum-based products prior to entering the work area and during the
work, and for making any necessary repairs prior to returning the equipment to operation in the
work area.
• An emergency spill containment kit must be located on site along with a pollution prevention plan
detailing planned to fuel, materials storage and equipment storage. Waste storage areas must be
prepared to address prevention and cleanup of accidental spills.
• The contractor will supply the site with a portable bathroom if the site's existing (SFR) bathroom
cannot be accessed to ensure that solid or liquid waste will not become a source of stormwater
pollution.
• All construction-related debris will be cleaned up on a daily basis. Proper conservation measures
will be taken to ensure that debris will not contaminate the stream waters.
221Page
• Waste materials, including any concrete, riprap, miscellaneous garbage and/or other debris
removed from the project site,will be transported off site for disposal in accordance with applicable
regulations.
° Excavation will be limited to those areas necessary for access to the work areas and construction
activities. The construction limits will be marked in the field and equipment will not be allowed
outside the work area.
• Routine inspections of the erosion control measures will be conducted daily during construction to
ensure the effectiveness of the measures and to determine the need for maintenance or additional
control measures.
° Silt fences will be constructed around excavation areas.
° Disturbance will be limited to the smallest area feasible for each phase of the project and element
under construction and will stay within the limits of construction as identified on the site plans.
° Construction procedures will be designed to minimize the opportunity for erosion to occur or
sediment-laden water to enter downstream areas.
° Work will be in compliance with all other local, state and federal regulations and restrictions.
• Control of residential run-off by incorporating plantings, particularly in any areas where runoff
collects. Limiting exposed soil through plantings. Limiting use of impervious surfaces.
° Limited to no use of fertilizer or pesticide on-site.
231Page
Chapter 7. Conclusion
The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this
project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally
exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions
in the area. Our work was also performed in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our
proposal. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based
on an interpretation of information currently available to us, and are made within the operation scope,
n
budget, and schedule of this project. No warranty expressed or implied is made. In addition, changes i
government codes, regulations, or laws may occur.
8.1 Take Analysis
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of endangered or threatened species, "take" being defined in section 3
as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,shoot,wound,trap, capture,or collect listed species, or attempt to engage
in any such conduct. "Harm" is further defined as a significant habitat modification or degradation that
actually kills or injures listed species by "significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding,
spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, and sheltering," (50 CFR 222.102). "Harass" is further defined as an
intentional or negligent act which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent
as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding,
or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). In regard to the proposed project and the existing development activities, it is
extremely unlikely that any"take"will occur. Previously listed best management practices will further ensure
the likelihood that no "take"will occur.
8.2 Determination of Effect
Determinations of no effect and may affect, not likely to adversely affect are the appropriate overall
conclusions for the species listed in this report. Overall, the effects on the species or their critical habitats
are expected to be beneficial, discountable, insignificant, or non-existent. After reviewing the appropriate
data and survey information, and reviewing the proposed project and site, it is the opinion of CLUC that the
proposed project will have an insignificant impact on the previously discussed protected species and
habitats, given the previously discussed mitigation measures are implemented. While the proposed project
is not likely to impact an individual protected species in the immediate project area, it is also not likely to
adversely affect or jeopardize the continued existence of those species or their designated critical habitat
if they were documented within the area.
8.3 Net Loss/Gain Analysis
The approval of the relief measures being requested within this report will not have a substantial or
detrimental impact to critical areas,their associated buffer/setback or to protected species and habitats that
may be located within the area. The general public welfare will not be impacted, nor will the proposed
property improvement measures be contrary to the goals and policies that are appliable to the project. All
existing native vegetation within the standard OHWM and stream buffers outside of the proposed
development area/building envelope should be retained in its native condition or allowed to return to its
native condition to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. No net loss of ecological functions is
anticipated as a result of the project.
241Page
�LL$H P/ 0 NET LOSS REPORT-PARCEL#223255005002-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING.MAY 2021
Chapter 8. References & Resources
Agosta, S. J. 2002. Habitat use, diet and roost selection by the big brown bat(Eptesicus fuscus)
in North America:a case for conserving an abundant species. Mammal Review 32:179-198.
Binkley, D., and Greene, S. 1983. Production in Mixtures of Conifers and Red Alder.' The
Importance of Site Fertility. In IUFRO Symposium on Forest Site and Continuous
Productivity. Edited by R. Ballard and S.P. Gessel. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rpt.
PNW-163, Portland Oregon.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service document
FWS/OBS-79/31. 84 pp. Washington, D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Hicks, B.J., Hall, J. D., Bisson, P.A., & Sedell, J.R. (1991) Responses of Salmonids to Habitat
Changes. In W. R. Meehan, Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management of Salmonid
Habitat. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society.
Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 2nd Edition, 2018. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of
Washington Press. Seattle, Washington.
Kunz, T.H. and R.A Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. Mammalian Species 175:1-6.
Mason County and Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group. (2009) Mission Creeks Water
Quality Assessment. URL: https://www.co.mason.wa.us/health/environmental/water-
quality/reports/mission-creek/mission_creek_wga_final_report_2009.pdf
Newcombe, C.P., Jensen, J.O.T. (1996) Channel Suspended Sediment and Fisheries:A
Synthesis for Quantitative Assessment of Risk and Impact. Bethesda, MD: American
Fisheries Society.
NOAA Fisheries. 2020. Find a Species. Internet report: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-
species
Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon, 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing.
Vancouver, British Columbia.
Richardson, J.L., & M.J., Vepraskas. 2001. Wetland Soils, 2001. Genesis, Hydrology,
Landscapes and Classification. 417 pp. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.
Tiner, W. R., 1999. Wetland Indicators, A Guide to Wetland Identification, Delineation,
Classification, and Mapping. 392 pp. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.
25 Page
HALL SHMP/NO NET LOSS REPORT PARCEL#223255005002-CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING,MAY 2021
Unites States Department of Agriculture. 2010. Field Indicator of Hydric Soils in the United
States, A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Analysis of the Life Cycle Impacts and
Y Y P
Potential for Avoided Impacts Associate with Single-Family Homes.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-1 1/documents/sfhomes.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. Online Resource.
https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/effects-environment
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC).
Internet report. URL: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. National Wetlands Inventory. Online Resource.
www.fws.gov/wetlands/(2020).
University of Washington, Tacoma Center for Urban Waters, Puget Sound Institute. 2012-2020.
Encyclopedia of Puget Sound. https://www.eopugetsound.org/terms/8
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2020. Puget Sound Watershed Characterization
Project. Internet report. URL: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/wc/landingpage.htmI
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2017. Washington State Coastal Atlas Map. Internet
report. URL: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx
Washington State Department of Ecology. What's in My Neighborhood. Online Resource.
https:Happs.ecology.wa.gov/neighborhood/
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. WDFW Management
Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species Volume lll. Amphibians and Reptiles.
