Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Restoration Memos, Declaration - PLN General - 1/20/1998
1-20-1998 9:37AM FR0t,"—RCEN AND STEPHENS 122'64536224(� ?. 2 r� GROEN & STEPHENS AT".'ORNEYS AT LAW ONE 3&L[.F.VUP CENTER 3OHN:�1.GROEK 411 :08'IH AVE\UE NE THLEPHONH RICHARD M.STRPAENS (425)453-6206 CHAR-ES A.KLINGB SUIT£ I1,50 BELLEVUE. WASHINC-ION 98004.5515 ALSO AOMfYfL'll 7N FACSIMILE A:.ASKA 014MM A CAU OANIA (425)45.34224 January 20, 1998 via facsimile Nfr. Paul Hamidi Regulatory Branch Department of the Army Seattle District, Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-2255 Re: 917-4-02125, Craig.Eldridge Dear Mr. Hamidi: Thank you for discussing the above referenced matter with me on Friday,January 16, 1998. As I explained, this firm is representing Craig Bldridge and Richard Scott with respect to the letter dated December 11, 1997, from Colonel James Rigsby, District Engineer, in the above referenced matter. As we discussed, we will provide a response by February 10, 1998, to address the issues raised by the letter. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, r Groen& Stephens Charles A. Klinae CAK:hks I:I.Clients\Scott\COE 01.doc cc: Clients Rvan Windish Mason County Department of Community Development Post Office Box 578 Shelton, Washington 98584 rtts—l7—yrc IHu 12 :90 W_tt!0WW 206 A-Z8 2534 P.02 j BREE) BERG & ASSOCIATES �� LAND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS February 9, 1998 Paul Hamidi US Army Corps of Engineers PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-2255 RE: 97-4-02125 Eldridge, Craig Dear Paul: This letter is in response to the December 11, 1997 letter addressing a violation. Each question is answered per the letter. a. As built sketch The as-built is returned with changes as follows: The drainagway marked stream on the COE map is a historic constructed ditch dug through upland. The work along the ditch does not impact 25 to 40 feet of wetlands. No grading or filling of wetlands occurred associated with the ditch. The historic ditch was maintained and culverts under Crogan and Oriswald Ave.'s were replaced. Activities associated with the ditch should not be considered under COE jurisdiction as it was maintenance of existing facilities. This leaves at this time the 0.16 acre area cleared. The attached map shows the existing plat of 180 individual lots and existing county road ROW. The ditch is shown at the southern end of the flagged wetland, near block 58. b. work was performed by Messrs. Eldridge and Scott. P. O. Box 1337, 6677 Kimball Drive, Suite C-1 , Gig Harbor WA 98335 USA (2(X ;§Jb0j0M) 858-2534 E-Mail Address: widemtn@harbornet-corn FEB-10-98 TUE 11 : 10 -) 3 L564 Y. UZ C. Work started in May 1995. d. Work was started without notifying the sOth none acret the me the work was of wetlands were begun it was a non-notifying activity as l impacted and it is above the headwaters. Further, the ditch work was maintenance and exempt from COE jurisdiction. e. Property ownership at the time of the hweo a gads.• Eldridge and Scott. In addition Mason County own platted f. Primary purpose of the work in the ditch was to maintain historic conditions and replace existing culverts. Work in the 0.16 acres area involved clearing primarily on the County ROW was for access to a single family lots. g. No practicable alternatives are needed as the owner has the right to maintain historic drainage and remove vegetation. if you have any questions or wish a site visit, please contact me. P A.J. Bredberg 3016coelajb/2110198 t GROEN & STEPHENS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE BELLEVUE CENTER JOHN M.GROEN 411 108TH AVENUE NE TELEPHONE RICHARD M.STEPHENS (425)453-6206 CHARLES A.KLINGE SUITE 1750 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004-5515 FACSIMILE ALso ADmrrrED IN (425)453-6224 ALnsKA,ONEGON&CnL>FORNu Ce FFe2 I VFD February 10, 1998 Mggpy�� > 1998 via facsimile and mail 1:4 Paul Ilan:' Regulatory anch Departme of the Army Seattle istrict, Corps of Engineers Post ice Box 3755 Se le, Washington 98124-2255 Re: 97-4-02125, Craig Eldridge Wetlands Enforcement Letter Dear Mr. Hamidi: This firm represents Craig Eldridge and Richard Scott in the above referenced matter. Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Scott are working with A.J. Bredberg who is a certified professional soil and wetlands scientist to address the specific issues raised in the Regulatory Branch letter dated December 11, 1997. Please find enclosed Mr. Bredberg's response. Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Scott are interested in having this matter resolved as quickly as possible and have instructed Mr. Bredberg to cooperate with the Corps to resolve these issues. Generally, it appears that the activities at the site were within the scope of Corps regulations because the work started in 1995, involve less than one acre, and/or involve maintenance of historic road crossings and a drainage ditch. Although not applicable, the work appears to have affected less than one-third of an acre pursuant to the current regulations. Thus, although it is not clear that the Corps jurisdiction extends to this non-navigable ditch and isolated wetland, Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Scott would prefer to cooperate with the Corps to resolve the Corps' concerns which seems very possible given the small impact. To that purpose, please review the enclosed information and contact Mr. Bredberg or I if you have any questions. After your review, if the Corps still has concerns with these activities, then I would suggest a meeting to review these issues. Mr. Paul Hamidi February 10, 1998 Page 2 of 2 Again, please contact me if you have any questions. Hopefully, you can get back to us within the next month or sooner so Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Scott can move forward. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter and I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Groen & Stephens 4;L'�'4 4� Charles A. Klinge CAK:hks IAClients\Scott\COE 02.doc cc: C ients yan Windish Mason County Department of Community Development Post Office Box 578 Shelton, Washington 98584 FEE-19-98 THU 12 :00 + » 206 858 2534 P.02 ��- BRECDBERG & ASSOCIATES & LAND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS February 9, 1998 Paul Hamidi US Army Corps of Engineers PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-2255 RE: 97-4-02125 Eldridge, Craig Dear Paul: This letter is in response to the December 11, 1997 letter addressing a violation. Each question is answered per the letter. a. As built sketch The as-built is returned with changes as follows: The drainagway marked stream on the COE map is a historic constructed ditch dug through upland. The work along the ditch does not impact 25 to 40 feet of wetlands. No grading or filling of wetlands occurred associated with the ditch. The historic ditch was maintained and culverts under Crogan and G swald Ave.'swere replaced. Activities associated with the ditch should not be considered under COE jurisdiction as it was maintenance of existing facilities. This leaves at this time the 0.16 acre area cleared_ The attached map shows the existing plat of 180 individual lots and existing county road ROW. The ditch is shown at the southern end of the flagged wetland, near block 58. b. work was performed by Messrs. Eldridge and Scott. P. O. Box 1337, 6677 Kimball Drive, Suite C-1 , Gig Harbor WA 98335 USA (2W1 Jbj2Yj0M) 858-2534 E-Mail Address: widemtn@k0rbOrnet_COm FEE-10-98 TUE 1 1 = 1 0 » «» 206 _858 2534 P. 02 C. Work started in May 1995. d_ Work was started without notifying the OtE n�eta�,e� of wetlands were rne the work was begun it was a non-notifying activity as less impacted and it is above the headwaters.d Further, the ditch work was maintenance and exempt from COE t e. Property ownership at the time of the work was Mssrs. Eldridge and Scott. In addition Mason County owns the platted roads_ f. Primary purpose of the work ir,the ditch was to maintain historic conditions and replace existing culverts. Work in the 0.16 acres area involved clearing primarily on the County ROW was for access to a single family tots. g. No practicable alternatives are needed as the owner has the right to maintain historic drainage and remove vegetation. if you have any questions or wish a site visit, please contact me. Sin e A.J. Bredberg 3016coe/ajb/2/10/98 '" '" ►.' M v rz m No N w i. cn w o N a N A to n to W A W 4. NINTH �R�rN °N STREET _ y f. �,. MOMCo e'V W 4 Go I + b IM t yo cc w o, v, �, w tv ►� to co o, vt �. w ry r� o co cz rn Lh EIGHTH STREET j - - - - -- - - _ - _ J co -2 co p O co SEVENTH STREET N to M 1-. t4 h t r V O C '`� N cz A 0 a O O O V O O p t0 O O L'q SIXTH STREET _ N FFB-09-98 MON 22 :54 »' 206 85P --S34 P_05 1 --wy r2 � _ ON Xl��)•�F - •�iQLC� � � � s � yiCl ,src,� J� t a - I / L.nn c�?R�•+`�� :�iv�c} HST / i A r.ti JA j 3 'IN ";pq / i -- t�i J.- Its w.. I yy C� I OJ NINTH -DRAIN�,�°N STREET c y f r+ ►. ►r) N Cb tV cl CO CIDr. ~ ACA yy ~O cp Cb04 Ch A W tv •• r� rs p L" A C tv , , j O cD W p� i+ W tv I �E o I EIGHTH STREET — - - — — — — — — — - —! 1 I � U O -Q Cb � t j A ,1 co Z O I /1 to p ^ 1 Q m CA A co 0 CU 03 A W N ' I�i N SEVENTH STREET I` N M 1 (n co �o cz CD Q o �o Cz o, L" a, w v, a w tv SIXTH STREET I m (n FEB-09-98 MON 22 :54 ^>< 206 F 2534 P. 05 I i o, 1 t - ON X�1�►•�F unc1EAR�U r�oR�oS � r `: �.i � I Nn 1 t M•- r • lO t•na cl?.r.+�>, vast .� 0 _.;s}iar+�S + e5' �.trr ` ,.gip' `�I {tee - •� n2 —?� _ �ra�s I Roe ............................ s* GROEN & STEPHENS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE BELLEVUE CENTER JOHN M. GROEN 411 108TH AVENUE NE TELEPHONE RICHARD M. STEPHENS (425)453-6206 CHARLES A. KLINGE SUITE 1750 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004-5 5 1 5 FACSIMILE ALso AomnnD IN (425)453-6224 ALAsIu,OREGoNa CAI.womiA February 10, 1998 via facsimile and mail j�� �- `„�.'♦,ct! Mr. Paul Hamidi �� 27 FEB 1998 Regulatory Branch c-3 Department of the Army Seattle District, Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 3755 i Seattle, Washington 98124-2255 Re: 97-4-02125, Craig Eldridge Wetlands Enforcement Letter Dear Mr. Hamidi: This firm represents Craig Eldridge and Richard Scott in the above referenced matter. Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Scott are working with A.J. Bredberg who is a certified professional soil and wetlands scientist to address the specific issues raised in the Regulatory Branch letter dated December 11, 1997. Please find enclosed Mr. Bredberg's response. Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Scott are interested in having this matter resolved as quickly as possible and have instructed Mr. Bredberg to cooperate with the Corps to resolve these issues. Generally, it appears that the activities at the site were within the scope of Corps regulations because the work started in 1995, involve less than one acre, and/or involve maintenance of historic road crossings and a drainage ditch. Although not applicable, the work appears to have affected less than one-third of an acre pursuant to the current regulations. Thus, although it is not clear that the Corps jurisdiction extends to this non-navigable ditch and isolated wetland, Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Scott would prefer to cooperate with the Corps to resolve the Corps' concerns which seems very possible given the small impact. To that purpose, please review the enclosed information and contact Mr. Bredberg or I if you have any questions. After your review, if the Corps still has concerns with these activities, then I would suggest a meeting to review these issues. �. (71: Mr. Paul Hamidi ` February 10, 1998 Page 2 of 2 Again, please contact me if you have any questions. Hopefully, you can get back to us within the next month or sooner so Mr. Eldridge and Mr. Scott can move forward. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter and I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Groen & Stephens 4;L4,4- 4;51 Charles A. Klinge CAK:hks IACtients\Scott\COE 02.doc cc: Clients Ryan Windish Mason County Department of Community Development Post Office Box 578 Shelton, Washington 98584 f J" t ` w GROEN & STEPHENS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE BELLEVUE CENTER JOHN M.GROEN 411 108TH AVENUE NE TELEPHONE RICHARD M. STEPHENS (425)453-6206 CHARLES A. KLINGE SUITE 1750 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004-5 5 1 5 FACSIMILE ALSO Awmw IN (425)453-6224 ALASK&OREGON&CALo-ORNu March 9, 1998 - -4 . via facsimile and mail Mr. Paul Hamidi + Regulatory Branch MAR 19,9,3 Department of the Army ~' Seattle District, Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 3755 6 Seattle, Washington 98124-2255 01 Re: 97-4-02125, Craig Eldridge Wetlands Enforcement Letter Dear Mr. Hamidi: As previously noted, this firm represents Craig Eldridge and Richard Scott in the above referenced matter. Thank you for contacting me on Friday to discuss this matter and clarify the Corps' concerns. Based on that clarification, I am providing this letter to clarify our position. We accept that the drainage way at issue was a historic natural surface tributary that was transformed into a ditch at some point in time, and that the ditch at issue drains water from natural drainage upstream. The site is an old town plat that was apparently settled over 100 years ago which accounts for many of the changes on the site including roads and ditching. My understanding of the Corps' position is that these facts preclude the itch clearing work from qualifying for the exemption for maintenance of drainage ditches. As we also discussed, my clients are researching their records to obtain documents showing that the work began in 1995. I expect to have a response by the end of the week on that issue. With that response, I hope to provide you more information about the planting program that is being planned to address concerns raised by the County. It is possible that such a program will address or mitigate the Corps' concerns as well, if any remain after reviewing our documentation. Finally, please provide reasonable notice to me if a site visit is planned so that I have the opportunity to have some one attend to represent my clients. ,"Mr. Paul Hamidi March 9, 1998 Page 2 of 2 Please contact me if you have any questions and thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Groen & Stephens e'er Charles A. Klinge CAK:hks IAClients\Scott\COE 03.doc cc: Clients A.J. Bredberg t GROEN & STEPHENS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE BELLEVUE CENTER JOHN M.GROEN 411 108TH AVENUE NE TELEPHONE RICHARD M. STEPHENS (425)453-6206 CHARLES A. KLINGE SUITE 1750 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004-5515 FACSIMILE Also Armn-=IN (425)453-6224 ALASKA,OUGON&CALIFMNIA March 19, 1998 via facsimile and mail Mr. Paul Hamidi Regulatory Branch EO Department of the Army �� RECEI Seattle District, Corps of Engineers 2S MAR 1998 Post Office Box 3755 t� Seattle, Washington 98124-2255 w Re: 97-4-02125, Craig Eldridge Wetlands Enforcement Letter S Dear Mr. Hamidi: Please find enclosed a copy of a draft declaration of Richard P. Scott relating to the above referenced matter. It will take about a week to get the original declaration with exhibits out to Mr. Scott in Mason County and returned to me so that it can be forwarded to you. I wanted to get this draft to you as soon as possible in hopes that we could get this matter resolved as soon as possible. Clearly, this declaration and its exhibits demonstrate that this project and the ditch work began in 1995. Thus, the old regulations including the one acre rule should apply. The work was completed in 1997 during the grandfathering period for ongoing projects. I also talked to A.J. Bredburg and he gave me a little more explanation as to what the County is requiring in the way of a restoration plan for the disturbed area of the stream corridor and wetland. Mr. Bredburg is preparing a typical conceptual restoration plan with plantings of native species at usual densities for the stream corridor and 25 feet on each side. Mr. Bre&urg expects to have the conceptual restoration plan completed in the next week. If that plan would help address the Corps' concerns, then the clients will consider an agreement with the Corps requiring implementation of the plan. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Groen & Stephens Charles A. Klinge CAK:hks 1:\C1ients\Scott\COE 04.doc cc: Clients DECLARATION OF RICHARD P. SCOTT I, Richard P. Scott, declare as follows: 1. 1 have signed this declaration for purposes of resolving a dispute with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, specifically complaint reference no. 97-4-02125 filed under Eldridge, Craig. 2 Craig Eldridge and I as partners purchased the west half of block 56 and all of blocks 57, 58, and 59 of the historic Detroit Plat in Grapeview, Mason County, Washington. Our purchase closed on April 27, 1995. We purchased the property from Richard Schnieder. 3. The site is a historic plat dating back over 100 years. Exhibit 1 attached hereto is a copy of the plat map showing the streets, blocks, and lots. The entire plat including the streets had been somewhat overgrown at the time of our purchase. The street at the south end of the site, Griswold Avenue, was a well traveled road known as Onsrud Road as a connection to Highway 3 before the Grapeview Loop was constructed. 4. After purchasing the property in late April 1995, we started taking steps to develop the site. It must be noted that the closest paved access road is the Grapeview Loop road which is a short ways east of the Sixth Street shown on the plat map, Exhibit 1. Initially, we accessed our land over an already cleared road, but we received a demand letter from Harley Somers, attached hereto as Exhibit 2, telling us not to use that access road because it crossed over his property. That letter is dated May 22, 1995, demonstrating we had begun working the site by that date. 5. Our next step was to begin clearing the old Griswold Avenue from the County gravel access across the south side of Blocks 58, 59 and 60. We located the ditch which carries water from south to north across the site and found that the ditch's undercrossing of Griswold Avenue was severely damaged. I bought 40 feet of culvert to repair that undercrossing and had the culvert delivered to the site. Exhibit 3 attached hereto is the receipt with my name on it for the culvert with the date of May 26, 1995, and a ship to location of Grapeview. In late May or June of 1995 we repaired the culvert / under the road and cleared about 50 feet of ditch to the north to ensure that the water would sufficiently drain away from Griswold Avenue. 6. Our purpose for repairing the culvert and ensuring the drainage at Griswold Avenue was to facilitate the development of the site. Our initial phase of development was to log the property and we needed an adequate access for logging operations. We entered into a contract with Skillman Brothers, Inc., on May 6, 1995, to handle the logging of this site and a nearby site. A copy of that contract is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and indicates the property as Grapeview-Detroit Plat-Mason County. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a copy of the load summary which indicates that the logging began on May 9 and ended on June 14 of 1995. These documents demonstrate that logging took place and the logging could not have taken place without access which was gained over the neighbor's access road and then over Griswold Avenue after we repaired the culvert and cleared the ditch. I also have the payment summaries and check stubs for all of this logging. 7. On June 8, 1995, we obtained a burning permit for the site, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. That burn permit indicates this property, specifically"the Detroit townsite just east of Grapeview Texaco station on the south side of Grapeview Loop Road." We spent the next few months pulling out stumps and collecting the slash . r and other debris into a pile for burning. This burn pile was on blocks 58 and 59. We needed to let this burn pile dry out for many months and with winter it was not ready for a burn until April of 1996. We conducted the burn on April 13, 1996, which is easy to document because the fire was called in and fire units responded to the site. Exhibit 7 is a copy of the fire report for Fire Protection District 5 in Mason County indicating the report date of April 13, 1996, and the location as Grapeview Loop Road, north of Ron's Boatworks. 8. We acquired additional property, specifically the other half of block 56 along with blocks 54 and 55, closing on those properties on July 3, 1996. The next phase of the project involved work on the ditch which has become a concern to the Army Corps of Engineers and clearing of the new property. This work occurred in the fall of 1996, culminating in a second burn just before Christmas in 1996, pursuant to a new burn permit dated November 4, 1996, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 8, again indicating our Grapeview Loop Road project site. All the clearing work in the subject area was completed before Christmas 1996. 9. Due to the wet winter and doing work on other properties, we didn't get back to working on this site until about the summer of 1997. At that time, we undertook to grade the site with cuts and fills to prepare the blocks for development. This grading included filling right up to the ditch. In addition, it was at this time that we repaired the culvert under Crogan Avenue. 10. In July of 1997, we acquired blocks 44, 45, and 46 and in the fall of 1997 undertook to clear portions of that site,'including the .16 acre area which the Corps indicates was a wetland, on or near block 46. r 11. It should be noted that all this work was undertaken by or under the direction of Craig Eldridge and myself. The work was done with our own equipment that was used on this site and other sites. In addition, in 1995 we did rent some equipment and I do have receipts showing that equipment was delivered to Grapeview Loop Road during the summer of 1995. 12. It also should be understood that Craig Eldridge and I were undertaking a number of developments during this time period, therefore, we balanced our operations on this site with time spent developing other sites which accounts for the extended and somewhat intermittent development activities at our Grapeview Loop Road site. This is demonstrated by Exhibit 9, which is a copy of my insurance record, renewal declaration and commercial liability coverage part declarations dated March 19, 1996. At that time, Craig Eldridge and I owned 11 properties and 7 of those, including location number 5- Grapeview, were listed as real estate development while the other sites were listed as vacant land. This proves that we were developing the site at that time since we would not have paid the additional premium unless we were in fact developing the site. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct and was executed by me this 19`h day of March, 1998. Richard P. Scott DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY MAR 3 1 1998 SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ♦ ` MASON CO. DC P.O. Box 3755 D. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-2255 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Regulatory Branch ,_ Mr. Charles A. Klinge Groen & Stephens One Bellevue Center 411 108`h Avenue Northeast, Suite 1750 Bellevue, Washington 98004-5515 Reference: 97-4-02125 Eldridge, Craig Dear Mr. Klinge: I am in receipt of your letter dated March 19, 1998, concerning the property belonging to Messrs. Eldridge and Scott, at Grapeview, Washington. Based on the information provided by Mr. Scott, I concur that the work within the stream was started before January 21, 1997, and completed by January 21, 1998. The nationwide permits which came into effect January 21, 1992, therefore, apply to the work, rather than the current nationwide permits. Please be aware that any additional work in wetlands on this property will be regulated under the current nationwide permits. The previous Nationwide Permit 26 (enclosed) contained conditions which had to be met for work to be authorized by it. Section 404 condition #4 (mitigation) states that "Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the Unites States must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable at the project site." General condition #3 states that "Appropriate erosion and siltation controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date." Neither of these conditions appear to have been met by the work in question. Your clients have not demonstrated that their project could only be accomplished by excavating the stream and destroying the riparian wetland corridor. Erosion and siltation controls were not implemented in a timely manner, which contributed to sedimentation downstream of the work. Howard D. Noyd RECEIVED 1756 Bellevue Way N. E. Bellevue, WA 98004 MAR v 4 1998 March 2, 1998 MASON CO. DCD Mr. Gary Yando, Director Department of Community Development Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th St. P. O. Box 578 Shelton, WA 98584 Re: Robert Scott's proposed RV park Dear Mr. Yando, Thank you for your Dec. 1, 1997 letter. We support the work of community planning to conserve and improve our natural resources for the benefit of a growing population in Mason County and as it affects the Grapeview area. Last weekend my wife and I visited the site of Mr. Scott's proposed RV park. An earlier visit was made in December when we saw that only a small area had been cleared by Mr. Scott. It extended to the south a few hundred feet, to the north and to the east to the border of Mr. Pastore's property and to the west only as far as the old Atwater Road has been cleared. What my wife and I saw last weekend was a shock. Mr. Scott has cleared the land all the way south beyond where people turn down the hill to the public boat ramp and all the way west to the Simpson Timber Co. property. He left a few trees here and there but for the most part has scraped away all signs of vegetation, leaving a sea of mud. We could hardly walk through it without sinking. Also, aware of the water problem, he has tried to drain some of it by digging ditches that lead northward to Mr. Pastore's property where the water is draining into his forest and killing his large cedar trees. We used to walk through this area which then was an unofficial wild life refuge and a beautiful forest that held the water in the soil. There were no drainage problems. On our property, which is across the Loop Road and south a bit, we have lost about 50 very tall trees, mostly douglas-fir, and all the undergrowth of salal, huckleberry, wild lilac, and other plants native to Washington woods when clearing was done to the west of us. As you know, a large douglas-fir tree absorbs 60 gal. of water a day. The water table on our property was raised about 1 112' which created a wetland, rotted the roots of the trees, and caused them to fall in vAndstorms. In your letter you stated that removal of brush and small trees does not require a permit at this time. For what we have seen from the bulldozed area thus far, either your department was misled as to Mr. Scott's intentions or you have already granted a permit for something more than an RV park. Because we do not visit our property often in the winter, we may have missed a public announcement of Scott's proposal. Will you please, then, add our name and address asO shown above so we can be informed and especially notified of any public hearing. We are assuming that our property is a little more than 300 feet from Mr. Scott's development. t . Howard D. Noyd 1756 Bellevue Way N. E. Bellevue, WA 98004 March 2, 1998 *most of the land that has been cleared is surfaced with asphalt for the RV park, thq polluted water run-off will cause the wetland water level to rise, endanger drinking water wells an4 pollute Case WA The plain truth of the matter is that ecological damage has already been sustained by a proposed development that does not belong in a natural watershed area draining into Case Wet. the community's welfare has not been served by the"Rural Area" designation whick pftmits a commercial development in an area dominated by private residepces. Yours sincerely, CC: Rvan Windish, Planner Hugo Floresh, Planner John Bolander, Commissioner THE CHARLES SOMERS COMPANY P.O. Box 1350 Allyn, Washington 98524 Date: � Number of pages including cover sheet:_,y,__ To: I FROM: HARLEY SOMERS FAX:(360) 275-6223 PHONE: (360)27 0 FAX PHONE:�� PHONE: COMMENTS Thank You. OCT-05798 _MON 01 :57 PM THE CHARLES SOMERS CO 3602756223 P. 01 IANV OFFICE OF STEPIIEN T. WHITEH.OUSE r.0.Y30X 1273 ' 6o1 W,RAILROAD AVE.,5U1TE 300 SIIFLTON,WA.5111NGTON 98584 (A)426-5885 •FAX(360)426-6429 December 2, 1997 Robert A, Pastore P.O. Box 5 Grapeview, WA 98546 Dean Bob: This is a letter to explain your situation as I find it and to offer some suggestions. Let fate start by going through some of the legalities of your situation. You will see from a copy of the plat that you have and from the suniey dome by Holman and Associates for Harley Somers and Dick Schneider that your blocks are separated by streets that were dedicated in the Plat of Detroit No. 2. This plat was dome in 1890, Ordinarily, street dedications, such as those contained here, convey only an easement, and, as such, a conveyance of lots without reservations or exceptions carries with it the fee title to the center of the street subject to the easement Lewis v. Ci of Seattle, 174 Wash 219, 24 P.2d 427 (1933)). The easement created by the dedication is two-fold, The first is an easement to the public. The second is a private easement for those persons who bought within the platted area and who bought in reliance thereon. 11olman's map, in my opirno-, suggests an inconsistency. You will see he has drawn the lot lines and has not shown them going to the center of the roadway. - From the information that 1 presently have, it would have been more appropriate for Holman to have shown the lot lines going down the (middle of the street but then showing the public and private easement way as being 60 feet wide overlapping those boundary lines. He did not do that. I have a call into his office presently to attempt to determine why he elected to do that. The remainder of my discussions presumes that you hold title to the center of the street subject to whatever encumbrance I note below. 1n 1890, the Washington State Legislature passed an act which states as follows: "Any county road, or part thereof, which has heretofore been, or may hereafter be authorized, which remains unopen for public use for a space of five years after the OCT-05-98 MON 01 :58 PM THE CHARLES SOMERS CO 3602756223 P. 02 13ob'Pastore • December 2, 1997 Page 2 order is made or authority granted for opening the same, shall be, and the same is hereby vacated, and the authority for building the same batted by lapse of time." In 1909, this statute was changed. The effect of the statute remained the same except as it applied to platted streets and alleys. The statute then created an exception for platted streets and alleys. Therefore, the vacation provision, as it applies to plats, was only viable from 1890 to 1909. Over the years, several court decisions in the State of Washington have raised certain questions with regard to the affect of that statute, in particular, one case, Mohr v. Pierce Coun y, 65 Wash. 370, 118 P. 321 (1911), held that unless action was brought to cause an actual vacation of the roadway prior to 1909, no such vacation could thereafter occur. This is a rather odd holding as the xe.mainder of the statute appears to have created a vested., as opposed to contingent, right, In fact, later cases have held quite clearly that the right is vested. One of the primary cases that has held this does not even mention the above decision. It is now clear that the vacation is automatic. This means that these streets were deemed vacated as of 1895. While this vested right attaches, there is nothing which creates a declaration of this as a matter of record. Consequently, it is often times necessary to bring an action to quiet title. A quiet title action is brought where the rights of parties with regard to real property are contested or unclear and a declaration is needed from the court as to those rights. The effect of such an automatic vacation is the same as if you went to the local governing authority and asked theni to vacate the road by ordinance. The affect is to do away with the public easement that was created by the dedication. However, the private easement is not extinguished. As is stated in one of the leading cases in this area in the State of Washington, Brown v. Olmsted, 49 Wn.2d. 210, 299 P.2d. 564 (1956), "While such a vacation put an end to all interest of the public in the platted streets and alleys, it did not affect private easements over the streets by those who had bought with reference to the plat and in reliance thereon. Title to the vacated streets and alleys continued to be subject to such private easements_" While it is clear that the public easement created over these roadways has been extinguished, there still remains a question as to the viability of the private easement created. Private easements can be extinguished in the State of Washington. However, it tends to be rather difficult to do. Washington Law is very clear that non-use of a private easement does not extinguish it. The most common way to extinguish an easement is to have a fence blocking the easement way. This is riot a guaranteed means of extinguishing the easement, but usually will. work. It was also helps if the property owner is exercising other acts of dominion and control OCT-05-98 MOH 01 :59 PM THE CHARUES SOMERS CO 3602756223 P. 03 Bob Pastore December 2, 1997 Page 3 over the easement area that are inconsistent with the rights of the easement holder. Given what you have described to me regarding the activities in the area, that is, for the most part, the area is fairly wild and grown over, no such extinguishment of the private easements in this area has occurred. As indicated above, vacating