Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD2015-00103 - HMP Ir -'' r iL.a,S.ciA&+scQ �, _F � ; s. ,a I • WESTECH COMPANY { ! Environmental Consulting - Site Permitting 1 `` moi► .#0* MITIGATION AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN 190 BEE MILL ROAD, BRINNON I ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # 963-900-023 JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON IlkNY I III X11 1 C' 4 uT 1 y s�:7- V 1 .' - to - 1ti i i ..✓ . 40i6.14,2-,11%,-,-.,-..-- . .:; r t r` q, •j', f1' W+,•i' ..., %R t inn -.-..-,..:7,-- a S 1�. . ,2, t � i Y.�.a"f Ya•7 .,,y� ,- �d :F .nb,r'1Y ,a c 4. '-iii'-'.44-.. 1 CC. ,,.,,,,.:,-.0.„.;.- .rte.., n, 1,.,...4,--. G Y� $ �1w£..i ,2 ' -,`.., 'x- ° i 1 December 2013 1 G. Bradford Shea, Ph.D. I Submitted to: JEFFERSON COUNTY I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 ISubmitted by: JAN 1 3 2514 I WESTECH COMPANY P.O. Box 2876 Port Angeles, Washington 98362 1 P.O. Box 2876 - Port Angeles,Washington 98362-Telephone: (360) 565-1333 1 email: brad@westechcompany.com • • MITIGATION AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN 190 BEE MILL ROAD, BRINNON ' ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # 963-900-023 JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1 December 2013 1 ' G. Bradford Shea, Ph.D. Copyright 2013 by G. Bradford Shea, Westech Company—All Rights Reserved 1 Submitted to: JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, Washington 98368 Submitted by: ' WESTECH COMPANY P.O. Box 2876 Port Angeles, Washington 98362 11 I 0 0 I CONTENTS ICHAPTER/SECTION PAGE NO. ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 ' 2.0 APPROACH AND METHODS 7 2.1 Approach 7 2.2 Methods 7 I3.0 MITIGATION PLAN 9 3.1 Regulatory Setting 9 I3.2 Existing Conditions 11 3.3 Project Impacts 13 3.4 Plan Components 15 I 3.5 Detailed Mitigation Measures 16 3.6 Implementation and Timing 16 I 3.7 Mitigation Monitoring 17 3.8 Contingency Plan 18 I4.0 PLANTING PLAN 19 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 23 I 5.1 Conclusions 23 6.2 Recommendations 23 ' 6.0 REFERENCES 26 TABLES ' Table 1. List of Native Plants for Buffer Mitigation and Enhancement 21 FIGURES I Figure 1. Location Map 2 Figure 2. Vicinity Map 3 Figure 3. Parcel Map 4 I Figure 4. Aerial Photograph (July 25, 2013) 5 Figure 5. Existing Site Conditions 6 Figure 6. Planned Site Development 14 IFigure 7 Planting Areas for Native Plants 20 APPENDICES I Appendix A— Site Photographs A-1 Appendix B — Detailed Site Plan B-1 I WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP.TOC/122413/mas i • • ' 1.0 INTRODUCTION ' The Property (Site) is located at 190 Bee Mil Road, roughly 4.0 miles north of Brinnon, Washington. The Property is owned by Ann Matsunami, Trustee for the A.N. Matsunami Living Trust of 1650 Liliha Street, #201, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817- 3169. It is recorded as Assessor's Parcel #' 963-900-023. The Site lies within Jefferson County, Washington in the Southwest Quarter of Section 13 of Township 26 North, Range 2 West, W.M. (Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4). The Site lies in unincorporated Jefferson County, Washington on the eastern shores of Hood Canal. The property is approximately 190.44 feet long by 61.77 feet wide. The parcel abuts a wetland beach complex to the south and rises to about 18 feet above msl on the ' northern boundary at Bee Mill Road. The parcel is approximately 0.27 acres in size. An existing paved driveway provides vehicular access to the property. The property currently contains a 1,248 square foot house (double-wide mobile home) and deck ' as well as a two car garage. The owner expects to increase the residence size to approximately 1,800 — 1,900 square feet or more by expanding the width of the home to the north and south (parallel to the shoreline) and possibly adding a ' second story (Figure 5) (see Appendix A for site photographs). The marine shoreline along this Property is considered a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and has been designated as critical habitat for Hood Canal Summer Chum and Puget Sound Chinook (50 C.F.R. 226). The shoreline is classified as a "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area" (FWHCA) by Jefferson County, requiring a 150 foot buffer from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and a five foot building setback from the buffer. It is the intention of the owner to replace the current residence on-site with a new structure with an expanded footprint to the north and south (possibly a two story home). The owner also intends to place a new septic system with a drainfield ' landward of the house, between the house and the garage (Figure 5 also Appendix B). ' Because the proposed plan is inside a potentially reduced buffer (about 40 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) to the front of the house), it will disturb soils and some existing vegetation and will increase impervious surfaces on-Site. ' The Property owners have contracted with Westech Company (Westech) to satisfy the County's requirements in regards to Critical Areas. ' This Report constitutes a Habitat Management Plan which will describe existing conditions on the Site, define the impacts of development, and outline a management proposal to maintain and enhance the existing functions and values of the buffer and its associate watershed and will ensure "No Net Ecological Loss of Shoreline Functions" (RCW36.70A.480). This document is intended to satisfy the requirements of pertinent Jefferson County and State ordinances. WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 1 I • s 1 mm ate, _ , ,- 0 0 �, J N N rirsdiss3/4., r. '` 1" d w C6 (Q i lj k Y' Q- W k4 0 's ' o cna. II v i 4a �4 ' :• r \ w w , ky,r 1 O 1 Y 5 , a,. O N 40' i • -51..3: gr, U w • m J tiI w o Jt) Of, Z 5:4w o A I LT ./ t m " � - _ 0 . a ri___ I 41110 ter'"W .044 .t 1 , ' -1' . 