URL: https-.//wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/00025/wdfw00025.pdf
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2004. WDFW Management
Recommendations for Washington's Priority Species Volume IV. Birds. URL:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/00026/wdfw00026.pdf
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. SalmonScape. Internet report. URL:
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2014. FPARS ARCIMS mapping
application. Internet report. URL: http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/appl/fpars/viewer.htm
Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Natural Heritage Program, 2018. Retrieved
from NHP April 1, 2020. URL: https;//www.dnr.wa.gov/natural-heritage-program
Washington State Department of Transportation. Biological Assessment Manual. (2018) URL:
261Page
HALL •NET LOSS 'O PARCEL11 1• D USE CONSULTING, 1
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/environment-technical/environment-disciplines/fish-
wildlife/BA-preparation-manual.
50 FR 402.02, Wildlife and Fisheries Chapter IV—Joint Regulations(United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior and National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce); Endangered Species
Committee Regulations (October 1, 2012).
57 FR 45328, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened
Status for the Washington, Oregon, and California Population of the Marbled Murrelet
(October 1, 1992).
64 FR 58190, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened
Status for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States (November 1, 1999).
78 FR 61506, Designation of Critical Habitat for Taylor's Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked
Horned Lark(October 3, 2013).
79 FR 2014, Final Rule to Revise the Code of Federal Regulations for Species Under the
Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fishery Service(April 14, 2014).
79 FR 59992, Determination of Threatened Status for the Western DSP of Yellow-billed Cuckoo
(October 3, 2014).
79 FR 71373, Designation of Critical Habitat for the Western DIPS of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo
(December 2, 2014).
81 FR 2016, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat
for the Marbled Murrelet(August 4, 2016).
271Page
Appendix A.
Site Vicinity Map
SITE VICINITY THIS IS NOT A SURVEY. LOCATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE.
r-
4r,
i'
�N
»r
�ya
rk
F
j
I
t
l
f
- V komsn
�' Remn=bn 0 0.25 0.5 1
(_ Miles
- SUBJECT PARCEL
i
DATE- 14 MAY 2021
CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING CLIENT- PAT HALL
COUNTY- MASON
477 PARPALA ROAD, NASELLE, WA 98638 PARCEL-223255005002
509-942-9309 RYAN@CRATERLUC.COM
SITUS- 181 NE STEELHEAD DR S
Appendix B.
Proposed Project Map
PROPOSED PROJECT
_ 28'
F F
J I H F C W
I\ I S F F B B
I F H
/ 4'x-6 LA DING M F W
_ 42 afI F S 8 B
14'x 64'-896 JDING
Lu I H F F
�I F C W
24'x 44' 1m S
� 2 F F H B B
w� M F W
S
F B25 4'X pl H F C B W 00
ml t UI S F F
�I of F H S B B
I I �I M F W
N II I F C B B
_ / H S
..._..._.. ..�...�...�....�. ....._..._...13 I F H W
I I M F S B B
C
F H F F W
138'
42
0 10 20 40
THIS IS NOT A SURVEY. LOCATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE. Feet
SUBJECT PARCEL - WATER L i 14 SALMONBERRY(B)
OHWM STREAM SEPTIC 9 EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY(H)
EXISTING SFR FOOTPRINT 8 WILLOW(W) 8 SALAL(S)
EXISTING DRIVEWAY 5 WESTERN RED CEDAR(C) 26 SWORD FERN (F)
PROPOSED SFR FOOTPRINT 4 BIG LEAF MAPLE(M)
DATE- 14 MAY 2021
CRATER LAND USE CONSULTING CLIENT- PAT HALL
COUNTY- MASON
477 PARPALA ROAD, NASELLE, WA 98638 PARCEL- 223255005002
509-942-9309 RYAN@CRATERLUC.COM
SITUS- 181 NE STEELHEAD DR S
Appendix C.
Site Photos
SyJ +S
' YI
��'.s�.'CT �'�*?:�+F'a� "�'���...-�' r i an -.�a2_:..-#w+. a ` •��= � ..�...JI.Mt
Site Photos Stream Habitat
i Iy' y
V '
_
Western edge of Mission Creek. Looking north along the western edge of Mission Creek.
Looking north upstream from the north end of the proper- Eastern edge of Mission Creek in the distance.
ty.
Site Photos Buffer Area
rai r.Y Izt �� j 13' .. cJ
y Y fl
_ � •`�`-*fir-�:.£- d'+,r e�- ,�,�, +` t. e
E.
Looking west along the south property line standing at the Mission Creek in the background (East).
creek edge.
«JF
At
B
Y
•e r
l
5-
Y S
1
Existing habitat between the mobile home and Mission Cedar tree adjacent to the creek along the east property
Creek. line.
3
Appendix D.
DNR Stream Map
Washington State Department of Natural Resources Stream Type Map
https://fpamt.dnr.wa.gov/defauIt.aspx 5/16/2021
r -
r -
Fir
7
�r
5�
k Water Bodies(FP)
Water Bodies(FP)
Streams Other impoundments
Streams [j Open Freshwater
J — Type S Sub;ect to Inundation
— Type F Glacier I Snowfreld
Water Type Breaks(FP) — Type N, Apr Ns ; �• Wet Area
Water Type Breaks(FP) B unknown I q Open Saltwater
* X,non-typed per LNAC 222-16 Artificial Feature
Appendix E.
National Wetlands Inventory
National Wetland Inventory Map
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html 5/16/2021
I •.X'�+�h� _•�'�,r �:��.�, ; t 'aye - `��yr—,.�I..yy�°.'•�I�y�� � ."'w �/i�,• Y � .i
'f l T" IlA ~ y�4_ • � •,, ', SAC-Cry.
1,00
.
ice`~a��'r •='"�°� .J+„•1.�''+ � ' ..;. r ti s:Y �♦ `�ii ,'.�, ;d s �«,�"�~ ♦�� �,,,)i
XI
°'I �,•. {/'... y'!Tjil;:r,.+ n'• '` .i,�`rt` "��M�"^•`''!+ ;ir' ,"y�:.° `i` -._� �.. ^'i'. F+ta " 'M
,.f. •�yl.�F;,. .f° '✓. o�` - �r' `L f� �Jh.�.,rr�-sy. �[•f., tY.1,:1�i' '.' ...•.v � 4�7,''i�•S�.
tr! _,J� ;yam t. ��`� .�'�•.. +5 �., y�.
.14
` !��'!��',r►..♦�� f • +�,fit!
I�.. ° ^ ,,/� .ram.,;.' `•: . •" ".{ Jr! aM'+d' " "1. .: 'i". Tt ` �:�,,"
"'V€•# -r �w 1�•' S Yw�G v r,y - �,, i� Yr.4;:`}: ' * RJR .•��"y+
.t��� �` ���L :e 1����-.♦ WR r' 4 •Ks �,�. M i� w Vim. ��'~ i
r �PPf r �f1�.Y 1'Mi'«.}v,'��0�"G �• '`�J t�' ��,n. 'qr•,,r�.�•'.� �..1R F.�Y ��' ���. I5
�►"ty: 1,'h r2' y .'r• r" .,, •. • . / ,� °M a,y,�✓f•.'I ,^ .,,,,•.• 11 i
Awl
•�L.,,rs;. •�•f ..1';:'� � .. L + '�}��� .o�fk fir.rd.r.����•"�"•�+�K�._�}!"y� •
t r 9s y►
b�
{'•�'e`5' � �`'
tl
�ram; .y., i •�'�1. � ��a•, , ' `"
'~' •R L t 5 ' a`p • etlands
` ■ Estuarine and Marine
l= `�� Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
'" t -``J Freshwater Emergent Wetland
�:�� `. -` µfrry ��i` �` Freshwater Forested/Shrub
Wetland
++11 •« t. �' Freshwater Pond
'. Ar Lake
Q Other
® Riverine
Appendix F.
