HomeMy WebLinkAboutRevised Shoreline, Critical Areas, ESA Assessment - SHR Reports - 12/10/2018 SHORELINE, CRITICAL AREAS, AND ESA ASSESSMENT
REPORT WITH CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
PORT OF GRAPEVIEW DOCK- GRAPEVIEW LOOP ROAD
& GRISWOLD AVENUE
NWS-2018-161
JUNE 2017
REVISED DECEMBER,2018
Soundview
V11 Consultants
Environmental Assessment
Planning+Land Use Solutions
SHORELINE, CRITICAL AREAS, AND ESA ASSESSMENT
REPORT WITH CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN
PORT OF GRAPEVIEW DOCK - GRAPEVIEW LOOP ROAD
& GRISWOLD AVENUE
JUNE 29,2017
REVISED DECEMBER 10,2018
PROJECT LOCATION
GRAPEVIEW LOOP ROAD&GRISWOLD AVENUE
GRAPEVIIiW,WA 98546
PREPARED FOR
PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
ATTN:GLENN CARLSON
PO Box 3
GRfkPEVIEW,WA 98546
PREPARED BY
SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS LLC
2907 HARBORVIEW DRIVE,SUITIs D
GIG HARBOR,WAS[IINGTON 98335
(253) 514-8952
Soundview
Consultants
Environmental Assessment
Planning+Land Use Solutions
Executive Summary
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been hired by HHJ Architects, PLLC and the Port of
Grapeview (Applicants) to provide a Shoreline, Critical Areas, and Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Assessment, with a Conceptual Mitigation Plan for a new 165-linear foot community floating dock
with an access gangway and sidewalk on an approximately 0.44-acre parcel located at Grapeview
Loop Road and Griswold Avenue in Grapeview, unincorporated Mason County,Washington. The
subject property is situated in the Southwest V4 of Section 5, Township 21 North, Range 01 West,
W.M. (Mason County Tax Parcel Number 12105-51-00900).
SVC investigated the subject property for wetlands, waterbodies, potentially regulated fish and
wildlife habitat, and/or priority species in the spring of 2017. The site investigation identified the
shoreline of Case Inlet, Puget Sound and a FEMA mapped flood zone along the shoreline. No
other streams, wetlands, drainages or sensitive fish and wildlife habitats or species were identified
during the site investigation.
Impacts of a new overwater structure will be mitigated by avoiding and minimizing impacts to the
extent practicable. The overwater portions of the elevated and floating dock sections will be at
least 50 percent grated to allow light to penetrate to the water. The joint use community dock will
minimize the need for additional individual or joint use docks for water access in the vicinity of the
Fair Harbor Marina. Unavoidable impacts will be compensated by restoring and enhancing
currently disrupted intertidal shoreline habitat. This includes the removal of a creosote timber
bulkhead, replacement with soft shoreline stabilization elements,and shoreline and intertidal beach
restoration.
This Shoreline, Critical Areas, and Endangered Species Act (ESA) Assessment,with a Conceptual
Mitigation Plan was initially completed in June 2017. It was revised February 2018 to include
elements necessary for submittal to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) submittal. A second revision in June 2018 was
provided to address USACE comments regarding the ESA Assessment. A third revision in July
2018 was provided to address Essential Fish Habitat. A fourth revision September 2018 provided
an amended mitigation proposal, in response to comments from the USACE that the mitigation
provided thus far would not be sufficient. The bulkhead removal and soft shoreline stabilization
were included as mitigation elements with this revision. This final revision results from WDFW
review and a corrected site survey which corrects the positioning of the proposed mitigation
elements with respect to mean higher high water(MHHW) and includes a few other minor changes
in the shoreline restoration design.