the roadways through normal vacation procedures would make absolutely no difference in your situation. However, there may be a practical solution. The practical solution that I am contemplating is based upon two premises. First, the further you get away from your property within the platted area, the more difficult it would be for somebody to argue that they had bought in reliance on having these roadways available to them, In addition, the further away someone is from your property, the less likely they are to even care, Second, with regard to the properties immediately adjoining you, since they are not using your half of the vacated streets for access to Grapeview Loop Road, and since you are not using their half of the vacated roadways for access to the Grapeview Loop Road, they may be just as happy to have these private easements extinguished. If you were to bring a quiet title action to extinguish all rights both public and private to Atwater Avenue possibly the south half of Randolph Avenue, and those portions of Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninths Streets, there is a strong likelihood no one would object, particularly if you were to reciprocate regarding any concerns those adjoining landowners have. Such an action has a practical problem. It is a general principal of law that you may not affect another persons rights without giving them adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. As I have indicated, all persons in the plat may make a claim to the private easements across your property. It would therefore be necessary to notify all those property owners if you wish to absolutely extinguish all of their rights. This would be a rather difficult and cumbersome process, but could be done. Ordinarily, when you bring an action to quiet title to a piece of property, you obtain a litigation guarantee for the affected property. This is in case there are any underlying interests in the property which may turn into a fee interest. As an example, if you brought such an action and did not get a litigation guaranty, you might not be aware that a financial institution has a secured interest in one of the properties. If the owner of that property defaulted and the secured interest foreclosed, upon completion of that foreclosure, that entity would not be bound by the action that you brought because they did not receive notice. Consequently, if you are going to absolutely quiet title to the strips, you would have to notify everybody within the plat and all persons having an interest in those properties. As you can see, this would be a monumental task. On the other hand, simply bringing in Blocks 26 - 30, Blocks 45 - 46, and Lock 57, may, as a practical matter, solve your problem. In this regard, I am unsure as to whether or not you would w,uit to bring in 53 - 56. You will see Holman's map shows Block 47 as going to the center line OCT-05-98 MON 02 :00 PM THE CHARLES SOMERS CO 3602756223 P. 04 Bob Pastore December 2, 1997 Page 4 of Congress Avenue. I do not know why he has done that and need to make that inquiry. In addition, the cost of doing this could be lessened by not ordering litigation guarantees, but rather simply getting property profiles. This means that you would get the information as to any underlying interests in these blocks that we are talking about, but without the insurance that goes along with that. The cost of this would be significantly less. If you wanted to take an even greater risk, you could simply decide not to notify any of the underlying interests but just notify the title holders. In that regard, you would be gambling that an underlying interest never foreclosed for any reason or, that if such foreclosure occurred, that the person or entity foreclosing did not object at a later date to what has occurred. I also have one final inquiry to make of you. You gave me a copy of a portion of the Plat of Detroit No. 2. I have obtained a copy of the official recorded plat. In substance it appears to be the same as your copy. IJowever, in form, it is different. This is not uncommon for older plats. Making copies in the late 1800's and early 1900's was not as easy as it is now. IIowever, to the right of the blocks there is some language that does not appear on the original plat, Consequently, I am wondering where you got the copy of your document as it seems to make reference to a survey? While it is very likely that survey has no bearing on this matter, it would be appropriate for me to check. Please consider what you would like to have me do. If you would like to come in some time when you are in the area, I would be more than happy to sit down and talk with you. You are probably also aware that I have talked with James Michaelis. He has asked me to forward a copy of this letter to him as welt as some other supporting documentation. Given your request that I discuss this matter thoroughly with him, I am assuming that this meets with your approval.. Sincerely, S PHEN WHITEHOUSE - Attomey at Law SW:sb cc: James Michaelis Nr71. I rr •� i j Am_e,7L0./'TCZ'1 h .xa Ae,-D-fmc-I PUY- fp40.Equw no.m - - © 5 ArK"7'f 1l tl.M MJ*t2 N Cs6.a 4WCAe-L0 Waft n Rl.rRRy adQ l�. 1J1rRJ Dc5Gr21PTi4NfeQ 'a Q^�^Le167", DET.4(V 1 O c r.ue' Lor�e f ro be,aoTN NG'Joiv�-BLO�JC 7,LO7a r r0 AV,teo'ru v.�uefv>=, CLOCK B.LOT IS 1 TO W.00r,'M PK7.LWy£6LA *-L073 r ro A'%507W ^' efCLUStV T OL0,11C xa,LOTS 1 To Av eoTH tk%.L N 1.7L0.7C A Lo>'e 1 R To IAA,eorw wLl.19AYy BLoCR Q Lore 1 r0 70,aOTw 0&=LJAyE LI-zcx ]ro ro 54,1_07e!r0 70,aar14 R�JbAVE-BLOCK 40.LOrO I ro i.0,507N MCLU- UAeJVSZ. MYE.DLOCK 4C L07-4 I TO 70.507N PAM-LWVL°.DLO'JG 47.LOTS 1 70:Fa, Q Q I M7e'iQ•E .(q 4T 50T'W NCLU9AVE,BLOGC�0'L07D 1 r0 70,MOTN PrQ.11'.YVE,BLOCK 4t s r . TOGEP-eQ W7M 7A.E NOfQTFd kALF of VAcA7F CONGi�ed Drw-.El AD-kCo Al I ��� aL Lore FFi AND IFF eorlrk LOIC S 6 A-0 t AND LOTS 11 70:O,EM--- m+a wrV£aLopC»Lace 1 To lo,eO774 nuC1i ✓C stoat 6t 10791 ro 8 / ? 8 L4 1 3 lu nl, IE,DO7AI mr1Ly.1vE ew.�at 6A Lo7e 1 70 W,,DOWN Dk-:LLL�vE P-LOCK K.E'S .9 .i �,ALL a euD L.Ym aeaG drt1A7E m TAdC>°u r cr aenec-rr�+o.7.accaa*+� ti IL- 1 4 11i / 5 rk 43N TO rAe f�t.OFaaEO Pl<7 7;-E OP N DZ orFJ�OF 7AIe AfDITOR FdR � � knii N CCUJrr,ILh5ka-G roK vOLL"1 OF MAM,PAYE.'1 S ee?aTa r01 Lora.I ro C mo7w PACLusfve BLOCK a.LOT*s TO 7,Bores RJC]1dNP.TO t Bo7A+rHCLuafvm aLOCK a.L075 1 TO Hr,Bo7NZ 5 ? 4 1 •23 E _ ..tee.,.._NCLLy/4E BILacK 77,LOrs t ro ze,eoTNo<alwve M.c ",L076 i2 VJ, 2 221G0N1 '-Rg1 TO W.BOW WCLLISNE.BLOCK 7e,L074 1 TO 70,BOTN POCLUa1VZ M7.ocK 73,LOTS/TO 7ID ooTw ti LrwyF,BL0.'7C:6.LOrb t r0 7D,BOfAIN4cX v,E CLOCK 2L Lori 1 TO to BORA P42AANVE.BL C:6,LOTS 11 . ro 20.BOTH wcLu&ve aLOCJC 36,1-072 t TO J0,a0T7'1 0.'L'LUOM1'E.GLCLJC 7x.on .N K VA.,a[ s7.LOTS)ro 70,8ar*+,*IctuM-E,HLOCK",LOTS 1 ro 70.Borw a+tusf lU O O 9 Q / G E a=a 7e t 4 T roo-tf.T� a aioac a%.ALL ct&AjO LAND BEPG emtwrt 01 n e FSAr Of oETJF OY7 Do.w A �/ � - cores fw ' 1 40.7,ACCOI'2rMr 70 7HE fzffCo!'aLID PLAT TwEREA°W 7A2 CYFICP G�" hrlro O T+E ALDVrOOQ Fe-W Y765GN COWT"UA-- 'r rOK VCUV"f of F�LATA PhaE 1! I U 26 27 16 g 2 0 N NOTE. 30 NOTE: PL,as c.4LLe FOR cEr+rF1IL'`.r cr nmA 0EE P.RVXXJS Cuav£T,Orr RFCofo. cjp,,7 70 Brae.07 LD AI /6fo'ee 10 W BLOC b,PAGE IteO,QecoRDe Of i 7rCM u Au rog 1-LrNe_ AIlLD At KId PENT - E r?19CN1 COWr1;UAASA%rllO i 5 sexfa',c .eo C.A 7a -A RD,Lov1Tr dry PAL;4 IS R .4 V .� O L v � ro��,r=ll AT2r ct?r7clptAn�or FTTN CW erReeT o LEO= Ia: E f�W I I - SCALE- I•-200' NOTE: ra om CAP a><r Uj rn-0OLrAD AS 7JOTED R 6 d ? _ sj ' o cu :ec •ao W e6. r-wrvum"eURver Br R.D.1.Ov 1 a �. d ; 3 3 3 8 aOgS 9,rKaE Au ANO ar P..+C-rECJW, = a a I I a BC+ b.PAC�E 17� I2WTC.%t Ap r:/' rux'w CAMr' deA.Ve�Xi7GFl .cc ro z m BUiQVB r ee•7e•W e 4 Fret � DET.G/L '�": i �w H�.QLE'►' SOt"ER� s �� a Q 4 { eeF AC .►• NE v4,w U4 1 m v r., 4 5 4 y ,4 7 aecsrw e,ra�AAe�FT'xK ,I xn.ro L r1 : uA01Tc!'7 ryrrri L D11� 1 V 1 A.761e'c O N G .R E nLm rorr K009 1Y17.. AM- xoaa ro A v Eb. hll K7 , IUY tl' 8 ........_Dr...,....AT SACt ,.... 6 6 7 - .0 Acr 8 5 7 g 1�1j _:, tlf1 $ � u� L( I va rrEL r A�otnav .... i �a ' RBI LUI 54 ul 53 o mw ' arwr f'b,00 1 inmate I tix 8 y~jI = v cw.a a"ru'c. Z zoom For:Faa.o I Y S r r TMI]W Gd9£C'r1,t(TILSp.'s p ' OG � N .4 vF 4 vQR yr e.rrcCfro. 1rt r z A•�D.eafN I IVW NAB j '� :CQ,7a r-'�Z M 1alMT ROOOlrrS AGt a�T.rC IWC+r Le 7077 A.306T i Y A!d$ET eohQ Re . J WLA21&» t 5 B z ci 68 IJII 6 m ! i 6 i 6 2 1 • ... Cf n7a t I Z �i 2�� Ixl cnrrlr'c U? xe+7 112! J - ® cauv.Ar<7+r AND rnacr�ua• anw HOL.MAN A ASS eourPWmi Crew F s[to.o rN[00%'1[W"N e71a. seesrt'i�r CA I .j UJ O f �� _ �' j U nrwr xac: rrcco nMrt'.st (7 C, _ ` - I 1 '�--~. Cool •zs-ri io s•¢Tai. rrsurtia+p. 1 in,Q.. N CT I P 9 8UZ P%CK P 7.rz pwo.MoN 6Ir- r",V.e9a2e.Vv_ i0 r RfJ'EPENCtb , - s M'bS7' ci:'7 N. ery. l'ST�f La?L^" n _'f9.SQ [ m19.N I 1 tiG u7 �➢° R.D.UeOJ C74R D=SGRIPTION r � .mow ukr lr La/e7rc ,p;r leA ll. 6w' . LOT&I TO 10,e AI arN CLLWWI-.BLOOC 7,LOYD I TO 10,BOTK o,rcL�Iv£ 5L000 A Lo7a 1 to Jc.eoYw 6jCLL,-vF-BLOCK°,LGT5 I TO d7,BOON At Zi,dn .eLQOC lc,L076 r r0 he,ISCTw[MCIJW' V,eLC4:X U L"I $, to 16,807M INCLL&VE BLOCK A LOTa I TO 7c,B0T.1 aLCCK 1'�.m ma.nave 2w.ca 5?,LO75 t TO W,GOTW aJCl LoevF.MOCK+b,L070 i TO N7,BOTH NCLU- N VCAi-LE Tale dYE.CLOCK AL LOTS I to Ito.50TM NCLUafV F-CLOCK,41,LOTS 1 YO 1D, O r. s am'Je're•[ _ x^-.m �n rA L►I L ar D,orw NCLLXWv£.MOCK 43,Lore I TO 1C,vorw m4c.L �BLOoc aT. C CALC 10 COrE TOGET;&A GA7V r/.E rrOxru wur C.1K VACA.YED COW RE"rnW-ET ADJOWTG eL �O ~ LOM rID dm R GYI fklE DOJTH.LOTD D,b AND 7,AND LOTS'If 70 10,60:N e.1cLL'.'avE,BLOCK»,Lo7a 1 TO 10,Bon'+2vt_LtJ<M1"+E.CLOCK•I Lora 7 r0 8 f ? $ W ! 3 11 J WJ I e C01!'I.Nf1La"NvC BLCQ 7M C eq Lora I TO W,,eO m5I LL3J4'�.BLOCX 6] ST g �llf 15 1 il f K) ALL OF a6t?LNm eFarG amrwTa>N 79g PLAT Of DETROYr No.7.AL.�COROM 1- - I�" 1 �j 6 8 8 (y ro Y+E RECGFDEV PLAY 7FIEI�OP W rrd:OFF(CE Cr YNE ALCYTOv►OR M ((� j. ►�L ;�p4ya7 6�('�' 1I a 4 I N MA30N C.OLWY,UdJ041 O70k vOLL/Q I CP PLA7A PAGE 71 r erarre c �! c 1G K L E l I � i N DE5CR1 PT f QIN reo--A S T ar Ir. h TV"el7ae.F N Lors a TO i,ear>r nNCLLLvvtr at.oC7c UL Lore.no'L Bo74 04=lwvf- Z F2- 8 E a..,c as m NLOOC K LOT$ TO 7.80TW C'1CLLWvx BLO0<0,LOTS I rO S.A07N 25 t� 1 4 _ ,2 3 I acx er.00c.s NcyLyfv£•eLOCX 77,LA070 I TO 1c,C074&4CLUStvf-MOCK 23,L07a _ y 2 I COI�CR6S$ ,Q y�, m r r0 10.BO7N NC1,LaaM MOCK 7A LOTO I to.n,Born rrCLL+a've. �� � X � 7 2 7fo.w f MOCK 75,LOT$I TO 70,BOTV FJCLL&M BL.00X Je.LO76 I TO 70,COTN fy #4CLU.'11Ye FLOCK 77•LOTS I to 10,BOTH PKI.W.,-F CIL OCK?a,L076 11 to 70,Baw NOlAlIvE,13LOCK 5*�LOTS I TO 10,DOTN P.rCi111vE MOCK 2nWW roeI jl.LOT'3 I TO 10,007P vrLUWvE-CLOEOC'M.LOTa r TO 1e,90T✓-I n,+rLUlfY£ O 5 r7 f G d6-=e•,�"[A °' KKR"' o P.m`°'�'r , L)L•OCK SS ALL Cr SAtn LA`.D BEaNG eFTw17a<M 7N£PLAr Cf<DETROfr !O-J•ACCOovwD G to Y�R£OOROPI7 Pt_Ar 7WEIGEA'w T7a cwwcr Or 0 74E AUD17O4 FOR MA54 N CZI 7 ;9ASWAr.TOk VICL LrI5 I OF PLAra,P.1raE 13. i U 1 6 1 l � I ? e ? 9 30 NOTE: Ul NOTE= PLAT CALLA rCM CEWIF . r Cf"77I (L' aTPFET TO eE AY IP 5.W AWsL[e TO dEE"Wvxvl"wRver Cr-Flc- . I W BOCK 36,PACI E k:O.RLCCRt?a CW h IYn.m - m m YCW."NtP 51' L0t�W C.LTiY- '-A - i rLliCN CC&"m UJ&VM'YTON r er..+e Te',C v R 11 Q ar.+vLE�"a eI RQ Loom.IrIO PAC-7FfY' �` D O L a t0 rIe TE CEKrEI�ME 0'OW"M 5 r ME, 0 LEGEND. I aN v E- f 4 I0.iN I'-j J' co W SCALE- ro' �� s V . •F1LO'.'1 CAP aE'r ^ ;� W „ \ h.