303(d) Map and Cleanup Site Info.
Washington State Department of Ecology
303(d) Water Quality Atlas
https://fortress.wa.qov/ecy/watergualitVatlas/map.aspx 5/16/2021
-in it;
a
a
sx
o,
w
Sediment Water
® Category 5 - 303d %0 Category 5 - 303d
® Category 4C Category 4C
Category 4B Category 4B
t Category 4A Category 4A
Category 2 Category 2
Category 1 Category 1
DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
State ofWa,„ingtor Cleanup Site Details Cleanup Site ID: 9025
Cleanup Site ID: 9025 Facility/Site ID: 40635629 UST ID: 100502 Site Pa a Site Documents View
Cleanup Site Name: DNR MISSION CREEK SPS I a
Alternate Names: DNR MISSION CREEK SPS,WA DNR MISSION CREEK SPS
LOCATION
Address: BELFAIR City: BELFAIR Zip Code: 98528 County: Mason
Latitude: 47.43800 Longitude: -122.87597 WRIA: 15 Legislative District: 35 Congressional District: 6 TRS: 23N 2W 36
DETAIL
Status: No Further Action NFA Received? Yes Is PSI site? Yes
Statute: MTCA NFA Date: 8/30/2012 Current VCP? No Past VCP? No
Site Rank:N/A NFA Reason: Initial Investigation Brownfield? No
Site Manager: Southwest Region Responsible Unit: Southwest Active Institutional Control? No
CLEANUP UNITS
Cleanup Unit Name Unit Type Unit Status RUnit P Unit Manager Current Process
DNR MISSION CREEK SPS Upland No Further Action Required SW Southwest Region Independent Action
ACTIVE INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
Instrument Type Restriction Restrictions/Requirements Date Recording Recording Tax Parcel
Media Number County
There are no current Institutional Controls in effect for this site.
AFFECTED MEDIA&CONTAMINANTS
MEDIA
Contaminant Soil Groundwater Surface Water Sediment Air Bedrock
Benzene RB B
Lead RB
Other Non-Halogenated Organics RB B
Petroleum-Diesel S B
Petroleum-Gasoline RB B
Key:
B-Below Cleanup Level C-Confirmed Above Cleanup Level RA-Remediated-Above
S-Suspected R-Remediated RB-Remediated-Below
SITE ACTIVITIES
Activity Status Start Date End Date/
Completion Date
LUST-Notification Completed 4/16/1991
Site Discovery/Release Report Received Completed 4/16/1991
LUST-Report Received Completed 1/27/1992
Initial Investigation/Federal Preliminary Assessment Completed 12/13/2011
LUST-NFA Determination II or SHA Completed 8/30/2012
Site Status Changed to NFA Completed 8/30/2012
Toxics Cleanup Program Report Generated: 5/21/2021 Page 1 of 1
Appendix G.
National Heritage Program Map
Washington Natural Heritage Program
https-//wadnr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html? 5/16/2021
r
Use°l* a
a
11 o"'
rn'
m
z
f
yaP" Beltair
Known Wetlands of High Conservation Value
�, 3r
k�
Known Rare Plants and Nonvascuiar Species
of High Conservation Value
Counties
b No rare plants located within the subject parcel or greater vicinity.
HVdric Soils
Appendix H.
WDFW PHS Report
5/17/2021 PHS Report
HEM' Priority Habitats and Species on the Web
,�P trri
-i
._.. ... a ..s _
rs7 �
. i � p0.
x t�
.y y lle
r �
aw♦ '
MOON'
ti�r�wrt �+at, )4a r .f r w .
IW
A►.�ru.r+nww�.wr 1£tr iLi 4, r.
16e'�F�„j.
r tr
T 1
e )
Mom" � ef'�` � }.�tr ♦fn. • �.*,�.iA ' � ..
" �.. �:m. ,. „':. .-'» e� -; - � .►1 t'M.. X�R( Y � '1,�!�Ri` 'r F - �•e{
1 S r J6 `, 4 .! w `� r
a
1nM�..4�y'�/1M._pr'RT,T� . � �1 �r,�+trb#"♦
F
Buffer radius: 500 Feet
Report Date: 05/17/2021, Parcel ID: 223255005002
PHS Species/Habitats Overview:
5/17/2021 PHS Report
Occurence Name Federal Status State Status Generalized Location
Winter Steelhead N/A N/A No
Resident Coastal Cutthroat N/A N/A No
Coho N/A N/A No
Fall Chinook N/A N/A No
Fall Chum N/A N/A No
Cutthroat Not Warranted N/A No
Coho Candidate N/A No
Chum Not Warranted N/A No
Western Pond Turtle N/A Endangered Yes
PHS Species/Habitats Details:
Winter Steelhead
Scientific Name Oncorhynchus mykiss
Priority Area Occurrence/Migration
Site Name Mission Creek
Accuracy NA
Notes LLID: 1228713474308, Fish Name:Steelhead Trout,Run Time:
Winter, Life History:Anadromous
Source Record 53559
Source Dataset SWIFD
Federal Status N/A
State Status N/A
PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive N
SGCN N
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
More Info http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm
Geometry Type Lines
2/6
5/17/2021 PHS Report
CoastalResident ..