0.) V CO C_ L t, LL I 1 I • • CO CO Q Jt. N N S r ?3 L a G ,W I j �� (Q r�w- �• 0. W • 4ID � O f"•"ry Manwe�w ©• �,,,� 0 • jCD 2 * to N I 4XF.. 1 j O3 I IS _ m>c. m. Em 0 - 6xo M 0 til rE N. .i C • ea I J a �_. . 1irf _i $ ., o to m � 9 U > I - N m ac .r 1] Q� N 1 C o 3" C a C 'a , r I I y-+ D i -404 rr .• .....- + 0 1 , � i ''. aiipiltib: - I I • s I co co 0 0 N N TT 1 c .J (a a 8 U O 1 1 / D I. 0 1 `o 1 1 1 Y Q C6 i W 1 U ft3 1 5c5 4. M N I N LL I I I o. I _ A G 1 I I I • • I -C -I-t CO CO .- O C) . N N 00 illt CD O.) c -c CO (.13 CI. LA 00 E ,..D o ,.., CD U a) i75 0 0 c..) b" _c o o I t a) -u-') • a) 0 I .7.7 a. (S) 0 u) I # I 1 I , . t mi c--,,i' 0 c\I Atr" 1..6 i " >, —J I I •;• t a E' crs 0 4Iw 11:‘, 03 o _c I / "‘• ..' a_ Ts I cc. To w 4% D I -• 0 os u_— , . he..;,,.. -,..„ I • -, V• ' ' ear I • e0s ._ I . . 4# 4 Af 1,14 ... . I 4 —II ••• I ) I I • • CD CD MM' N N 2 b4 € � syyN \, ! 1 ( _j11 C CO O _ D R. •R' *13 1 tl a a O. _ in x3,• 1y��'"'�'--.imp ; ,S 0 �. (1) 44 ,u .-,.xA"`F-"^' • t -RSYsT+r d. R CSISA.� Z'Y1 ,d ♦V R w f ; I V I U I 02 1 a ,17! I mit&rc.:41-Trg % . i 1 � i d CD .. '� f I C .7 �{Ii a O I rI \ Z ► 1 U ! I U CO AP, .1�r t Y O i� c 1 ' I1 v JS I 3 .I I E\\`\�`. N. to � r , 2S' �2 I 1 1 111 3 ., 1i A.ji I 9 : '. 1 ( U • r{}_) -1-4X/1-----_____________„1 ~' A -----'''" A4----A--4.`— i . U. I al i r5' ? :( 4t_ I ,� � I . .1171 "' -,, i ''',. =":► z1- ir f i` 1 ` ji / i1 g ° sy/ liI _ N. g UU rrr `` r 1 I • • 1 2.0 METHODS ' 2.1 APPROACH The approach for this investigation into the impacts of development of this Site included a detailed review of County Assessor's parcel maps, Critical Area Maps, aerial photographs of the Site, mapped locations of Species of Concern by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), mapped locations of ESA (Endangered Species Act) listed species' critical habitat by NOAA-NMFS ' (National Marine Fisheries Service) and topographic maps of the area. A Site Plan prepared by Creative Design Solutions was also reviewed and utilized to define proposed planting areas (see Section 3.3 and Appendix B). Westech Company's (Westech) field investigations for the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) were carried out in December 2013 by Dr. G. Bradford Shea, Principal ' Ecologist, Westech Company. During Site visits, the Property was inspected and Site characteristics were noted. Relevant measurements were taken for mapping purposes, photographic documentation of the Site was acquired, and potential mitigation was identified. 2.2 METHODS During December 2010 and January 2011, Westech performed delineation of the ' Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) for the property for a previous owner. Stakes were placed in the field along the OHWM line and a brief letter report was written. Creative Design Solutions has used the residual stakes to map the OHWM on the ' Site Plan (Figures 5 and 6). Information from that report are incorporated into this plan as applicable (Westech 2011). Westech's field reconnaissance during December 2013 involved examining the existing conditions found at the Site. This included reviewing the area proposed for development in relation to the natural features found on-site. Botanical studies ' were conducted involving identification of plant species that could be found growing at the Site. Site measurements were taken (including dimensions of proposed planting areas) using a fiberglass tape measure. ' A qualitative assessment of the landscape was conducted to determine the presence of invasive species, the composition and characteristics of plants in the critical area, evidence of historical land uses, the slope of lands adjacent to critical areas, soil textures and stability and an assessment of the role of existing vegetation in supporting soil stability. Westech also assessed the extent of existing human disturbance in the critical areas. This information was used to assess the potential impacts of the proposed project. ' VVW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 7 ' • 1 This HMP has been formulated to assure "no net ecological loss" and to "maintain or enhance the existing functions and values of the associated watershed" (JCC 18.22.480; RCW36.70A.480). Chapters 3.0 and 4.0 describe the goals and objectives of this HMP as well as the performance standards that will be utilized to ' assess the effectiveness of this plan. This Plan is intended to restore and enhance the integrity of the Site by improving the quality of habitat and erosion control though planting of additional native vegetation at the Site. 1 1 I WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 8 ' • • 3.0 MITIGATION PLAN 3.1 REGULATORY SETTING There are several jurisdictional issues related to the development of this parcel of land. The Site is a low bank site with nearly flat topography to an elevation of 18 feet above mean sea level (msl). As such, there is no distinct "top of bank" above the on-site wetland. The home is located about 40 feet inland from the OHWM (roughly equivalent to the Mean Higher High Water Mark (MHHW). ' The Site is zoned Rural Residential 1:5 (RR1:5), which has a maximum density of one dwelling per five acres with a minimum lot size of one acre. The purpose ' of rural residential zoning is to allow for "continued residential