�A•.. NOTE: a 8 4 1 d I '49 W +�P,aYram 9koRv-r ev Rn_ ••�xNa ae I o7Fo a d 4n 3 9 a 9 6 c 'e -ao � , J 5o0c 4 r.arf u3 Aho D7 PmC-Trcy+, BGCX b,ple u'C RECGIme OF = ' Q' H�ShIN CGWTti',riJ.aaIIaG TO`l Ifl0.00 x ra±n7 91JI?VEY _ 4 t r es7r,e [ p noR U DETAIL "B' �'`� I�w hGR�EI 50`^ERS I w 9 4 3 8 4 4 I Ha w,NW v4 HM v.-MV vA. _ '`I 4 5 46 ¢ DacTrw e,r04"6 aW 72k IRAPIOE VL L E GR ! v �— �- a k,a ITw•.our IF lu:1 L D 5 f11 O (� I C �i Q �( Q E . seaeve G ? c $ A V n eE.m r gone iRn,....wr_...., I CQN IGE,W I �. .. © 6 8 b 7 ,.:. _ tll �, � +ror!ien!............. ..... a.r cr 8 v 7 B 1L I 6 i UJ $ LI! La Ot 5 O>Rr la0l�O I �� 1 `'nlD Irk! 8 E 'NMea<'3 mnlr.urt „TAD 9 r ° xre'I 7Rn uu�actriv�h ACT --I e,K a VCIR-aIRECT l01 IM cwnml SE•':M '.0 KOJ'•K.-S E IAfl,taOl I IraOrV 97cc t•�� A A CCCI��i------v---^^^���E------.---����� t 0 TK 1,M"*CWWIW. AT M.fQllT Or uv--o Ce 7V V 6L�JI' 11TD! = i 2) 1 I AAALE7 DOPTJeg I Ok-JC 10-PaOL"ER r co c K � nm.;.QC N a.R g 1z-� ff?~uu�Leruv Z 8 ' & Cl 6 m l 6 1 �2; 6 7 I � ele H pp $ 1 � �� © aOt1""' T ° J N wL� L HOLMAN & ASSOCTATES I COvll+dnr ! ITT a 9CET/D rxcoatl TE Wrr OwIt i nr-ww r r 1 7 F rao- rAL,aPATm a+rr O u C L .•-calo�wo sR.E.a s U �,Rprj'yEo[' /IECD o }AJ� I `- ,` - 1 6 6 I!I a„ ate- f n b (� ----T-- aaoro u 9R,ek7E� i DEPYD`+LOo A'![ h-ee G A,,",[ Mov I I ELYCO ypE one+ 7r.�i w�v I F�ERLkE'S DETAIL '9' 7 i "I GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR CoN.STATFo o P MA o 7, DERA RTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT U 1 N PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES 0 o Y �,� BLDG. I • 411 N. 51 ST. • P.O. BOX 578 7877saSHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670 October 19 , 1998 Mr. Richard Scott PO Box 587 Grapeview, WA 98546 Enforcement no. : ENF98-0125 RF: STOP WORK posted at your property located in Detroit Township t-2 . As per stop work revision below, affected parcels are as follows: #12105-51-13004, 12105-51-14004, 12105-51-15004, 12105-51- 22001, 12105-51-22016, 12105-51-23001, 12105-51-23006, 12105-51- 23016, 12105-51-24001, 12105-51-25001, 12105-51-26001, 12105-51- 27001, 12105-51-28001, 12105-51-44001, 12105-51-45001, 12105-51- 46001, 12105-51-54001, 12105-51-54004, 12105-51-54008, 12105-51- 55001, 12105-51-55004, 12105-51-55008, 12105-51-56001, 12105-51- 56011, 12105-51-57001, 12105-51-58001, 12105-51-59001, any adjacent parcels under same ownership. Dear Mr. Scott : The Mason County Department of Community Development is taking this opportunity to contact you regarding apparent violations which have occurred on the above listed parcels, located in the Grapeview area. Planning staff visited your site to investigate alleged site preparation activities . On October 8 , 1998 Planning staff observed and photographically documented that there had indeed been grading work within a stream area and its buffer, and within a wetland and its buffer. A Stop Work was posted on site, requiring all persons to STOP ALL WORK immediately as of the date of the posting. PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO STOP WORK: REVISION: This is to notify you that the stop work posted at your site is hereby revised to include �S all properties referenced at the beginning of this letter. No development activities of any kind including land modification, grading or filling will occur on this site until all violations are corrected and their impact is mitigated (see process below) . All parcels have been flagged accordingly. Regardless of whether or not a Grading permit is necessary for a particular project, activities in and within the buffer areas of the regulated critical areas of Mason County are subject to application, review and approval of the appropriate Environmental Permits and the SEPA process PRIOR to the start of work. Our records show that no permits were applied for or approved, which is in violation of Wetlands Chapter 17 . 01. 070, and Aquatic Management Areas Chapter 17. 01. 110 of Mason County' s Interim Resource Ordinance, and Mason County Environmental Policy Ordinance no. : 49-98 . Please be aware that as long as you have upland property outside the buffer areas to develop instead, permit approval for activities within the stream, wetlands, or their respective buffers would not be likely, given the provisions of the applicable regulations . Recycled IMMEDIATE SITE STABILIZATION: To minimize further impact to the Type V drainage, wetlands, and their buffers, both on- and off- site, you are requested to immediately stabilize this site by using silt fences and straw bales to control the erosion and siltation from the areas you have graded and/or modified. The erosion control features shall be placed in such a way as to prevent further site impact from your activities . BACKGROUND: Our records indicate tha ,you were sent a letter from planning staff on September 5, 1997, Identifying required wetland delineation and function reports. Yovere also contacted again in writing on December 17, 1997 . _ To date we have not received any documentation of wetland delineation, mitigation or restoration plan. DELINEATION, RESTORATION PLAN: No site development of any kind can occur until the violation has been corrected and mitigated for at the Mason County level . According to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps produced by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, the wetland system is classified as a Scrub/Shrub wetland (PSSC) , and the Type V water includes Riverine Intermittent (R4SBC) wetlands . At the time of our site visit to the property it was difficult to confirm this classification due to grading actions conducted on site. In order to ascertain the pre-disturbance wetland and stream boundaries and buffers, you are required to provide a wetland delineation and classification report to Mason County. This report shall be completed by a qualified wetland professional; in addition the report must provide a detailed wetland and stream restoration plan for the impact caused to this site by the grading activities. In a phone conversation with Planner Pam Bennett-Cumming, you stated that you had the wetland delineated and performed restoration which was approved by Mason County Staff . In fact, although Mason County has requested that information from you on two separate occasions in writing, we have NOT received any delineation or restoration documentation from you. Any work you may have done in connection with the Army Corps of Engineers is a separate issue. You are still required to comply with all County level regulations; federal and local regulations are two separate sets of requirements which both apply. To date you are still in violation at the County level, and no development activities may occur on your properties until this violation is corrected. In addition a stormwater site plan was already requested for development for the roads for this site, and you were notified to stop work until that had been submitted and reviewed. To date none has been received. PERMITS REQUIRED: Once the delineation, classification and restoration report has been reviewed by Mason County, you must apply for a Mason Environmental Permit for the restoration work. After-the-fact violations are subject to triple fees of $330 . 00 . In addition SEPA review is required. After-the-fact permits are subject to triple fees of $330 . 00 . The permits referenced here apply only to the violations under the Mason County Interim Resource Ordinance. All other applicable permits and/or approvals are also necessary prior to the start of work. In connection with this unresolved violation, and within 15 days of the date of this letter, we are requiring that you provide us written documentation which addresses : how you intend to remedy this violation in a timely manner, information on the wetlands professional you will be retaining to perform the work addressed above, a proposed timeline for delineation and completion of the necessary steps, and written information on your proposed future development use for this land once all violations are resolved. Also, has an engineered stormwater plan been completed yet? MEETING: If you wish to meet in the meantime to go over the requirements of this letter, please contact us as soon as possible so this can be scheduled. In addition, once we have received and reviewed your written documentation referenced above, we will meet with you to review this plan and discuss further details and any questions we may have. If you have any questions whatsoever, please feel free to contact me at (360) 427-9670 extension 294 . ;Gary ely, an Director CO Y DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CC: Pam Bennett-Cumming, Senior Planner Allan Borden, Senior Planner Tami Griffey, Building Inspector & Enforcement Officer Mike Clift, Mason County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Parcel files -2- The stream corridor should be restored to its previous condition. The restoration which the County is requiring may resolve this violation. Please forward a copy of the restoration plan to Mr. Paul Ham idi, Regulatory Branch, as soon as it is available, but not latter than 30 days from the date of this letter. Any fill material within the wetland corridor should be removed down to the original soil surface. The sediment downstream of the work should also be removed. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Paul Hamidi, telephone (206) 764-5531. Sincerely, James M. Rigsby Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Enclosure Copy Furnished: Messrs. Eldrige & Scott Mason County Department of Community Devel"manf1 ATTN: Ryan Windish Post Office Box 578 Shelton, WA 98584 Mr. A.J. Bredberg Bredberg & Associates Post Office Box 1337 Gig Harbor, WA 98335 26. HEADWATERS AND ISOLATED WATERS DISCHARGES. Discharges of dredged or fill material into headwaters and isolated waters provided: a. The discharge does not cause the loss of more than 10 acres of waters of the United States; b. The permittee notifies the District Engineer if the discharge would cause the loss of waters of the United States greater than one acre in accordance with the "Notification" general condition. For discharges in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands. (Also see 33 CFR 330.1(e) ) ; and C. The discharge, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part of a single and complete project. For the purposes of this nationwide permit, the acreage of loss of waters of the United States includes the filled area plus waters of the United States that are adversely affected by flooding, excavation or drainage as a result of the project. The ten-acre and one-acre limits of NWP 26 are absolute, and cannot be increased by any mitigation plan offered by the applicant or required by the DE. Subdivisions: For any real estate subdivision created or subdivided after October 5, 1984, a notification pursuant to subsection (b) of this nationwide permit is required for any discharge which would cause the aggregate total loss of waters of the United States for the entire subdivision to exceed one (1) acre. Any discharge in any real estate subdivision which would cause the aggregate total loss of waters of the United States in the subdivision to exceed ten (10) acres is not authorized by this nationwide permit; unless the DE exempts a particular subdivision or parcel by making a written determination that: (1) the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects would be minimal and the property owner had, after October 5, 1984, but prior to January 21, 1992, committed substantial resources in reliance on NWP 26 with regard to a subdivision, in circumstances where it would be inequitable to frustrate his investment-backed expectations, or (2) that the individual and cumulative adverse environmental effects would be minimal, high quality wetlands would not be adversely affected, and there would be an overall benefit to the aquatic environment. Once the exemption is established for a subdivision, subsequent lot development by individual property owners may proceed using NWP 26. For purposes of NWP 26, the term "real estate subdivision" shall be interpreted to include circumstances where a landowner or developer divides a tract of land into smaller parcels for the purpose of selling, conveying, transferring, leasing, or developing said parcels. This would include the entire area of a residential, commercial or other real estate subdivision, including all parcels and parts thereof. (Section 404) Regional Conditions - 1. The discharge cf dredged or fill material which would cause the loss of greater than 2 acres is not authorized by this NWP. An individual permit application must be submitted for discharges greater than 2 acres. 