The marine shoreline is regulated by Federal Resource agencies including the USACE,the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS),and NOAA Fisheries,the Washington State Departments of Ecology
(WSDOE) and WDFW,Mason County,and several Native American Indian Tribes.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock i Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Table of Contents
Chapter1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................1
Chapter2. Proposed Project...........................................................................................................................2
2.1 Project Location......................................................................................................................................2
2.2 Purpose and Need...................................................................................................................................3
2.3 Project Description.................................................................................................................................3
2.4 Construction Techniques.......................................................................................................................3
2.5 Action Area..............................................................................................................................................4
Chapter3. Methods..........................................................................................................................................9
Chapter4. Existing Conditions.....................................................................................................................10
4.1 Landscape Setting................................................................................................................................10
4.2 Soils.........................................................................................................................................................10
4.3 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................................10
4.4 Hydrology...............................................................................................................................................11
4.5 Priority Habitat and Species................................................................................................................11
4.6 Shoreline of Case Inlet.........................................................................................................................11
Chapter 5. Regulatory Considerations and Floodplain Impacts..............................................................13
5.1 Mitigation Sequencing..........................................................................................................................13
5.2 Regulated Shoreline..............................................................................................................................14
5.3 Floodplain Impacts...............................................................................................................................14
Chapter 6. ESA Species Information and Effects Determinations.........................................................16
6.1 Species Information..............................................................................................................................16
6.2 Direct and Short-Term Effects...........................................................................................................21
6.3 Long-Term Effects...............................................................................................................................22
6.4 Determinations of Effect.....................................................................................................................23
6.5 Essential Fish Habitat analysis............................................................................................................29
Chapter 7. Conceptual Mitigation Plan.......................................................................................................31
7.1 Project Impacts.....................................................................................................................................31
7.2 Mitigation Sequencing..........................................................................................................................31
7.3 RGP-6 Guidance Related to Debits...................................................................................................33
7.4 Conceptual Mitigation..........................................................................................................................34
Chapter8. Closure..........................................................................................................................................37
Chapter9. References....................................................................................................................................38
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock ii Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Figures
Figure1. Vicinity Map................................................................................................................................2
Figure 2.Terrestrial Project Noise Attenuation to Ambient Levels. ................................................... 6
Tables
Table 1.Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations............................................................................... 5
Table 2. Underwater Noise Attenuation Calculations............................................................................7
Table 3. Shoreline Information Summary.............................................................................................12
Table 4. ESA-Listed Species Potentially Found in Mason County and the Action Area. ............. 16
Table 5. Species Determination Summary............................................................................................24
Table 6. Impacts to Aquatic Resources..................................................................................................34
Table 7. Proposed Mitigation Actions................................................................................................... 36
Appendices
Appendix A—Methods and Tools
Appendix B—Background Information
Appendix C—Site Plans
Appendix D—Action Area Map
Appendix E—Author Qualifications
Appendix F—Eelgrass and Macroalgae Survey Results Technical Memorandum
Appendix G—RGP 6 Mitigation Calculations
Appendix H—Compensatory Mitigation Plan
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock iii Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Chapter 1. Introduction
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) has been hired by HHJ Architects, PLLC and the Port of
Grapeview (Applicants) to provide a Shoreline and Critical Areas Assessment, Endangered Species
Act (ESA) Assessment, and Conceptual Mitigation Plan for a new 165-linear foot community
floating dock with an access gangway and sidewalk on an approximately 0.44-acre parcel located at
Grapeview Loop Road and Griswold Avenue in Grapeview, unincorporated Mason County,
Washington. The subject property is situated in the Southwest'/4 of Section 5,Township 21 North,
Range 01 West,W.M. (Mason County Tax Parcel Number 12105-51-00900).
The purpose of this assessment is to identify the presence of potentially-regulated wetlands,
waterbodies, fish and wildlife habitat, and/or priority species that may be found on or near the
subject property; assess potential impacts upon any such critical areas and/or species from the
proposed project;and provide impact avoidance,mitigation,and management recommendations.
This report will be used to satisfy the following review processes and/or obtain the following
permits:
• USACE Section 10 permits;
• WSDOE Section 401 Water Quality Certification;
• WSDOE Coastal Zone Management(CZM) Consistency;
• WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval;
• Mason County Environmental Approval
• Mason County Shoreline Approval
This report provides conclusions and recommendations regarding:
• Site description,project description,and area of assessment;
• Identification and assessment of potentially regulated wetlands, water bodies, fish and
wildlife habitat,and/or priority species located on or near the subject property;
• Site maps detailing existing site conditions, identified critical areas, and the proposed dock
construction;
• Identification of potential impacts to potentially-regulated features, priority habitat and
species,or associated buffers;and
• Potential regulatory considerations and habitat management recommendations.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 1 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Chapter 2. Proposed Project
2.1 Project Location
The subject property is located at Grapeview Loop Road and Griswold Avenue in the town of
Grapeview, Mason County, Washington (Figure 1). The subject property is situated in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, Township 21 North, Range 01 West, W.M. (Mason County Tax Parcel
Number 12105-51-00900).
To access the subject property from US-101 North, take the WA-3 North exit toward
Shelton/Bremerton and proceed for 3 miles. Turn right onto East Railroad Avenue and continue
for 299 feet. Turn left at the 1'cross street onto North Front Street and proceed for 0.2 mile. Turn
right onto WA-3 N/E Pine Street and continue for 5.1 miles. Turn right onto East Grapeview
Loop Road and proceed for 1.8 miles. Turn left and stay on East Grapeview Loop Road and
continue for 0.7 mile and your destination will be on the right.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map.
NOW
-J'JDr - -J
E C+ongii'
SUBJECT PROPERTY
(Approximate) 8
Jt
_6 'J
y C
O a
4
V' Cj
k,
9tYaYh
tbk1�
Srar F .,
2 Cif aprA ew
z E Eckrrt9`
v Srrett:h
aIsland
c
IS
W
q T.