Scientific Name Oncorhynchus clarki
Priority Area Occurrence/Migration
Site Name Mission Creek
Accuracy NA
Notes LLID: 1228713474308,Fish Name:Cutthroat Trout, Run Time:
Unknown or not Applicable, Life History: Unknown
Source Record 53550
Source Dataset SWIFD
Federal Status N/A
State Status N/A
PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive N
SGCN N
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
More Info http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm
Geometry Type Lines
Scientific Name Oncorhynchus kisutch
Priority Area Breeding Area
Site Name Mission Creek
Accuracy NA
Notes LLID: 1228713474308, Fish Name:Coho Salmon, Run Time:
Unknown or not Applicable, Life History:Anadromous
Source Record 53556
Source Dataset SWIFD
Federal Status N/A
State Status N/A
PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive N
SGCN N
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
More Info http://wdfw.wa.aovlwlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm
Geometry Type Lines
3/6
5/17/2021 PHS Report
Fall Chinook
Scientific Name Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Priority Area Breeding Area
Site Name Mission Creek
Accuracy NA
Notes LLID: 1228713474308,Fish Name:Chinook Salmon,Run Time: Fall,
Life History:Anadromous
Source Record 53552
Source Dataset SWIFD
Federal Status N/A
State Status N/A
PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive N
SGCN N
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
More Info http:/twdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm
Geometry Type Lines
Fall Chum
Scientific Name Oncorhynchus keta
Priority Area Breeding Area
Site Name Mission Creek
Accuracy NA
Notes LLID: 1228713474308, Fish Name:Chum Salmon, Run Time: Fall,
Life History:Anadromous
Source Record 53555
Source Dataset SWIFD
Federal Status N/A
State Status N/A
PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive N
SGCN N
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
More Info http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm
Geometry Type Lines
4/6
5/17/2021 PHS Report
Cutthroat
Scientific Name Oncorhynchus clarki
Priority Area Occurrence
Site Name Mission Creek
Accuracy NA
Notes LLID: 1228713474308,Stock Name:East Hood Canal Coastal
Cutthroat,Run:Unspecified,Status:Unknown
Source Record 7940
Source Dataset SASI
Source Name Not Given
Source Entity WDFW Fish Program
Federal Status Not Warranted
State Status N/A
PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive N
SGCN N
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
More Info http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm
Geometry Type Lines
Scientific Name Oncorhynchus kisutch
Priority Area Occurrence
Site Name Mission Creek
Accuracy NA
Notes LLID: 1228713474308,Stock Name:Southeast Hood Canal Coho,
Run:Unspecified,Status:Healthy
Source Record 3215
Source Dataset SASI
Source Name Not Given
Source Entity WDFW Fish Program
Federal Status Candidate
State Status N/A
PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive N
SGCN N
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
More Info fop:/Jwdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm
Geometry Type Lines
5/6
5/17/2021 PHS Report
Scientific Name Oncorhynchus keta
Priority Area Occurrence
Site Name Mission Creek
Accuracy NA
Notes LLID: 1228713474308,Stock Name:Southeast Hood Canal Fall
Chum, Run: Fall,Status: Healthy
Source Record 2357
Source Dataset SAS
Source Name Not Given
Source Entity WDFW Fish Program
Federal Status Not Warranted
State Status N/A
PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive N
SGCN N
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
More Info _p://wdfw.wa.aov/wlm/diversty/soc/soc.htm
Geometry Type Lines
Western Pond Turtle
Scientific Name Actinemys marmorata
This polygon mask represents one or more records of the above
Notes species or habitat occurrence.Contact PHS Data Release(360-902-
2543)for obtaining information about masked sensitive species and
habitats.
Federal Status N/A
State Status Endangered
PHS Listing Status PHS Listed Occurrence
Sensitive Y
SGCN Y
Display Resolution QTR-TWP
ManagementRecommendations http:'/wdfw.wa.gov/p-kLgdilgn
DISCLAIMER.This report includes information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)maintains in a central computer database.It is not an attempt to provide you
with an official agency response as to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife.This information only documents the location of fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge.
It is not a complete inventory and it is important to note that fish and wildlife resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists,or in areas for which comprehensive
surveys have not been conducted.Site specific surveys are frequently necesssary to rule out the presence of priority resources.Locations of fish and wildlife resources are subject to
variation caused by disturbance,changes in season and weather,and other factors.WDFW does not recommend using reports more than six months old.
6/6
Appendix I.
USFWS IPaC Report
5/17/2021 IPaC:Explore Location resources
IPaC U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat
(collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list
may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be
directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood
and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional
site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of
proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the
office(s)with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each secoi
that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Weo4rid l f� ,
additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that sec,' n.
Project information
NAME
Pat Hall
LOCATION
Mason County, Washington
LD
CJ0
DESCRIPTION
Some(SHIVIP)
Local office
Washington Fish And Wildlife Office
(360) 753-9440
JEJ (360)753-9405
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/BUUVQVYJ4BDU5LKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 1/14
5/17/2021 IPaC:Explore Location resources
510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102
Lacey, WA 98503-1263
http://www.fws.gov/wafwo0011\
CjO
0
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/BUUVQVYJ4BDU5LKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 2/14
5/17/2021 IPaC:Explore Location resources
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of
project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.
Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of
the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a
dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly
impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move,
and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near
the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and
project-specific information is often required.
5
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary
information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area
of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any
Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can
only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in
IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website
and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Log in to IPaC. e!) 4
2. Go to your My Projects list.
3. Click PROJECT HOME for this project.
4. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species' and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA Fisheries).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this
list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows
species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more
information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Birds
NAME STATUS
htt s://ecos.fws. ov/i ac/ ro ect/BUUVQVYJ4BDU5LKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 3/14
p 9 p p 1
5/17/2021 IPaC:Explore Location resources
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened
There is final critical habitat for this species.The location of the
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp>�pecies/4467
Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata Threatened
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species.The location of the
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7268
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened
There is final critical habitat for this species.The location of the
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Fishes
NAME S
Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus i �dr t ned
There is final critical habitat for this species.The location of tum
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8212
0
Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma PSAT
Wherever found d4ft Cj
No critical habitat has been a for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov c spec s 008
Criti ad alitats
P I ects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered
spies themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS ATTHIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act!and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Acts.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory
birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing
appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/BUUVQVYJ4BDU5LKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 4/14
5/17/2021 IPaC:Explore Location resources
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservation measures.pdf
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds
of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn
more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ
below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on
this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general
public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E__bird data rnappl_n tool (Tip:
enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the
Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird
species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and
other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and
use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to
reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at
the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your
project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A
BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED
...................................................................................I......................
FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST,THE
................................................................_....................
BBIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR
.I.R.D....................... ............ ................... .....
PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN
..............I.................I._...._..........................................................
THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED,
..........................................................................................
WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL
............................................................I.....................
ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE
...............................................................................................
WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS
...................................................................................
ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE.
.............................................................I......................-...
"BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES
........................................................................
THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY
...................................................................
BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.)
........................................................................................................
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Jan 1 to Sep 30
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development
or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/BUUVQVYJ4BDU5LKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 5/14
5/17/2021 IPaC:Explore Location resources
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC) in this area, but
warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development
or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias fannini Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 15
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)only in particular Bird
Conservation Regions(BCRs) in the continental USA
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Breeds elsewhere
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
httpa.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa Breeds Is re
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecptspecies/9481
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)thro h
the continental USA and Alaska.
httpL//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Red-throated Loon Gavia s I Breeds elsewhere
This is a Bird of Conservation o ern(BCC)throughout its range in
the continental USA and%las .
Rufou "L>trnl agbird selasphorus rufus Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 15
thii.is a Bird of Conservation Concern(BCC)throughout its range in
tlie,.c6nVirental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002
Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla Breeds elsewhere
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC)throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus Breeds elsewhere
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC)throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/BUUVQVYJ4BDU5LKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 6114
5/1 712 0 2 1 IPaC:Explore Location resources
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Breeds elsewhere
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC)throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
http.a.//ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9483
Willet Tringa semipalmata Breeds elsewhere
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC)throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ
"Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to
interpret this report.
Probability of Presence O
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s)your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.)