2. The discharge is not authorized in documented habitat for state listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal species. 401 Certification - NWP partially denied without prejudice. An individual 401 Certification or demonstration of State waiver of such certification to the District Engineer is required for projects affecting more than 1 (one) but no more than 2 (two) acres of headwaters or isolated waters. CZM Consistency Determination - NWP partially denied without prejudice for the same limits as the 401 Certification. An individual CZM Consistency Determination is required from the State in those cases for projects located in counties within the coastal zone. Special Note - 1. Notification and individual 401 Certification and CZM are not required for fills affecting 1 (one) acre or less provided regional condition #2 is complied with along with the nationally imposed NWP conditions listed at the end of this PN. 2. Notification is required for fills affecting more than 1 (one) acre, but less than 2 (two) acres of waters of the U.S. i i I i i t i i NATIONWIDE PERMIT CONDiTIONS General Regional Condition for the State of Washington apolicable to all nationwide permits .NWP. : AnV activity or work authorized under these N,,P shall nct adversely imoact onsite mitigation or restoration efforts. 33 C=R Part 330. Aoeendix A, Section C. GENERAL CONDITIONS: The following general conditions must be followed in order for any authorization by a NWP to be valid: 1. Navigation. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navioation. 2. Proper maintenance. Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety. 3. Erosion and siltation controls. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. A. Aquatic life movements. No activity may substantially disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species which normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water. Eguioment. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance. 6. Regional and rase-by-case conditions. The activity must comply with. any regional conditions which may have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 C.R 330.4(e)) and any case specific conditions added by the Corps of Engineers (Corps) . 7. Wild and scenic rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a river officially designated by Conc=ess as a "study river" for rossible inclusion in the system, whila the river is in an official study states. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may to obtained from the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. p. Tribal rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserves} tribal riGhts, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. 9. Water quality certification. in certain States., an individual State ,vat=r quality certification must be obtained or walved (see 33 CER 330.4(c)) . 10. Coastal zone management. In certain States, an individual State `coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived .(see 33 CFR 330.4(d)) . 11. Endangered species. No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to Jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened' or endangered soecies or a species Pr000sed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act, or which is likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. Nonfederal permittees shall notify the District Engineer if any listed soecies or critical habitat might he affected or is in the vicinity of the nro ect and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the District Enoineer that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized+. Information on the location of threatened and endangered soecies and their critical habitat can be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS/NMFS) (see 33 CFR 330.4(f)) ., - 12. Historic crooerties. No activity which may affect historic 0 ocerties listed, or eligible for listinq, in the National Register of Historic Places is authorized, until the District Engineer has complied with the Provisions of 33 CFR 325, Appendix C. The Prospective Permittee must notify the District Enoineer if the authorized activity may affect env historic oroperties listed, determined to be eligible, or which the prospective cermittes has reason to believe may he eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District, Engineer that the requirements of the National Historic preservation Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Information on the location and existence of historic resources can he obtainer' from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the National Register of Historic Places (see 33 CFR 330.4(c)) . 13. Notification. (a) Where reeuired by the terms of the NWP, the prospective Permittee must notify the District Engineer as early as possible and shall not begin the activity• (1) Until notified by the District -ncineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the District or Xvisicn Engineer; or (2) If notified by the District or Division Engineer that an individual permit is required; or (3) Unless 30 days have passed f-cm the District Engineer's receipt of the notification and the prospective permittee has not received notice from the District or Division Engineer. Subsequently, the permittee's right to Proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, or revoked only in accorcfance with the oracedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2) . t 2 i F e (tL) The notification must be in writino and include the followino information and anv' recuired fees: (1) Name, address, and teleohone number of the proscective permittee; (2) Location of the Proposed project; (3) Brief description of the proposed oroiect; the oroject's purccse; direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the proiect would cause; anv other NWP(s) , regional General permit(s) , or individual oermit(s) used or intended to he used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity; (d) Where required by the terms of the NWP, a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands; and (5) A statement that the proscective permittee has contacted: (i) The USFWS/NMFS regarding the presence of any federally listed (or proposed for listing) endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project; and any available inforrmation provided by those agencies. (The prospective permittee may contact Corps District Offices for USF'NS/NMFS agency contacts and lists of critical habitat. ) U-0 The SHPO regardino the presence of any historic properties in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project; and the available information, if any, Provided by that agency. ^i The standard indiv=dual permit application form (Form E^!G 4345) may by use^ as the ^otification but must clearly inc'icate that it is a predischaroe notification (PON) and must include all of the information required in (b)71)-(51/ of General Condition 13. (d) In reviewino an activity under the notification procedure, the District Enoineer will first determine whether the activity will result in more than e minimal individual or cumulative adverse environmental effects or will be contrary to the public interest. The crospective oer?,ittee may, at his option, suhmit a pr000sed mitic+ation plan with t`ie oredischarpe notification to expedite the process and the District Engineer will consider any optional mitigation the applicant has included in the oroeosal in determinina whether the net adverse environmental effects of the oronosed work are minimal. The Oistrict Enoineer will consider any comments from Federal and State agencies ccncerninc the proposed activity's ccmcliance with the terms and conditions of the NVIR and the need for iitication to reduce the oro4ect's adverse environ- mental effects to a minimal level. The nistrict Engineer will upon receipt of a notification provide immediately (?.g. , facsimile transmission, overnight mail, or other expeditious manner) a cooy to the aporooriate offices of the IJSF'NS, State natural resource or water quality �!cency, EPA, and, if anoroori- ate, the `.MFS. With the excePtion of NWP 37, t'iese agencies will then have 5 calendar days from the date the material is `ransmitted.to teleohone the 3 District Encineer if they intend to provide substantive, site-specific ,comments. If so contacted by an agency, the District Engineer will wait arL •additional 10 calendar days before making a decision on the notification. The District Encineer will fully consider agency comments received within the specifies' timeframe, but will provide no response to the resource acencv. ' The District Engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each notification that the resource agencies ' concerns were considered. Applicants are encouraged to provide the Corps multiple copies of notifica- ticns to expedite agency notification. if the District Engineer determines that the activity complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP and that the adverse effects are minimal, he will notify the oermittee and include any conditions he deems necessary. If the District Engineer determines that the adverse effects of the or000sed work are more than minimal, then he will notifv the applicant either: (1) that the proiect does not oualifv for authorization under the Ma/P and instruct the applicant on the procedures to seek authorization under an individual permit; or (2) that the proiect is authorized under the NUP subiect to the applicant 's submitting a mitication proposal that would reduce the adverse effects to the minimal level. This Mitigation proposal must be approved by the District Engineer prior to commencing work. If the prospective permittee elects to submit a mitigation plan, the District Engineer will expeditiously review the proposed mitigation plan, but will not commence a second 30-day notification procedure. If the net adverse effects of the project (with the mitigation proposal) are deter- mined by the District Engineer to be minimal, the District Engineer will provide a timely written response to the applicant informinc him that the Proiect can Proceed under the terms and conditions of the N P. (e) Wetlands delineations: Wetland delineations must be erecared in accordance with the