development" in areas of the County of "relatively high density pre-existing patterns of development," including "along the County's coastal areas" (JCC 18.15.015). ' The Site is located along a section of shoreline that is considered a "Shoreline of Statewide Significance" and is regulated under Jefferson County's Shoreline ' Master Program. This shoreline has been designated under the Shoreline Master Program as a "Suburban" shoreline as defined by Jefferson County mapping. These are areas where "residential activity may approach urban ' density, but usually where densities permit space for small numbers of livestock, gardens or wood lots. These areas "provide permanent residential and recreational areas outside urban areas, so long as development of these areas ' provides adequate facilities for sewage disposal, water supply, open space and the like without severe degradation to the lifestyle that was sought initially". ' Under the Shoreline Master Program Suburban designation, the standard set- back for residential structures is 30 feet from OHWM for properties with no bank, such as this parcel. The deck on the existing residence is approximately 30 feet ' from OHWM. This shoreline has been designated "critical habitat" for threatened salmonid ' species, specifically the Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer Chum. This listing comes from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Growth Management Act ' (RCW36.70A.480) mandates that the County protect such critical areas. Jefferson County carries out this mandate by classifying this shoreline as a "Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area" (FWHCA). These areas are considered ' to be of "critical importance to the maintenance of endangered, threatened or sensitive species of fish, wildlife, and/or plants" (18.22.200). 1 VWV1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 9 ' • S Jefferson County requires a buffer of 150 feet from the OHWM in areas in which ' "federally listed species have a primary association." In addition, a five foot building setback from the buffer is required. Buffers for the estuarine wetland and the fish bearing stream also affect the property but overlap with the FWHCA ' buffer. Local and site specific factors may be taken into account and the buffer width is to be "based on the best available information concerning the species/habitat in questions" (JCC 18.22.270(2)). Any project located within this buffer must follow Jefferson County drainage and erosion control, grading and vegetation retention standards (JCC 18.22.270). Landowners may obtain a reduction in the size of the buffer required for FWHCAs. The administrator has the "authority to reduce buffer widths on a case- by-case basis" provided that standards are met for avoiding and minimizing impacts and that the buffer reduction does not "adversely affect the habitat functions and values of the adjacent FWHCA or other critical area" (JCC ' 18.22.270). However, the administrator may not reduce the buffer to less than 75 percent of the standard buffer (JCC 18.22.270). Any projects that "alter, decrease or average the standard buffer" require an accompanying Habitat ' Management Plan (HMP) (JCC 18.22.265). Because this project involves elements to be built in the buffer area, but behind previously constructed features, an HMP is required to mitigate and offset any adverse ecological effects. This document is also the best way to meet the intent of RCW36.70A.480 which provides for Jefferson County to make a determination I of"No net loss of ecological functions" with or without mitigation, for renovation of existing shoreline structures. This document includes a "No Net Loss" ecological evaluation, proposed Mitigation Measures to offset impacts and a Habitat Management Plan (including a Planting Plan) to assure long-term health and ecological productivity. These documents (HMPs) must include maps showing the proposed development Site and its relationship to surrounding topographic features; the nature and density of the proposed development; and the boundaries of forested ' areas. The report shall also describe the density and nature of the proposed development in enough detail to allow analysis of impacts on identified fish and wildlife habitat. The report must describe how any adverse impacts resulting from ' the project will be mitigated. Possible Mitigation Measures may include, but are not limited to, establishing buffer zones, preserving plant and tree species, limiting access to habitat areas, seasonally restricting construction activities and ' establishing a timetable for the periodic review of the Plan (18.22.440). VVVV1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 10 • • I 3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ' The Site is located roughly four miles north of Brinnon on the western shore of Hood approximately approximatelyCanal. 