A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be
r re. One can have hi
used to establish a level of confidence In the presence sco her confidence in the g
presence score if the corresponding survey efort 's also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated?The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the
week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that
week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was
found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence
is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence
across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted
Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any
week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is
0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of
presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its
entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Effort (1)
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/BUUVQVYJ4BDU5LKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 7/14
5/17/2021 IPaC:Explore Location resources
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s)your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all
years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
ii probability of presence breeding season I survey effort —no to
SPECIES JAN FEB MAP APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
Bald Eagle I111 IIII � I � � � I � I IIII ill IIII IIII Illl II ' '
Non-BCC
Vulnerable(This is
....................I...........
not a Bird of
.._...........................
Conservation
..................I................
Concern(BCC)in
..................................
this area,but
....................I_...........
warrants attention
...................................................
because of the
Eagle Act or for
-.....................................
potential
......_................
susceptibilities in
offshore areas
..............I..........................
0
from certain types
of development or
_........................._.............
activities.)
Golden Eagle I I i I 1 I + -1 4-1-+ , 1 — -- , — . ._ -- -+ -4—+ +-}-.•-+
Non-BCC
Vulnerable(This is
..............----.__
not a Bird of
Conse>~va on
err . u�T
thkaieys;tut
........4................_.....
*u..
warrants attention
b
....e...c_.aus..a .e...of..........t.h.._..............
e
.........................................
Eagle Act or for
.........................--..............
potential
..........I..............
susceptibilities in
................................................
offshore areas
..............1..........................
from certain types
..................................................
of development or
.........................................
activities.)
..............I.............
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/BUUVQVYJ4BDU5LKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 8/14
5/17/2021 lPaC:Explore Location resources
Great Blue Heron 'I I I I I I I �, j I I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j I I I I
BCC-BCR(This is a "1 111" UZ iw
'
...............
'Bird of
*..........-
conservation
Concern(BCC)only
*...............*,__,,....
in particular Bird
*E�,-n"s-,e-,r-,v,,*a"'t'i"o,-,n............
............Regions(BCRs)in
...........................................
the continental
USA)
Lesser Yellowlegs ++++ ++++ ++$+ 1+++ ++++ ++NJ 1111 .... .... -I-... ....
BCC Rangewide
is a
Bird
..............
Conservation
Concern* *'""*"(BCC)-*--,,
.......................................throughout its
.............................range in the
.................................
continental USA
...............................
and Alaska.)
..........
Marbled Godwit Al 11111111111- ——-— ———— ———— ——-— ——
BCC Rangewide
(this"I's-
............
Bird of
Conservation
.................................
Concern(BCC)
..............................
throughout Its
......._............I.................
range in the
continental"*,-*",-USA
.....................................
and Alaska.) Amw%
..........................
Olive-sided ++++ ++++ ++ .... .... .... ....
Flycatcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)(This'",' Is a
Bird
Conservation
Concern
throw ho
.....................
ran4
an la. .................
Red-throated Loon 4_+II AU 000 ++$1 +_44+ ++++ +++I +++I I+I+ ++I+
BCC Rangewide
(CON)(Thisisa
Bird of
Con
servation
.... ........I.....................
Concern(BCC)
t�i;u g ho u t its
.....................................
range in the
.................................
continental USA
.............................
and Alaska.)
......................
https://ecos.Ms.gov/ipac/project/BUUVQVYJ4BDUSLKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 9/14
5/17/2021 lPaC:Explore Location resources
Hummingbird
Rufous ++++ ++++ Jill I
BCC Rangewide
hI`si`.s*a"
.........Bird of
Conservation
Concern,-, ",_,"-(BCC)*_
.......................................
*"*..........* * *throughout its
ran
ge in the
*.............'continental USA
and Alaska.)
....................
Sernipalmated ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +1+1 1+11 ++++ ++++ ++++
Sandpiper
BCC Rangewide
............................................
(CON)(This is a
....................
Bird of
...Conservation
...........Concern(BCC)
throughout its
.....................................
range in the
.............................
continental USA
........................................
and Alaska.)
.........................
Short-billed ++++ ++++ ++++ +++I + ... .... ....
Dowitcher
BCC Rangewide
............._......................_
(CON)(This is a
: .........................
'61rd of
Conservation
Concern(BCC)
........................................
throughout its
...............................
range in the
_...._............I.............
continental USA
...................................
and Alaska.)
Wh i m b r e I
+++i + [+ +4-++ ++++ ... .... .... .... ..t-4-+
BCC Rangewide
(CON), " his is a
Bird of
Z C"o n's,e rva n
Conc Q
ra e
..........-cont ental USA
iiidAlaska.)'' '*
...........
Willet ll++ ++++ +4-++ 1 4-1-IF IFTIFIF
BCC Rangewide
is a
Bird of
E' "se*'*'Conservation
Concern(BCC)* '
throughout*-",-, "-it'-s-
..............................
range in the
............* "continental USA
............................................
and Alaska.)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
https://ecos.fws.govfipac/project/BUUVQVYJ4BDU5LKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 10/14
5/17/2021 IPaC:Explore Location resources
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at
any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to
occur in the project area.When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and
avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.To see when birds are most likely to
occur and be breeding in your project area,view the Probability of Presence Summary.Additional measures or
permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or
bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)and other species
that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network
(AKN).The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is
queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s)which your project
intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that
area, an eagle(Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore{
activities or development.
Again,the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not
representative of all birds that may occur in your project area.To get a list of all birds potentially present in your
project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
ra �s`for`the mi rato birds potentially
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presenceg p g ry p y
occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the
Avian Knowledge Network(AKN)..This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen
science datasets . �
Probability of presence data is continuously beingupdated as new and better information becomes available.To
learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them,go the
Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding,wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,wintering, migrating or
year-round),you may refer to the following resources:The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or
(if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there),the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds
guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur
in your project area,there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If"Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated,then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)that are of concern throughout their range
anywhere within the USA(including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC- BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions(BCRs) in the
continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC-Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of
the Eagle Act requirements(for eagles)or(for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from
certain types of development or activities(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/BUUVQVYJ4BDU5LKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 11/14
5/17/2021 IPaC:Explore Location resources
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular,to
avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For
more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird
impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of
bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal.The Portal
also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.
Alternately,you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS
Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year,
including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on
marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Party
Loring.
What if I have m on eagles list?
g Y
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles,you may need to obtain a pec it to avoid violating the
Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report,. X40
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority
concern.To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be
in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring
in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10
km grid cell(s)that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort(indicated by the black vertical bar)and for the existence of the "no data" indicator(a
red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high,then the probability of
presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack
of data and,therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species.This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting
point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area,when they might be there,
and if they might be breeding(which means nests might be present).The list helps you know what to look for to
confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or
minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed.To learn more about
conservation measures,visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize
impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/BUUVQVYJ4BDU5LKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 12/14
5/17/2021 IPaC:Explore Location resources
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
41*
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Cor 4 \ 4
n
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update
our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual
extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
RIVERINE
R3UBH deft
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
information on the location, type and size of these resources.The maps are prepared from the analysis of high
altitude imagery.Wetlands are identified based on vegetation,visible hydrology and geography.A margin of error
is inherent in the use of imagery;thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in
revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery,the experience of the image analysts,
the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted.
Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work.There may be
occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and
the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial
imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands.These habitats include seagrasses or submerged
aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters.
Some deepwater reef communities(coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory.
These habitats, because of their depth,go undetected by aerial imagery.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/BUUVQVYJ4BDU5LKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 13/14
5/17/2021 IPaC:Explore Location resources
Data precautions
Federal, state,and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a
different manner than that used in this inventory.There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this
inventory,to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish
the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in
activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal,
state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may
affect such activities.
CO
446,
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/projecVBUUVQVYJ4BDU5LKSPVGYNM7QCQ/resources 14/14
5/17/2021 title
EFH Data Notice: Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined by textual descriptions contained in the fishery
management plans developed by the regional Fishery Management Councils. In most cases mapping data can
not fully represent the complexity of the habitats that make up EFH. This report should be used for general
interest queries only and should not be interpreted as a definitive evaluation of EFH at this location. A
location-specific evaluation of EFH for any official purposes must be performed by a regional expert. Please
refer to the following links for the appropriate regional resources.
West Coast Regional Office
Alaska Regional Office
Query Results
Degrees, Minutes, Seconds: Latitude = 47026'29" N, Longitude = 12305'57" W
Decimal Degrees: Latitude = 47.44, Longitude = -122.90
The query location intersects with spatial data representing EFH and/or HAPCs for the following
species/management units.
EFH
HUC Lifestage(s) Management
Show Link Name Species/Management Unit Found at Council FMP
Location
Chinook Salmon, Coho Pacific
HodCoast
Canal Salmon, Puget Sound Pink All Pacific Salmon
Salmon Plan
HAPCs
No Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) were identified at the report location.
EFH Areas Protected from Fishing
No EFH Areas Protected from Fishing (EFHA) were identified at the report location.
Spatial data does not currently exist for all the managed species in this area. The
following is a list of species or management units for which there is no spatial
data.
**For links to all EFH text descriptions see the complete data inventory: open
data inventory -->
https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/application/efhmapper/index.htmi 1/2
5/17/2021 title
Spatial data does not currently exist for all the managed species in this area. The
following is a list of species or management units for which there is no spatial
data.
**For links to all EFH text descriptions see the complete data inventory: open
data inventory -->
Pacific Coastal Pelagic Species,
Jack Mackerel,
Pacific (Chub) Mackerel,
Pacific Sardine,
Northern Anchovy - Central Subpopulation,
Northern Anchovy - Northern Subpopulation,
Pacific Highly Migratory Species,
Bigeye Thresher Shark - North Pacific,
Bluefin Tuna - Pacific,
Dolphinfish (Dorado or Mahimahi) - Pacific,
Pelagic Thresher Shark - North Pacific,
Swordfish - North Pacific
https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/application/efhmapper/index.html 2/2
Appendix K.
Preliminary Client Site Plan
PLOT PLAN
MIKE VEACH PARCEL 22325-50-05002
N 181 NE STEELHEAD DR S SCALE 1"=25t
BELFAIR WA 98528
178.96'
13.5'
EXISTING DF 1 4' 6'
Lan V-
I \
AREA \\ \
— 42'to Mlssion Creek
\ - 44' 42'to Mlssion Creek
24
' \ m
( )
V� \\ ems , \ 7 00
\\ Proposed New MH n o
m
4'X 6'
T Landings;
'f7O 29.6'
.2
Q .Ebxisting /V1/.
Water Water Wate water
v' 138.38'
Appendix L.
Native Plant Sources
NATIVE PLANT AND SEED SOURCES 2020
This information is provided as a resource by the Washington Native Plant Society
' and does not imply an endorsement. For more information,suggested additions,or
data changes, lease contact WNPS at 206-527-3210 or wn s wn s.or .The
WASHINGTON NATIVE PANT SOCIETY contacts listed ere are include details from a survey descry ing ypes o plant
■ . . material stocked,forms plants are available in, and the focus of the firm.
Specialty Nurseries Use Local Native Plants
Some of these growers,nurseries Definitions of native vary from one grower to the next and
-� and seed suppliers deal mainly in may include cultivated varieties of native species,as well
native plants.Others stock mostly as plants from hundreds of miles away. For restoration and
non-natives yet may also have a native habitat projects,it is usually best to use genetically
good selection of natives. Many specialize in plants for varied stock originating from the nearest available natural
wetlands,alpine and rock gardens,or trees and shrubs. sites.Local nurseries do not necessarily rely on local
Some will harvest seed or grow plants under contract. sources,nor is it always practical.Ask where a nursery's
Confirm before visiting. Many nurseries require an propagation stock or plants come from before selecting
appointment and may not keep regular business hours. plants for landscaping or restoration projects.
SEEDS ONLY-(**=WNPS Member Organization)
BFI Native Seeds** L&H Seeds Inc. Rainier Seeds,Inc.
1550 Pilgrim Street 4756 W.SR 260 P.O. Box 1064
Moses Lake,WA 98837 Connell,WA 99326 Davenport,WA 99122
509 765-6348 509-234-4433 FAX 509-234-0202 1404 Fourth Street
mbensonnabfinativeseeds.com info.lhseeds.com Davenport,WA 99122
hftp://bfinativeseeds.com/ hftps://www.lhseeds.com/ 509-725-1235,800-828-8873
FAX 509-725-7015
rain ierseeds(a-)rainierseeds.com
www.rainierseeds.com
Direct Seed Sales" Native Seed Foundation Plants of the Wild(Seeds Inc.)**
PO Box 1281 P.O. Box 1191 PO Box 866
Tekoa WA 99033
Polson,MT 59860
Issaquah,WA 98027 1-888 528 9788(425)831 2076 406 274 0691 FAX 208 267 3265 509-284-2848kathy @Plantsofthewild.com
FAX 425-831-2078 info&ativeseedfoundation.com www.plantsofthewild.com
directseed cDmsn.com www.nativeseedfoundation.com
www.directseedsales.com
Frosty Hollow Ecological Pacifica Restoration Thorn Creek Native Seed Farm**
Restoration 4625 51h Ave NW 1461 Thorn Creek Rd.
PO Box 53 Olympia,WA 98502 Genesee, Idaho 83832-9655
Langley,WA 98260-0053 360 556-4271 208-596-1116
360-579-2332 FAX 360-579-4080 gonetoseed cDgmail.com facie a()nativeseedfarm.com
wean(a)whidbey.net www.nativeseedfarm.com
hftps://rngr.neUresources/directory/
frostyhol lowecologica I restoration/view
Inside Passage Pacific Northwest Natives Western Reclamation,Inc.
PO Box 639 P.O.Box 3162 P.O.Box 210
Port Townsend,WA 98368-0639 Albany,OR 97321 13293 Glade North Rd.