current method recuired by the Corps. The permittee may ask the Corps to delineate the special anuatic sits. There may be some delay if the Ccros does the delineation. Furthermore, the 30-eav Period will not start until the wetland delineation has been completed. (;) Mitigation: Factors that the District Engineer will consider when determining the acceptability of appropriate and practicable mitigation include, but are not limited to: (1) To be practicable, the mitication must be available and capable of be_nc done considerinc costs, existing" technolocv, and locisti^s in light of overall pro Purposes; - %2) To the extent acorooriate, permittees should consider mitigation bankine and other forms of mitigation including contributions to wetland trust funds, which contribute to the restoration, creation, reolacement, enhancement, or pres_u_va,�on of wet ands. Furthermore, examoles of mitication that may be appropriate and practicable include but are not limited to: reducinc the size of the oro,iect; establishing buffer zones to protect aquatic resource values; and reolacino the loss of grrUatir rgSgU?Ce Va1U?S by creatino, restoring, and enhancinc similar funs- t_cns and values. In addition, mitication must address impacts and cannot be 1 i used to offset the acreage of wetland losses that would occur in order to meet the acreage limits of some of the NWP's (e.o. , 5 acres of wetlands cannot be created to chance a 6-acre loss of wetlands to a 1-acre loss; however, the 5 created acres can be used to reduce the impacts of the 6-acre loss) . SECTION 404 ONLY CONDITIONS: in addition to the general conditions, the followina conditions apply only to activities that involve the discharge of dredged or fill material and must be followed in order for author izatior, by the NWP's to be valid: 1. water suooly intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake except where the discharge is for repair of the public water suooly intake structures or adliacent hank stabilization. 2. Shellfish production. No discharge of dredcad or fill material may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production, unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by NWP 4. 3. Suitable material. No discharge of dredged or fill material may consist of unsuitable material (e.q. , trash, debris, car bodies, etc.) and material discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see Section 307 of the Clean Water Act) . 4. Mitigation. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e. , onsite) , unless the District Engineer has approved a ccrnpensation mitigation clan for the specific regulated activity. 5. Scawninc areas. Discharges in spawning areas durinq spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 6. Obstruction of high flows. To the maximum extent practicable, discharges must not Permanently restrict or impede the passage of normal or exnected 'nigh flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters) . 7. Adverse impacts from impoundments. If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the apuatic system caused by the accelerated nassace of water and/or the restriction of. its flow shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable. 8. waterfowl breeding areas. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl must be avoided t3 the maximum extent practicable. 9. Removal of temporary fills. Any temporary fills must be removes; in their entirety and the affected areas returner to their ore-existino elevation. SY-7; NPECCONO 5 i LIC April 28, 1998 Paul Hamidi US Army Corps of Engineers PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-2255 RE: Conceptual Restoration Plan 97-4-02125 Eldridge, Craig Dear Paul: Accompanying is the restoration plan. It is simple and should be easily completed. We decided to keep the County restoration plan separate from the COE plan as the county report will be lengthy, in a different format and address issues in a different manner. If you have any questions please call. S nncerel , A.J. Bredberg P. O. Box 1337, Gig Harbor WA 98335 USA 253.858.7055 FAX 253.858.2534 April 28, 1998 Paul Hamidi US Army Corps of Engineers 8� PO Box 3755 1 Seattle, WA 98124-2255 RE: Conceptual Restoration Plan 97-4-02125 Eldridge, Craig Dear Paul: Thank you for the letter of March 30, 1998 detailing required actions on the above referenced site. Following is a restoration plan that meets those requirements. The letter calls for: 1. Best Management Practices (BMP) for sediment and erosion control 2. Removal of sediments in downstream areas 3. Removal of fill materials within the wetland corridor 4. Permanently stabilize exposed surfaces 5. Restoration of the stream corridor 6. Additional items These activities should be completed in the next 60 days. Upon completion you will be sent an as-built with photos. 1. Exposed surfaces will stabilize and seeded using EMP's. Exposed areas will be lightly tilled and fertilized where needed. An appropriate seeding mix at the proper rate for the area will be broadcast and lightly tilled in. 2 Sediments will be removed from the stream corridor and spread up-slope and seeded. The sediment pond at the out-fall of the northern cuivert will be dug out and access maintained. 3. Fill in the corridor will be removed down to natural soils and the areas replanted with native plants. Areas within the corridor with fill will be identified and fill removed. The original topsoil will provide a base on which to remove fill. The ditch will be cross sectioned at several locations to verify historic ditch width and fill depth. 6. The site has two historic culverts on the platted roads. The culverts and roads will be left in their existing configuration and condition. An as built will be prepared with photos and supporting documentation P. O. Box 1337, Gig Harbor WA 98335 USA 253.858.7055 FAX 253.858.2534 Time Frame May 1 , 1998 Submit report May 15, 1998 Approval and begin work May 30, 1998 Complete grading, sediment and fill removal June 6, 1998 Seeding completed June 13, 1998 Plantings installed June 30, 1998 As built submitted to COE Planting plan Figure 1 is a planting plan for 400 feet of stream corridor. Approximately 600 feet needs replanting; the plant count has been increased 50% to account for the extra 200 feet. This will sufficiently cover the area as shown on the original violation drawing attached to figure 1.. TABLE 1: RESTORATION PLANT LIST .... . ..................... ................ Symbol Common Scientific Size .. `Spacing' Number Name Name Used NR Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 1 gal 6' 29 RR Ru osa rose Rosa ru osa 1 gal 6' 23 VM Vine maple Acer circinatum 1 gal 6' 60 WR Red currant Ribes san uineum 1 gal 6' 53 RD Red osier dogwood Comus stolonifera 1 gal 10, 33 Sitka willow IMllow sp. wips 6' 150 Tota 1 348 STANDARD PROJECT REQUIREMENTS 1. Sedimentation control measures will be instituted prior to, during, and after work to prevent erosion or sediment problems. 2. Native species will be used for all new plantings. 3. The Planting Plan (figure 1) snows plant locations and spacing. Table 1 lists the species, quantities, sizes, and spacing. All plant materials will be from approved sources. MATERIALS 1. Plants shall be free of disease, insects, insect eggs, larvae, weeds, weed seed, and other pests. 2. Plants shall be first quality with normal roots, trunks, limbs, stems and shape, and labeled with genus, species and variety. The owners' representative has the right to reject non-conforming plants. 3. The transplanted materials will be maintained and monitored. 4. Suitable substitutions may be made due to availability, price, and condition of the plants only with approval. 3016coe2/ajb/4/30/98 2 PLANTING AND SEEDING 1. All plants will be pruned to remove dead and diseased branches prior to planting. 2. The choice of plants should provide a combination of benefits to the wildlife habitat and benefits to the urban landscape environment. 3. The plantings should be made between October and March or provisions for supplemental waterings made. 4. Plantings should be made following BMP's.. 5. Plants are to be placed in a natural orientation. 6. When all work has been completed the owner's representative will inspect the work and grant acceptance. The plant warranty will become effective at this time for a period of one year. The contractor will be responsible for maintaining the area by weeding, watering, and replacing unhealthy plants. 7. This plan should be used in conjunction with the accompanying report by B & A, Inc. The liability by B & A, Inc. is limited to the payment received for preparing the final mitigation plan. 8. Plants shall be bare root or other available media matching specified size. 9. All areas left bare during the planting will be seeded. MAINTENANCE 1. The success rate for the overall plantings will be monitored and replanting performed if necessary. 2. Supplemental water may need to be applied in the first year to stressed plants. 3. Exotic or invasive, undesirable vegetation such as Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass, and Scot's broom shall be removed from the above referenced planting area. 4. Additional maintenance recommendations will be determined at the monitoring site visits. If you have any questions or wish a site visit, please contact me. Sincerely, A.J. redberg 3016coe2/ajb/4/30/98 3 C� I• `�� J T/ ^ E 1: RESTORATION PLANT LIST !� • Symbol Common : Scientific Size Spacing Number w� Name Name Used M NR Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 1 al 6' 29 RR Ru osa rose Rosa ru osa 1 al 6' 23 VM Vine maple Acer circinatum 1 gal 6' 60 O WR Red currant Ribes san uineum 1 gal 6' 53 RD Red osier dogwood Comus stolonifera 1 gal 10, 33 vM JM I Sitka willow w1low sp. wips 6' 150 1 • �` Total 348 i 20 I• � Jr• 49 J RR �, •� �� cAtE 0 >4 E)ll ea .l � •,.unt, y m I�O Lena CV2. 1� CIVIC+/;Ng `• w'� � �F• r t ,� OA SILD qM :A Ide (2 Dl� J'L l rir �r Sear dc• •� '.. I , :ar ..n fZ� _ .I i C O l d r w w:A-1.1 u Ts E)CA • l A9 >L 7 I• •�•fry d' G M • :ADO •�� N FIGURE 1 : PLANTING PLAN SCALE ELDRIDGE SITE/MASON COUNTY 1" = 40' B&A, INC. (3016) 4/30/98 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS n 7 F ENGINEERS ��1�� � v (`Q SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124 2255 \ REPLY TO ATTENTION OF MAY 18 1998 `)v Regulatory Branch A. J. Bredberg B & A, Inc. Post Office Box 1337 Gig Harbor, Washington 98335 Reference: 97-4-02125 Eldridge, Craig Dear Mr. Bredberg: f' I have reviewed your conceptual restoration plan dated April 28, 1998, for the above referenced project at Grapeview, Washington. If carried out as proposed, the restoration will address the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' concerns about the unauthorized activities at this site. The work must be completed and an as-built drawing submitted to our office by June 30, 1998. A member of my staff will inspect the site once the work is completed. If the work has been carried out according to plan, we will resolve the violation at that time. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Paul Hamidi, telephone (206) 764-5531 . Sincerely, James M. Rigsby Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Copy Furnished: Messrs. Eldridge & Scott Mr. Hugo Flores Mason County Dept. of Community Development Post Office Box 578 Shelton, WA 98584 Mr. Charles Klinge L l DE '; EN ED i June 30, 1998 USACE REGULATORY BRANCH Paul Hamidi US Army Corps of Engineers PO Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-2255 RE: As-Built Restoration Plan 97-4-02125 Eldridge, Craig Dear Paul: Accompanying is the as-built report. The attached bill shows 501 plants purchased and additional plants were acquired. These have been planted along the corridor and around the wetland. The stream corridor has been restored with topsoil replaced and removed. Stumps, logs and snags have been placed as well as the channel routed in a natural configuration. Per the mitigation report the following items have been accomplished or are in the process. 1 . Best Management Practices (BMP) for sediment and erosion control: Silt fences are in place and the area is to have been seeded since the site visit. 2. Removal of sediments in downstream areas: sediments in the downstream area were removed from the channel. 3. Removal of fill materials within the wetland corridor: Wetland corridor fill materials were removed to achieve a natural grade. 4. Permanently stabilize exposed surfaces: Exposed surfaces were to be seeded after the site visit. 5. Restoration of the stream corridor: The stream corridor is restored with plantings and woody debris and a series of obstructions to route water. P. O. Box 1337, Gig Harbor WA 98335 USA 253.858.7055 FAX 253.858.2534 The accompanying sketch is a schematic of 4 random areas showing the general plantings. The sketch is at about a 40 scale, but the monitoring plots are not to scale. Four monitoring plots are shown, three in the stream corridor and one in the area north of the northern gravel road. Six photo stations are shown and correspond by number and direction to the attached photos. The stream has been restored with a natural meander pattern. Sediments have been removed and the corridor planted. Several logs, stumps and snags have been placed. If you have any questions please call. Si erel , A.J. Bredbe 3016coe4/ajb/06/30/98 2 m � D � C a,t-12 pay-��-}S�pNb > � m = m - - - Z w m o D D D oko�a A'0. a) C!) CD 0 co wZ0 — �c 0 W p � , 00 C Ei -0 Z 1 !ll�����jffjjj 1 , G�f7= IV Q f Old 70 1 O-f ,/v m u A/ T° r% A A p L Crud vow ok ATTACHNwIT 2: AS-BUILT PLAN NORTHERiv STREAM CORRIDOR ELDRIDGE SITE/MASON COUNTY B&A, INC. (3016) 6/30/98 v U h v �y s� l -d aJ 5 -v G) 1�01 PA z wi RR � RR At b ' v/ N�� / Sd Kt � 0 � ep0 Q �o M y, Iqe � NrS 1 3 � o ,a1a 3 ra Woodbrook Nurscry Receipt 1620 59th Ave. NW Ti DATE INVOICE tt 6/21/98 97407 BILL TO I SHIP TO richard Stua j C.*Edridge IPO Box597 i t r3peview, WA 98W I P.C. NO. TERMS I FOB � PROJECT JOB NAME i I ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY � RATE AMOUNT � SttL ih Sala lasiandra,Psu-ifle Willow.#1 Cont_ .30 2.50 75.1 OT i SaHI Salix hookeriam Hooker's Willow,#1 Cont. 40 2.50 100.007 Wit I Salix;itchemig,5itka willow,a Cont. 30 150 75.00T f RAN I-48 Rvu+-iutlana,.Nvotka Rosc, 1 ga1. LUU 7.10 4.SO.OdT' Rus I Rubus spectabilis,Salmonbenry, 10. 2S 2.50 62.SOT RiS 1c Ribes sanguineum,Red Flowering Currant, 1 gal. , 10 2.50 25.00T C.,111ti Lonicern involucrata.Black Twinberry. I gal. 50 2.50 125.00T P'iClc Physocarpus capitams,Pacific Nice ark, 1 gal SO 2.50 125.00T 11,11)ld Rolodlscus dirculm,(_L:..+fur 9prxy, 1 gnl 10 2.50 21 0OT' COS Id Comus stolonifera,Redtwig Dogwood, l gal. 50 2.50 1=.00T AcClc A=circ nanim Vine Maple, 1 gal. 2,S 2.50 62.50T j -80 trees( 60® 1 gal, 20 ®2 gal) j CoN 1 Comus nuttallL Pacific Dogwood*1 Cont. 5 2.50 12.50T ACMI ACe-f MWOphyllum,Disk .11tii..4,l,s i#I Csnt. 9 2-30 1n.rAT iAeNQ Ac er rracrophyllum,Bigleaf Maple,2 gal. I 3 t 5.00 15.O(r pis 1 Picea sitchensis,Sits Spruce,#I Cont. I 5 2.50 12.50T�I Pis: Picea sitchensis,Sitka Spruce,2 gal f 2 5.00 10.00T TS141 Tsuga heteropbylla,Western Hemlock.#1 Cont. 20 2.50 50.00T 1 TSH2 Tsuga hetaophylla,Western Hemlock,2 gal. 5 5.00 25,00T i-MP1 d Thuja plicata.Western lied Cedar. 1 gal 15 2.50 37.50V 'IbP2 Thuja plicate,Western Red Cedar,2 gal. 10 5.00 50.00T FSM I t) F%cudwsugn runruicaii.Douglas Fir, 1 gal. 7 2.SQ 11,50? Cht.1 Chamaoeypans lawsoniana.Port Orford Cedar. 0.00 O.00T #1 Container g 1 i f Salj fl ubujwl State&County Saies Tax D $.004fi 1011.00 iI Thank you! We appreciate your business! Total S 1,4,04.00 f �• � iw �t r• r ' r q; •'. l .. ,� t: � :y.r`ems.. --- - -_ - r ' f r' � �-���� /'?�, r .Y�.' ♦ I� x`�. iris...- - y - - -F. a ..\'.' ' t � •.�� �tiT ice. � 1Xa'C��� *s •-, •�� � � in � ?, � 1`i �': ; .kRs�j���. 4 N DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY }r SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-2255 \� -" REPLY TO d ATTENTION OF _ JUL66� Regulatory Branch UL 21 1998 Q- Mr. Craig Eldridge Mr. Richard Scott Post Office Box 587 Grapeview, Washington 98546 Reference: 97-4-02125 Eldridge, Craig Dear Messrs. Eldridge and Scott: Thank you for meeting recently with Mr. Paul Hamidi of my staff to inspect the restoration of the stream and wetlands on your property at Grapeview, Washington. This work was described in the report by A.J. Bredberg dated June 30, 1998. Mr. Hamidi verified that the work was done according to the plan approved by our office in a letter to Mr. Bredberg dated May 18, 1998. My staff will reinspect the site in July 1999 to determine if wetland vegetation has been adequately restored. The following are offered as recommendations for the restoration of the site: 1) willow and red-osier dogwood cuttings should be planted this fall to supplement existing plantings; 2) the plants should continue to be irrigated through September; 3) the silt fence should be extended north along the wetland boundary to the uncleared forest. Mr. Bredberg has not provided our office with a wetland delineation of your property. Our original wetland delineation did not include the northern portion of the stream adjacent to the uncleared forest. Mr. Hamidi flagged the likely wetland boundary during his site visit with you. Because you indicated to Mr. Hamidi that you are not proposing any work in this area, a wetland delineation will not be required; 4) wetland trees and shrubs should be planted along the silt fence to buffer the wetlands from your proposed development. 101 , �w� �z �s -2- Thank you for your cooperation in restoring the stream and wetlands. An future questions concerning this case should be directed to=efie DonTigny telephone (206) 764-5528. Sincerely, James M. Rigsby Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Copies Furnished: A. J. Bredberg Charles Klinge Hugo Flores/ . � r 1 X / � 71'r45ur- S{�YQArt� C LoCof;o,V QPpre7(;�� / ; x � I / g.ro,�vl )2otA 1 i �-k unclErlRCO FoQ�sT � _ Y 7 v g o n•P li Qo)�'� ► �1 gp Is v 1 b Syr L 0..+d c1zaY.ad / x �� '.� wt+k,r�5 CO.11o qcr.) �P + c L Eq IP E 0 NOT X LPL/�r✓AS G��rj,� �� /� cLEAREO ; 10 llMu'�bY *;I11, Yaol;l>g culvtr+ iy3 16 a ,d Saoj3ac��ri- Wc}-lanais ROADS f 6 x 1erS+h. 58`t/ y wed+h;appr�X 2��l0• r � f, c„I.cc1' 9rgve Roa gYO''`\ To May"euL Li u v to Y;Par:qqri {v Ott toxs R¢�zrtncz, q1-y-pZltS � L RED Eidr�gc�cra�� � ,� 1I15Ptc fir: I�am;dt i Oj ;Sorhph Porn} hC� wM fl4"d5 i �� �)'`� J •fit S l�� '- � 2y �'�� 11 fir`.�' � / / • + � �'o '.��".�(1 f .� .r�/�pA.y'1 •,��". ��` ,^bh . tip •,' +�. .A ti"t� t '� IV ' :w }' � � r j r e :;��h .,. �'' V� ;,}�$ �c� �� ����rTl•"jy��,q�^�y�y`p z vh .tom .�,�,'.�-.r;��, � w�. )� �..Tb.r!O�T7�.� � _,,+�.. l ,, �,. •r r � • � la � � ����� r��, ' ': T .^�� �• _ � - i;•�... � - F. ,, ;. .\ j� 1+. , 1 r• :k \ ' f fie' ♦ •r yi - -. ell �p, .s tJ p ' _ _ > \!,>i:1N .v_ Ja `1k�,A'`; F.1. ` -•,. , ARY•e°_ V.'�!. -„sZR'�lµl';iifl;n• �., rM.�.i:�r.6_ �1;1'St����a \s.1`\}':i'��� 4o Co Y ' �+ - � • .._ - 7Z- r >.,y.. �.�.'s `,La�`_�- � `��� ,:s•` ''�•�__Cam`'-����; ��;� a: ■Y T•i •S.. _1f•� {P7S d:� A. .OJ' .A•, 's'� ... .i: 'LTA- � i.� ..T•/fit` t,�l o- ��' l �► �.' `� h /' , � �1•` J��1 �F"k+' °� k"'��' i ':a�?' 1. ^ire�` a —34 1 PICT a .� ,. Pik; R 1 t`.�r �lyf] � �a. .,, i 3• , tiI , 4+ �� `�'�'�, c: ,� +r� �� � `fit; •.�i 'i '� ;�.�x 9 q7•y—OZ/Z5 / 1 Memorandum for Record Reference: 97-4-02125 Eldridge, Craig Date: July 22, 1998 This site should be inspected in July 1999 to assess revegetation of the stream corridor. Tina Tong and Chris McAuliffe have been to the site. Paul Hamidi t CERTIFIED MAIL or .•, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY fiC SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX 3755 e SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-2255 \ / A = . EPLY TO Noy � ,? p -_/ ATTENTION OF Nov ► 2 1998 �v 1998 F Regulatory Branch � ��DFpr Mr. Craig Eldridge Mr. Richard Scott Post Office Box 587 Grapeview, Washington 98546 Reference: 97-4-02125 Craig Eldridge Dear Messrs. Eldridge and Scott: On August 1, 1998, Ms. Joelle DonTigny was assigned as the project manager for your project. On October 28, 1998, Ms. DonTigny and another member of my staff inspected the property off Grapeview Loop Road at Grapeview, Mason County, Washington. That inspection revealed that the silt fencing has been installed incorrectly and is failing in a number of locations. That inspection also revealed that material from the landcleared upland area is accumulating along parts of the silt fencing, which is also contributing to the failure of the silt fencing. The silt fencing on the property needs to be installed properly in order to keep the fencing from failing. If the silt material coming from the landcleared upland area breaches the fencing and enters into the wetlands and stream corridor, this will be considered a discharge of dredged or fill material, and the violation cannot be resolved. Please repair the silt fence within 30 days from the date of this letter. An inspection will be conducted by Ms. DonTigny to ensure the fencing has been properly repaired. Our staff is also scheduled to visit the site in the summer of 1999, to determine if the wetlands are revegetating and the stream corridor is restored. If during that site inspection, the observation is made that the wetlands and stream corridor have been restored, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) violation may be resolved. However, if the wetland and stream corridor area is not restored, a review of the restoration plan will be required with coordination between my staff and your consultant with subsequent field inspections. I % - 2 - The Corps has also been in contact with the county regarding this violation. Please be aware that the Corps resolution in no way excuses you from compliance with other Federal, State, and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations which may pertain to this work. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Joelle DonTigny, telephone (206) 764-5528. Sincerely, Stephen A. Wright Chief, Enforcement Section Copy Furnished: Mr. A.J. Bredberg B & A, Inc. Post Office Box 1337 Gig Harbor, Washington 98335 cc: Ms. Pam Bennett-Cumming Mason County Dept of Community Development Post Office Box 578 ;Shelton, Washington 98584 �°�� tio 1 Tye;. s-}"rPttrrl C(oCgf;aA/ ovPr.�(;a�t�► / X � X jW Q-4f- ?� unclEr�RCO 1=oQE5'r � a PPYo`l . Lc c4 ( ,'Vn of l p 94M P� QD�A7 ► /f� �r +! CL Eqf-E O .4e NOT X JPL/ANA5 �yl CLEARe D /,V (,Wc+tarJS) ! ' Ghanrvs� `c UPLANOC �4� k y fJr)nu'{�bY.2lA . � a Land.. CV7gY: _{ x *;Il i 9`4 9YQr;og C�IVtr� �y3M 594/ wed+h;apprx 2�y0' � ��, • X cAht,(+ 9Ygve ROQ aVpJ To Man n2 —j �aundaryy of � /. . Y;PaY— Re�Lr�ncz , q7-yZItS ` �i •/ I �'J�= wm Hands ,I I s, h `A*��� �'R` A��-•g���> .��u� � '�-,fie. >54��n a S a t` 1 Cl y t, . o, t r.� blu !Z f • � � I i i f t } r • q t. r 1 � � S� A . � M 3 � s r R