0.27Itis acres in size. An190 existingfeet driveway longby62 providesfeet vehicularwide. The accessparcel tois the property. ' Figure 5 shows existing features on the Site. The parcel abuts a Category I wetland to the east and rises to about 18 feet above msl at its southwest corner (at Bee Mill Road). The property is separated from adjacent areas to the north by a community access easement and to the west by Bee Mill Road, after which the terrain continues to grade upward. The property can be divided between a wetland area ' and a partially disturbed upland area characterized by an open lawn area and two main structures and paved parking areas. ' The wetlands on the property were observed in 2011 and 2013. At low tide in 2011, the wetland is an estuarine wetland which was observed to consist of obligate plants including common cordgrass (Spartina anglica), pickleweed ' (Salicomia virginica) and rockweed (Fuchus disticlis). The wetland extends over 150 feet from the lot into the cove. A stream channel also enters the wetland from the lot to the west (maps showing this stream inaccurately show it to the north of ' the Property). The wetland substrate is characterized by sand, silt pebbles and small rocks. Other plants that dominate the area near the upland edge of the upper intertidal zone include dunegrass (Elymus mollis), Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana), pearly everlasting (Anaphalis margaritacea), Canada thistle (Circium arvense), and hairy ' cat's ear (Hypochaeris radicata). The shoreline adjacent to the property has been designated as critical habitat for ' two species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act: Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer Chum (50 C.F.R. 226). t The upland area is characterized by low grasses (lawn area), however a few native trees including Pacific willow (Salix lucida), common juniper (Juniperus communis) and vine maple (Acer circinatum) are present. Other, non-native tree species on the ' Site include Himalayan blackberry (Rubes discolor) and several landscaped large bushes and trees. I 1 VVVV1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 11 1 • s 1 The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped three dominant soils on and in the immediate vicinity of the Site (NRCS 2013). Because NRCS maps can be inaccurate at this scale it is not possible to determine the actual boundary between these soils or the specific soils among these that are found on- site. These soils include: 1 • Coastal Beaches (Co). This soil is usually very well drained (sand, gravel and cobble) and has a depth to water table of about 0 - 72 inches. It has a high frequency of flooding. It consists of sands and 1 gravels to a depth of 72 inches. • Grove very gravelly loamy sand (GrC), 0 — 15 percent slopes. This 1 nearly level to sloping soil has a surface layer of gravelly sandy loam and a subsoil of gravelly sand that rests on a substratum of weakly cemented sandy glacial till from 30 - 40 inches in depth. It is well 1 drained. Permeability is moderately rapid above the till. Runoff is slow to medium and hazard of water erosion is slight to moderate. During the rainy season, areas of perched water table may occur above the 1 till. This soil is present on the western end of the Site. • Olete-Hoodsport Complex (OpD), 0 - 30 percent slopes: This soil is 1 made of equal proportions of Olete very gravelly silt loam and Hoodsport Very gravelly sandy loam. These are well drained, gravelly soils underlain by basalt bedrock at depths of 20 - 30 inches. This soil type covers the eastern portion of the Site. The Site has coastal beach soils at the eastern edge, with most of the Site underlain by Grove soils. The Olete-Hoodsport soils are generally not found on the Site itself, but lie to the north along Bee Mill Road, between the road and the rugged shoreline north of the cove where the Site is located. 1 Figure 5 shows the present level of development on the Site. A driveway provides access to the Site from Bee Mill Road. Three separate structures are presently located on the Site. A house with an 8 to 10 foot wide deck approximately 24 by 50 feet in size (about 1,248 square feet) is located about 40 feet from the OHWM. ' West of the house is a detached two car garage and a small covered area. County maps indicate that the center of the property is within a seismic hazard 1 area. There is no risk of landslide and slopes are considered to be stable. The property lies within an Aquifer Recharge Area and within a Saltwater Intrusion Protection Zone. The Site abuts a large wetland area to the east and there is a stream south of the site (inaccurately shown north of the site on Jefferson County maps). That stream is mapped as fish-bearing (Jefferson County 2013). ' 1 1 WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 12 ' • • 3.3 PROJECT IMPACTS The landowner's plan for this Property entails the expansion of the house to the side within about five feet of the north and south property lines, as well as the ' placement of a new septic system. The primary impacts associated with these projects are those generally associated with construction. Figure 6 is a map of existing and proposed structures on the Site. Currently existing structures on the Site, described from those closest to the shoreline to those furthest away, include the following: ' • A 10 foot wide deck on the front (east) and a smaller deck on the north side of the residence. ' • The existing house. The proposed expansion will be built on the footprint of the existing structure, extending back to the minimum property line setbacks of five feet. The existing garage will remain as shown in Figure 6. The garage structure will remain unchanged. • A 10 foot by 15 foot plastic shed is located on the south side of the 1 house. This shed will be removed as it is in the expanded home footprint. ' • An existing covered platform may remain unless it must be removed to accommodate the new septic system. ' The new septic system will include an existing 1,000 gallon septic tank and a new initial and reserve drainfield which will be placed on the west side of the house CDS 2013). ' The potential impacts of this project will result primarily from the processes of grading and clearing on the Site as well as removal of some earth and the ' movement of construction vehicles on the Site. These potential impacts include the following: ' • The area surrounding these structures and drainfield area will be cleared. This may create the conditions for potential short-term ' erosion and soil instability caused by the construction process and the removal of some vegetation in the buffer (mostly lawn area). Additional earth moving and grading during the construction process may contribute to increased erosion. VWV1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 13 I • • M co III sr I al s 0 CI ( '� a N N irY` I E k °I$? fn r j� � c6 0 �� '� ✓ J�,� �fy^. „ # +nom E 14 o it L.