360-385-6114 or 1-800-361-9657 541-928-8239 Fax 541-924-8855 Eltopia,WA 99330
FAX 360-385-5760 Mobile:541-974-6775 509 297-4500
inspass cDwhidbey.net pacificnwnatives cDcomcast.net thams aa�westernreclamation.com
www.insidepassageseeds.com www.pacificnwnatives.com www.westernreclamation.com
PLANTS AND SEEDS:WHOLESALE ONLY (**=WNPS member organization)
Aldrich Berry Farm&Nursery Sound Native Plants Inc.** Washington Association of
190 Aldrich Rd. Ben Alexander Conservation Districts(WACD)Plant
Mossy Rock WA PO Box 7505 Materials Center**
360-983-3138 Olympia WA 98507-7505 16564 Bradley Rd.
gald rich(a)tds.com 360-352-4122 Bow,WA 98232
www.alddchberryfarm.com ben soundnativeplants.com
www.soundnativeplants.com 360 757-1094
wacd(aD-ncia.com
www.wacdpmc.orq
Briggs Nursery Inc. Storm Lake Growers Watershed Garden Works& Retail
4407 Henderson Blvd. Terra Sitner 2039 44th Avenue
Olympia WA 98501 18510 SR 203 Longview,WA 98632
206-352-5405 FAX:206-352-5699 Monroe WA 98272 360 423-6456
sales cDbdggsnursery.com 360-794-4842 scottna.watershedgardenworks.com
www.bdggsnursery.com terranastormlakegrowers.com
www.stormlakegrowers.com www.watershedgardenworks.com
Firetrail Nursery Sunbreak Nursery Wetlands&Woodlands Wholesale
3107 140t'Street NW Rick Wright Nursery
Marysville,WA 98271 5192 Aldrich Road 23423 5711 Ave SE
360 652 9021 FAX 360 652 8932 Bellingham WA 98226 Woodinville,WA 98072
360-384-3763 FAX:360-384-5030
www.firetrailnursery.com sun breaknurserycom pan y a().comcast.net 425 338-9218, FAX 425 337-4985
www.sunbreaknursery.net wetlandwoodlands.com
Fourth Corner Nurseries T and L Nursery Wildlands Inc.
5652 Saud Road. PO Box 1421 1941 Saint St.
Bellingham,WA 98226 13245 Woodinville Redmond Rd. NE Richland,WA 99354
360 592 2250 or 360 734 0079
Redmond WA 98052 509 375-4177
800-416-8640 4o(a)T -5050andLnursery.com info@T wild Iandsnursery(c)-aol.com
FAX 888-506-1236 www.TandLnursery.com https://Widiands-inc.com
sales a()fourthcornernursedes.com
www.fourthcomemurseries.com
Judd Creek Nursery Thorn Creek Native Seed Farm** Windy Ridge Tree Farm
Mail address:PO Box 13378 1461 Thorn Creek Rd. PO Box 340
Burton WA 98013 Genesee, Idaho 83832-9655 Amboy WA 98601
Location:20929111th Ave. SW 208-596-1116 360-247-8733,360-606-8581
Vashon Island WA 98070 0acieRnativeseedfarm.com
206-463-9641 (phone and fax) www.nativeseedfarm.com https://www.windyridgetreefarm.com
jbrowne001 cD_centurytel.net
rhodygarden.org/ems/iudd-creek-
nursery
Pacific Natives and Ornamentals Wabash Farms
PO Box 23 31218 SE 408th St.
Bothell,WA 98041-0023 Enumclaw,WA 98022
425 483-8108 FAX 425 487-6198 360 825-7051, FAX 360 825-1949
pacificnativesna.verizon.net Wabash(a�nventu re.com
www.wabashfarms.info
RETAIL NURSERIES Gray Barn Nursery-Pacific Topsoils
B.C.'s Wild Heritage Plants Derby Canyon Natives** 20871 Redmond Fall City Rd. NE
47330 Extrom Road 9750 Derby Canyon Rd, Box 385 Redmond WA 98053
Sardis, BC,Canada Peshastin,WA 98847 425-898-8265
604-858-5141 509 548-9404(Phone&FAX) sales a()pacifictopsoils.com
bcwildplants at?.uniserve.com tedRderbycanyonnatives.com www.graybarn.com
bcwildheritage.com www.derbycanyonnatives.com
Bosky Dell Natives Echo Valley Natives Hima Nursery,Inc.
23311 SW Bosky Dell Lane 18883 S. Ferguson Rd. 20629 State Rte.9 SE
West Linn,OR 97068-9130 Oregon City,OR 97045 Snohomish WA 98296
503 638-5945 FAX 503-638-8047 503 631-2451 425-317-8822,FAX 425-489-0222
www.boskydellnatives.com echovalleynative cDaol.com Hima himanursery.com
boskydellnatives aaaol.com www.echovalleynatives.com www.himanursery.com
Brandywine Nurseries Fancy Fronds Humble Roots Farm&Nursery LLC**
17396 McLean Rd. PO Box 1090 2355 Osburn Cut-off
Mt.Vernon WA 98273 Gold Bar,WA 98251 Mosier OR 97040
Erin Christensen 360-793-1472 FAX 360-793-4243 503-449-3694
360-424-3266 Judith(Dfancyfronds.com www.humblerootsnursery.com
ErinCRbrandywinenursery.com www.fancyfronds.com
www.brandyWnenursery.com
Forestfarm Keeping it Green Nursery
Champoeg Nursery 990 Tetherow Road 19401 96t"Ave NW
9661 Yergen Rd.NE Williams, OR 97544-9599 Stanwood WA 98292
Aurora,OR 97002 541-846-7269 FAX 541-846-6963 360-652-1779
503 678-6348(Phone and FAX) plants aaforestfarm.com arlen(@whidbey.net
www.champoegnursery.com www.foresffarm.com www.keepinaitoreennursery.com
Fraser's Thimble Farms Madrona Nursery
175 Arbutus Road 802 371h Ave
Clark's Native Trees" Salt Spring Island, BC, Seattle,WA 98122-5208
3130 State Route 530 NE V8K-1A3,CANADA 206-323-8325(Phone&FAX)
Arlington WA 98223 250-537-5788 busheriohn aaearthlink.net
360-899-6027 thimble aasaltspring.com rhodygarden.org/cros/madrona-nursery
www.thimblefarms.com
Classic Nursery Friendly Natives Plants&Design Methow Natives Nursery
16215 140th Place NE 2464 Happy Valley Rd. 19 Aspen Lane
Woodinville,WA 98072 Sequim,WA 98382 Winthrop,WA 98862
425-885-5678 206 387-5943 509-996-3562
info()classicnursery.com lissa()friendlynatives,net methownatives aa)methownet.com