----11— !,::',...- -82$4,,A.;...-, ,-,,,,,,:tzek.:c:„.4.„,),,,,, ci UI xi i pY � 1 lair xa rr l n,�p u) 0 4! p v a _ �s'. ® 't�, as L wzvivs--,.. --a. ,,,... N.-7,--.-4-&-ntsg,-.ti. c!! 1 ri Lz.,.„.ft,n- ..144--f-ri. .A.C. s',...t.i.-z7vvi, I 0 .ci 0 "I + ;g e, RR! [p a W O k � I7it ) k 1 s+ E 1 r0 1 F ° 1 i IV.‘4:rre7''44,44V:zi- -�ti X_ A i cs k � ' - pct ? ig i an I �p: ill � 1o6 iat hi 14. Bim. . F It Q c 92 a � �� t ' to I f I d CO ilk ..., :11 I ,71} ii 4t 4 A 11 lir* 1 6 •Irw it ri ti ,)�. k , ' r I 1 nil A[w , w, c6 k �a tsl - _ mss"_ //`(� - gt I 1 ` \ N' , ji .�„4` liI 1 (1)(,)(k. h 41 1 1 1 1 Q w h r $ N I . I I I lhoop I ill iii i t arsAisrlefracf wegq x s g I ' • • 1 • The removal of some native vegetation in the buffer zone. Native ' vegetation has already been removed near the structures and replaced mainly by poorly growing native species or landscaped ' plants. More will be removed in order to expand the house and drainfield, including the movement of construction vehicles on the Site. Non-native Himalayan blackberry located south of the existing ' residence will also be removed. • Because the residence is being built partially on the same footprint as ' the previous structure, this part of the project will not increase the impervious surface on the Site. The footprint and impervious surface are expected to increase by about 650 square feet. • The removal of vegetation from the Site has already resulted in the direct loss of some habitat. Many species of bird, small mammal and ' insect use native plants for food sources and refuge. The loss of this vegetation in the buffer zone could reduce habitat for these organisms. ' The Management Plan below is intended to offset these adverse impacts. The Mitigation Measures developed in this Plan are intended to compensate for the ' impacts to the shoreline habitat and buffer zone. 3.4 PLAN COMPONENTS The components of the Mitigation Plan include the following: ' • Erosion control methods will be used to prevent on-Site rill or sheet erosion from moving sediments toward the adjacent shoreline. This ' will be accomplished through project timing and emplacement of control measures during construction. A silt fence will be placed on the eastern edge of the construction area, adjacent to the construction envelope. • Native vegetation will be planted to mitigate disturbance to existing plants in the buffer zone. • No nutrients, pesticides or other contaminants will be used within 100 feet of the shoreline. WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 15 ' • 3.5 DETAILED MITIGATION MEASURES The detailed Mitigation Measures corresponding to the Plan Components listed above area as follows: ' • Timing of construction should be limited to the "dry season" between ' April 1 and October 15. By limiting construction to this time period, less effort will be required to inhibit erosion and silt runoff. All graded areas should be covered or re-vegetated prior to November 1. If it is ' necessary to continue construction into the "wet season," then extra measures will be required for erosion and silt runoff control. ' • All erosion control measures should be installed prior to beginning grading or other ground-disturbing construction activities. A silt fence has already been placed between the residence structure and the ' beach. This should be kept in place. Straw bales, jute netting or other appropriate material should be kept on-Site and used to stabilize any open areas following grading. ' • Two areas within the buffer zone will be re-vegetated with native plant species as per the Planting Plan described in Chapter 4.0 in order to ' reduce future erosion and enhance buffer function. Planting success will be monitored and will conform to performance standards as described in Sections 3.6 and 3.7. If performance standards are not ' met, additional plantings or other remedial actions will be taken to meet standards as per requirements in Section 3.7. ' • Implementation of these Mitigation Measures is anticipated to mitigate impacts associated with the further development of the Site and disturbance to the buffer zone. However, the narrow size of buffers at this site and the limited filtering capacity of sandy soils will limit the extent to which the Site will filter long-term pollution and sediments entering the adjacent waters. To minimize the potential for ' contaminants to enter these waters, no additional nutrients, pesticides or additional contaminants should be used on the Site within 100 feet of the OHWM. ' 3.6 IMPLEMENTATION AND TIMING The continuation of construction on the Site should be conducted between April 1 ' and October 15 in order to minimize ground-disturbing activities during the rainy season. Any work carried out during the rainy season should have all erosion control measures in place prior to beginning. 1 WMN1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 16 • • 1 New plantings in the buffer zone should be carried out during early fall if possible 1 (September-October) to avoid the necessity of supplemental watering. Plantings can be placed during the winter or early spring (March-May) if necessary. If plantings occur during summer months, supplemental watering with a drip irrigation 1 system or equivalent method may be necessary. Westech recommends that monitoring of these plantings be conducted by an independent landscaping firm, certified arborist, registered nursery or qualified botanists and that success of the 1 plantings be maintained above a performance standard of 90 percent as described in Section 3.7. 3.7 MITIGATION MONITORING Buffer areas serve a variety of functions. They are important in that they reduce the adverse impacts of adjacent land uses by stabilizing soil and preventing erosion; ' filter suspended solids, nutrients and toxic substances; moderate impacts of stormwater runoff; and reduce noise disturbance and light intrusion. They can also provide important habitat for wildlife. The narrow size of buffers at this Site (about 40 feet from OHWM to the house) and the limited filtering capacity of sandy, gravelly soils limit the extent to which the ' Mitigation Measures will filter pollution and sediments from ongoing activity. This can include pollutants from hydrocarbons, heavy metals, pesticides and fertilizer. Literature on buffer size indicate that buffers of 100 feet may be necessary to consistently filter sediments and pollution that occur in stormwater runoff (Wenger 1999, Mayer et al. 2005). Precluding the use of pesticides, nutrients and other potential contaminants within 100 feet of the OHMW will limit the impact of these pollutants on nearshore critical habitat. The literature also indicates that plantings can increase the effectiveness of the buffer zone, or decrease the size needed to filter contaminants. Because buffer zones serve several functions, it is important that the Mitigation 1 Measures that are implemented to offset significant impacts are successful. Monitoring over an extended period of time provides the best assurance of success. Monitoring success of erosion control measures during construction will 1 be carried out daily during construction. Any evidence of erosion or sedimentation leaving the construction area will result in immediate action to block erosion and sediments. Such siltation can best be blocked through the use of additional silt ' fences, straw bales, wattles, or temporary berms. 1 1 WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 17 • • Monitoring the success of new native plants (as per the Planting Plan described in ' Chapter 4.0) should be carried out and enforced by the County according to the following schedule and performance standards: ' • Following construction, the areas shown in the Planting Plan (Chapter 4.0) should be replanted. ' • The coverage of replanted native vegetation should remain at 90 percent of the original area planted. If monitoring indicates that this ' vegetation drops below this level, contingency measures must be implemented. ' • The homeowners should have a monitoring report prepared by a qualified professional at the end of the first growing season. Follow- up monitoring reports should be completed at the end of the second ' and third full years after construction and restoration. These reports should address the success of the plantings. Any plant mortality should be noted and corrected if plant survival falls below 90 percent ' during the first three years. Documentation should include any necessary corrective measures that include supplemental planting to compensate for plant mortality and notation of the apparent reasons ' for such mortality. All reports should be submitted to Jefferson County for review and concurrence. For this plan to be successful, the County must monitor compliance with its conditions. The failure of the County to monitor the implementation of the Plan may lead to its ineffectiveness. 3.8 CONTINGENCY PLAN ' A Contingency Plan should be followed if Mitigation Measures appear to be failing. This plan should address, in particular, any mortality of revegetated areas below the 90 percent survival level at the end of three years. Should this level be exceeded, the Contingency Plan should include an assessment of the reasons for failure by a qualified botanical professional and the development of a plan for introducing plants likely to be successful in the location where performance standards were not met. VWV1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 18 ' • • ' 4.0 PLANTING PLAN A Planting Plan as diagrammed in Figure 7 will be implemented to mitigate for the disturbance of native vegetation in the buffer areas. A list of native plants that will be used for mitigation and restoration can be found in Table 1. Re-vegetation and ' planting of additional vegetation will occur as an integral part of the Project to compensate for environmental impacts caused by the ground-disturbing activity. ' Most of the area immediately adjacent to the location of the proposed residence expansion and deck is presently a grassy lawn mixed with weeds. The two areas ' designated for additional plantings include: • Planting Area A is a 30 foot by 60 foot area adjacent to and landward oo of the upper intertidal zone. This planting area lies immediately ' behind (west of) theJine_of.HWM consisting of the wetland edge in the upper intertidal zone. The area is partly outside of the fence for ' the yard and partly within it. The area is presently covered by low-cut mixed grasses and forbs (small weedy plants). This area should be planted with