www.classicnursery.com www.fdendlynatiyes.net www.methownative.com
Cloud Mountain Farm Garden Sphere Molbak's Garden and Home
6906 Goodwin Road 3310 N. Proctor 13625 NE 175th St.
Everson WA 68247 Tacoma WA 98407 Woodinville WA 98072
360-966-5859 253-761-7936 425-483-5000
info()couldmountainfarm.com FAX:253-752-5575 contact us cDmolbaks.com
www.cloudmountainfarm.com customerservice at?.oardensphere.biz hftps://www.molbaks.com
hftp://gardensphere.biz
Deeproots Landscaping&Nursery Go Natives!Nursery" MsK Rare Plant Nursery
PO Box 522 Don Norman Kruckeberg Botanic Garden
7975 N. Dryden Rd. 2112 NW 199th 2031215th Ave NW
Dryden,WA 98821 Shoreline,WA 98177-2345 Shoreline,WA 98177-2166
509 782-2639 FAX 509 782-9020 gonatives cDgmail.com 206-546-1281
info cDdeeprootslandscapes.com www.gonativesnursery.com www.kruckeberg.org/msk-nursery/
RETAIL NURSERIES
Natives Northwest Northwest Gardener's Nursery
190 Aldrich Rd PO Box 12486
Mossyrock,WA 98564-9609 Mill Creek WA 98082
360 983-3138 FAX 360 983-8588 360-668-8755 FAX:360-668-6095
Toll free:888-633-8977
Olympic Nursery Park Place Gardens Nursery(PPGN) Sky Nursery
16507 1401h PI.NE 139 Kidd Creek Ln 18528 Aurora Avenue N
Woodinville,WA 98072 Onalaska,WA 98570 Shoreline WA 98133
425 483-9254 FAX 425 485-9451 360 978-4504,360 623-0186 206-546-4851
sales()olympicnursery.com FAX 360-978-4367 sky a(7skynursery.com
www.olympicnursery.com solutions ci�ppgn.com www.skynursery.com
www.ppqn.com
Oregon Native Plant Nursery
PO Box 886 Sound Native Plants**Woodburn,OR 97071-0886 Plantas Nativa LLC** PO Box 7505
503-981-2353 210 E.Laurel Olympia,WA 98507
oregonnativeplantc( yahoo.com Bellingham,WA 98226 360-352-4122 FAX360-867-0007
360-715-9655, FAX 360-734-6612 cathyPa.soundnativeplants.com
bay cDplantsnativa.com www.soundnativeplants.com
www.plantsnativa.com
Oxbow Farm&Conservation Ctr. Plantasia Design Center&Botanical Swanson's Nursery*'
10819 Carnation-Duvall Rd. NE Gardens 9701 15th Ave. NW
Carnation WA 98014 2838 Sandtrap Ct.SW Seattle WA 98117
425-788-1134 ext.4 Olympia,WA 98512 206-762-2443
bridgetcDoxbow.org 360 754-4321 garden() wansonsnursery.com
hftp://www.oxbow.org/native-plants/ Evonne www.soundnativeplants.com
Peryeawww.plantasiagardens.com
Pacific Rim Institute for Plants of the Wild(Seeds,Inc.)** Tadpole Haven Native Plants
Environmental Stewardship*" PO Box 866 Shirley Doolittle-Egerdahl,owner
180 Parker Rd. Tekoa,WA 99033-0866 20314 197th Ave NE
Coupeville,WA 98239 509-284-2848 FAX 509-284-6464 Woodinville,WA 98072
360-678-5586 Kathy()plantsofthewild.com 425-788-6100
holly aRpacificriminstitute.org www.plantsofthewild.com By appointment:click for directions
www.pacificriminstitute.org growing cDtadpolehaven.com
www.tadpolehaven.com
Rogers Country Nursery&Gardens Tapteal Native Plants
Pacific Rim Native Plant Nursery 2075 Seabeck Highway NW 1222 Broadview Dr.
43359 Hillkeep Place Bremerton WA 98312 West Richland WA 99353
Chilliwack,BC V2R 1A9 360-478-0288 509-786-6446
CANADA chris()kitsapcountrynursery.com info(a)taptealnativeplants.com
604-792-9279 FAX:604-792-1891 www.kitsapcountrynursery.com hftps://www.taptealnativeplants.com
plants cDhillkeep.ca
www.hillkeep.ca Seattle Native Plants By appointment only
Burien WA 98168
206-956-7313
info a(-seattlenativeplants.com
www.seattlenativeplants.com
By appointment only
RETAIL NURSERIES
Valley Growers Nursery&
Landscape
30570 S Barlow Rd, PO Box 610
Hubbard,OR 97032
503-651-3535 FAX 503-651-3044
vlyprwrs cDweb-ster.com
www.valleyprowers.com
Wildflowers NW**
27442 SE 216t"St.
Maple Valley,WA 98038-6337
206-715-4016
wildflowersnw(cDAmail.com
www.Wildflowersnw.com
Willamette Wildlings
80692 Turkey Run Rd.
Creswell OR 97426
541-767-9142
natives()willamettewildlings.com
https://willamettewildlings.com
Woodbrook Nursery**
Location:5919 78th Ave. NW
Gig Harbor,WA 98335
253-265-6271 FAX 253-265-6471
Cellular:253-225-1900
wood brk cDharbornet.com
www.woodbrooknativeplantnursery.com
Woods Creek Nursery
21008 Woods Creek Road
Monroe WA 98272
360-794-6823 FAX 360-805-4356
www/woodscreeknursery.com
Zenith Holland Gardens
23260 Marine View Dr.So.
Des Moines WA 98198
206-878-7002
Zenith Holland@runbox.com
www.zenithholland.com
i II
Appendix M.
Qualifications
Ryan E. Crater
Principal Consultant and Ecologist
Professional Experience: 16 years
Ryan E. Crater is a professional land use planner and ecologist with a diverse background
including but not limited to land use regulations, critical area regulations, performing fish surveys,
habitat assessments, habitat monitoring, stream habitat assessments, plant surveys and wetland
delineations. Ryan also has over a decade of experience as a planner reviewing critical areas
reports and verifying their results in the field.
Ryan earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology from the Evergreen State College in 2005
and an associate degree in Environmental Science from Clover Park Technical College in 2003.
While attending Clover Park, he received formal wetland delineation training both in the classroom
and in the field. In October 2019, he completed the 2-day Coastal Training Program Course
entitled "Using the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System (2014) in Western
Washington". Ryan received additional wetland delineation training while he was a Wetland
Biologist Intern for the Washington State Department of Transportation. He has also taken
graduate level courses in salmonid behavior and life history from the Evergreen State College.
All field inspections, wetland delineation determinations, habitat assessments, and supporting
documentation, including this Wetland Delineation Report were prepared by, or under the
direction of Ryan E. Crater.
I
6/11/2021 Mason County WA GIS
Mason County WA GIS Mason I
319151400000 T —. _
u
_ m w
Show search results for 31915... _
� � a
Ab
- r «`,��""�....�,..�LL'.: ''�-- •tom ��' �R .t 2!?;; •••
.a
• �' F '"' !A'.
i
Ae
-i1., •� ''e i1, _..,., ,tom#I��gt - ri. ��t � ..." R"1t1. ^r ^�
r
t
,1.��• „ � j' y r r
r
Ak
--- ► SKrr -
Tvwr
`�Ms`•,,.:,t,�_'• -.-=�� ��� ,.ti fir= i -� �T��t-' 7'� � ,, `,..
•,
st ` '• fir" .,w_. rf
,...
!,On !„ Y
lit .Ir+'
16
• 4r
https://gis.co.mason.wa.us/mason/?find=319151400000