the mix of shrubs and ground cover found in Table 1. q • Planting Area B is an approximately a 20 foot by 40 foot area that will °° be planted on and around and behind the present location of the ' house on top of the drainfield. This area should be planted with a mix of selected low shrubs and groundcover over the new drainfield (Table 1). Success of the Planting Plan depends on choosing species that are suitable to both the on-Site soil conditions, but that are hardy and capable of handling nutrient poor soils, shading and some salt spray. The native vegetation selected for this Mitigation and Habitat Management Plan were chosen for these reasons. Plants in Area B were also chosen to be non-water seeking since they will be planted above ' the drainfield area. Soils on the Site are mostly gravelly loam and well drained. Normal rainfall will ' quickly drain through these soils. Plants may require additional watering during the first year in order to meet performance criteria. A simple drip irrigation system would be the most effective method of accomplishing this. ' The species size and number of plants that will be used to revegetate these areas ' is shown in Table 1. Plants will be placed in a semi-random fashion within the areas indicated in Figure 7. Small trees will be placed on ten-foot centers (oceanspray and Indian plum) and shrubs will be planted on six-foot centers or less. Staggering of plants in this fashion, rather than planting in straight rows, will create a more natural appearing configuration. Plants may be clustered by species in order to promote natural reseeding. Importation of some topsoil may be necessary ' in both Planting Areas. WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 19 I • • I _M M_ O O I N N �¢ \ C C R —�1 Z (6 O !t 15 w a O _3 `I 'c---411r— @ j EA O O I — �„ iihj! 1 o e ( a U Cn ����rso ay V JI rs. 1� d) a 1ILLI 16 CD w— n N r r!.• �� ^ a is o 7. `13IIIPAIIIIIII . 'ti •.amr� 8 fi t0 r � a II I U 1 _________i _. fol g Q5 1 1 4 1 a 1-1 yr ,' 1. � SFSF (n ch I �1 5 _� 1 _� t it .) ` \_r 8 1 1 \ I (L II= 1 1 I t 1 1 + L J� : tv� I ,,,111--- _ _ O 0 .0 \ rn z 1 r ��- --1 ' 1 1. 1 0 rn coN ��r� a; 1 L cz1 0) I _ �y cm ' �` ` i I co 1 I I 121 17 C4 c i 1 _ E., I ( ha I 2 ,' N- I 81 1 if I j u. rn `� I . �; I 1 1 _ 1..... Q Iw _. w w w 3 JQ \ I Q 1 I vi"-\ : ,.. 4_. Li '. .\ .4t . H —Cl_Is-,c) rN. zs N. r (Ni4/ , _ . IV I / 7'. /17 .,,_ ".. I I • • TABLE 1. LIST OF NATIVE PLANTS FOR BUFFER MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT I Location Species Scientific Name Number Size f AAmerican dunegrass Elymus mollis 40 3.5 pot I A Beach sand-spurry Spegularia macrotheca 15 1 gallon V A Coastal strawberry Fragaria chiloensis 25 4" pot ✓ A Yellow sand-verbena Abronia latifolia 15 1 gallon A Yerba buena Satureja douglasii 20 1 gallon B Common juniper Juniperus communis 10 1 gallon I B Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis 2 1 gallon / ✓ B Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor 3 1 gallon 0/ .7 B Oregon grape Mahonia nervosa 10 1 gallon IVB Speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia 20 1 gallon Z, ✓ B Sword fern Polystichum munitum - • ° 10 1 gallon / B Rhododendron Rhododendron macrophyllum 5 5 gallon ' B Evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum 10 1 gallon I J 6{, . ain re cc tru K c. 0 two: 1 ie.....„)r O l c4... ..F ,„ Te C Pt s get'l ci.Cci IC 1\10C°"± I I I I I I I ' WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 21 • 1 Plants installed in the fall usually out-perform those installed in the late winter or spring. Planting projects scheduled for early October to mid-December are generally the most successful. The earlier plants go into the ground in the fall, the more time they have to recover from transplant shock, adapt to the site, and expand their roots systems before the growing season. They will require less water and grow more vigorously than if they are planted in the spring. To increase the potential for the planted species to survive, four inches of mulch should be placed around the installed plants with the mulch two inches away from the stem of the plants. 1 1 1 VWV1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 22 11110 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 CONCLUSIONS The property presently contains an existing home and deck, a front yard adjacent to the nearshore (wetland) area, a garage, an existing shed (to be removed) and a covered area. A new residence is being constructed on the footprint of the existing residence, but expanded to the both sides (southward and northward). The property owner also intends to place a new septic system on the property and remove the current septic system. The proposed project is being constructed inside the buffer zone, though it will move the structures no closer to the shoreline than has previously been the case. Measures outlined in this report will be enacted to mitigate additional construction on the Site and incrementally improve habitat and vegetation in the nearshore area. Erosion control measures will include a silt fence and other standard measures and will be used during construction to minimize sheet and rill erosion. A Planting Plan (See Figure 7 and Table 1) will be implemented to provide additional vegetation adjacent to the wetland and east of the existing garage (over the new septic system). This report meets the intent of RCW36.70A.480 ensuring "No Net Loss of Shoreline Ecological Function" due to the Mitigation proposed, and applicable Jefferson County Codes (including JCC 18.25.140). 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS This report constitutes a Mitigation and Habitat Management Plan. A Planting Plan has been included in this report and we recommend that it be implemented on the Site upon approval by the County. Benefits deriving from this Plan will only take ' place if it is implemented and enforced by the County. The silt fence should be emplaced prior to construction and should be left in place ' and additional erosion control materials should be kept on Site to address any erosion observed during construction. The Planting Plan outlined in this report should be implemented; the Plan should be monitored according to the instructions outlined in this plan and the Contingency Plan implemented in the event that plant survival in the revegetated areas falls below 90 percent. Property owners should refrain from the use of pesticides or additional nutrients on the Site and should introduce no contaminants within 100 feet of the OHWM. While these measures will provide mitigation for additional construction and use of the Site, the shoreline and marine critical areas may experience continued cumulative impacts as a result of the narrow size of the buffers and limited filtering capacity of the soils in this area. WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 23 • • 6.0 REFERENCES Creative Design Solutions (CDS). 2013. Unpublished Site Plan for 190 Bee Mill Road, Jefferson County, Washington. Port Angeles, Washington. ' Google Earth. 2013. Online mapping software. www.googleearth.com. ' Imagery date July 25, 2013. Europa Technologies. Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Jefferson County. 2013. Online Map Database. http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/. ' Jefferson County, Washington. Jefferson County. 2009. Jefferson County Critical Areas Code. Title 18.22 JCC. ' Department of Community Development. Port Townsend, Washington. Lyons, C.P. 1997. Wildflowers of Washington. Lone Pine Publishing. Renton, ' Washington. Mayer, P.M., S.K. Reynolds, and T.J. Canfield. 2005. Riparian Buffer Width, ' Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations. Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ' Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm Pojar, J. and A. MacKinnon. 1994 (reprinted 2004). Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing Company. Redmond, Washington. Revised Code of Washington. 2013. RCW36.70A.480. Shoreline of the State. http://apps/leg.wa.gov/rcw/defau lt.aspix?cite=3670A.480. ' Taylor, R. 1995. Northwest Weeds. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula Montana. ' Wegner, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and Vegetation. Athens, Georgia: Institute of Ecology, University of ' Georgia. Westech Company. 2011. Letter Report on Ordinary High Water Mark for 190 Bee Mill Road. Heritage Homes. Sequim, Washington. WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas 24 1 • • 1 1 1 ' APPENDICES 1 WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP11224131mas 25 1 �► s 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 APPENDIX A 1 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1W1N1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas A-1 I • • I .. _' w. . .... s.'N . a r 4 ..!. 11 1 '• r,! , ..,,......,,,.,,, ,,, ,, ,_ . ,, ,_:, .. ... . . , • • „,.....„,, , .,,,, ,, , , , 1 • p'-4'. 1' Si %I 1 1 .� J•' f.Y I 1g^ d . ` 4" t. I t � ... �( 'mak °�'' .• _ .; `'�' �r-. S 5y y r ^t t a •y- I ^. ..---�� � _ . 1) Front of house showing yard and planting area. I • Oi.:5::4.„:,w �” �ar ND , R,., be y_t rYa ,,,�, b>: �• yjk�,� i. }t1;r: ,t I1 ,k . I, Ill ►111 LL et.... ., I itott ` �� !L�Faaa• 'II 4 C g P 9j ., ,#1. { a Jsry* t t t 'S •`4'F ee`•"�' .* �''Et .*� .. 4.4C' 5�,#c.# .\ r{{ I •''r ./,.•'EM `* * •* . +♦ 4 • ,' a'\• u 1 • 1 2) East side of house showing shrubs to be removed. ' WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas A-2 I i i 1 _ . a ' # ��,�'�.�t �a8- f 1 -d ,t, i CI 1 0 4 ► f. I orifi' 4,i �:` '•i x1+�7 D+ a, r � It v I I .4- , w.4ii ... ,>�la t��a ��IF 3) Wetland area on south side of existing house. I g. J^� 1 IPA .0. y� F �"v./I" 'fit• I ie. 7. it f . 1 y- I . 1 -a' 4 ....,..-.4 .71'74 ns;) Mrd . A 4: f. y k M1h i. ,. wi I I 4) Existing 2-car garage. 1 WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas A-3 1 • • I • 1�� C ^ r,__I : _ - -.4....0.% IyL t I t� A w wr. +> 1h .Y '..w. ...µ,04444o-'® �,. [.M 4.11%411** ft �� • I.• lsileill5) Northeast side of house showing current entry and test pit. I b hp ` , II { fi �J� _ r +� .•221 � 'ic..•-�.-^e-"J><" -_ _-._. 1 • -•• x 4 r" , �,. i 1/41 < 2 i dg � I I ta r j 1 t \ '14' i '11 k,T' .^ M1 - �' .f L 1 1 • i i 16" 5 I a�r # §oa 4 I --,-/k.: /t3F. ..}I.1:4 a+ 24 -r- ,..!Aire vl C I ` "I {�Y r`T�`` 4 4 1• -IV:00- �4 4 i .. Y/I �w"1 \^!4 '�< J �f� UK wKP �'i V rY. I6) Southwest side of house showing non-native blackberry to be removed. 1 ' WW1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413lmas A-4 1 1 i i 1 i i 1 APPENDIX B DETAILED SITE PLAN 1 i 1 1 i i 1 1 VWV1296-190BeeMillRoadHMP/122413/mas B-1 1 I • • It� a t oe 11 44 1 q6 i '�I ti uYi 64 F€J { o 0.s g$ at. I off. .5 i yt 3 '' Q 0H 1 FiNKK32 I alig ,, isoplailimmuphiw.4.hp , -----/ diri I 1{? may' I d I CC E I « h R i • tl E d �i�t 1'V• to 8" y I ii �I �441,4%. i�*sem w 1 . ,I; �.v. u 3V1.87°' 4, 'J I ykj .O I NN 4 •I 4a ', i Ir -I IIr : J tAtviftieZ; 1 \ II `�'`�1 I \ E4 I �� N # j' '/► 1 m 1 _ i At. _ ,'.,..,,,` u. 1 J w i 1 ` Ian `' 01 ii I z ,6 - -.* 'AI i : 1! : mg el i +__ _ I- i `\ ` ••• dI 0_,. . -� co I II eft. L +fit+rt ©Q M coY _ I NI. il it k i 11 I \ ..s\....4 ir '- I I • CD R8 ~