L
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 2 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
2.2 Purpose and Need
The proposed project will provide the community with a floating dock that provides public water
access and temporary moorage for individual and commercial users that will be launching boats at
the Port of Grapeview public boat ramp. The floating dock is not intended for overnight moorage
as it will bottom out at low tides, due to the bathymetry of this narrow channel; it will provide a
short term, temporary facility for boaters to moor while awaiting their turn to take out their boat or
to park their vehicle after launching.
2.3 Project Description
The proposed project is to construct a new 165-linear foot community dock consisting of a 48-foot
by 5-foot gangway and a 121-foot by 8-foot floating dock. The floating dock will consist of six (6),
20-foot by 8-foot pre-fabricated fiberglass sections with more than 50 percent grating. Each float
section will be supported by a 10-inch diameter steel pile. The waterward end of the dock will reach
-4.3 feet (relative to MLLW) in elevation with the furthest waterward steel pile placed at -4 feet. A
48-foot by 5-foot grated aluminum gangway with metal railings will be attached to the floating dock
and supported by one (1), 10-inch steel pile. A total of seven (7) piles are proposed for the entire
dock. A footing will be placed landward of the existing bulkhead (and above OHW) in order to
support the platform onto which the gangway will attach. The existing bulkhead will not be altered.
This 8-foot square concrete platform will be ADA compliant,with wood railings. This platform will
connect further landward to a new 128-square-foot concrete sidewalk,which will provide pedestrian
access (including ADA access) from Griswold Avenue.
2.4 Construction Techniques
All pilings will be installed from the water, with a vibratory hammer mounted on a barge. Six (6),
prefabricated 20-foot by 8-foot floats with fiberglass grating will be floated in, connected, and
attached to the pilings after they are set in their final position. The landward end of the aluminum
gangway will attach, at OHW, to the pier platform. The waterward end will attach to the floating
dock. Installation of in-water elements will occur from a floating barge,during high tide.
Approximately 19 cubic yards of native soil/sediment will be removed immediately landward of
OHW to construct the pier foundation. Three concrete walls with footings will be poured in place
to create the platform to which the dock gangway will attach to on land. These three walls will form
the foundation for the new pier platform. This will be backfilled with clean, free draining,
compacted gravel or CSBC (Crushed Surface Base Course) and capped with compacted CSBC and a
4-inch thick concrete surface. The new ADA compliant sidewalk will be poured in place concrete,
over a prepared bed.
Best management practices (BMPs) include the following:
1. Construction of over-water elements and installation of the piles will occur from a barge and
so will be completed during high tides. The contractor will be required to submit a
Construction/Tides Plan outlining possible work dates and times that allow construction
during the most desirable tidal period.
2. A coir log barrier shall be placed around the perimeter of the upland work area to prevent
sediments and debris from migrating waterward. This will be removed when the work is
completed or when the tide is flooding.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 3 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
3. Concrete will be poured in place for the footings of the landing platform. This construction
will occur entirely landward of the existing bulkhead and of the OHW, however,
precautions are still necessary to prevent any accidental marine water exposure to uncured
concrete. The forms for concrete pouring will be constructed to prevent leaching of wet
concrete, and impervious materials will be placed over any exposed concrete not lined with
forms that will come into contact with marine waters. The forms and impervious materials
will remain in place until the concrete is cured. The concrete pouring will occur during low
tide to further reduce the risk of water contamination.
4. Work below OHW will only occur from July 15 to February 15. This time frame is within
the approved work window for protection of migrating salmonids in Tidal Reference Area 2
Quly 2 to March 2). The approved work window for the protection of spawning surf smelt
in Tidal Reference Area 2 is April 1 to June 30. As the proposed work below OHW will
occur outside of the approved work window for the protection of spawning surf smelt,
forage fish surveys will be conducted within 48 hours prior to the start of any work below
OHW. The work will commence only upon a negative result from the forage fish surveys.
5. The contractor shall develop and implement a site-specific spill prevention, containment and
control plan(SPCCP).
6. The movement and use of heavy or tracked machinery is restricted to the staging area.
7. Beach area grades disturbed during construction will be reshaped to pre-project conditions
upon project completion.
8. All construction equipment will be inspected daily for fluid leaks and no equipment will
leave the staging area until any leaks are repaired.
9. Fueling and maintenance of equipment will occur in upland staging areas only.
10.No excavated materials will be stockpiled below the OHW mark.
11.No materials shall be stockpiled outside of the staging area unless they will be used in that
day's work.
12. Removal of the offsite creosote bulkhead proposed for compensatory mitigation will occur
during low tide and the footprint of the bulkhead will be covered with a clean mixture of
gravel and coarse sand. Additional minimization measures for creosote removal can be
implemented following the WA Department of Natural Resources BMPs for derelict
creosote piling removal(DNR,2017).
2.5 Action Area
The "Action Area" encompasses the locations where project activities will occur (the Project Area),
plus areas that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project either through physical,
chemical, or biological mechanisms. The geographic limits of the Action Area were defined by
considering the potential spatial extent of mechanisms that may lead to impacts on listed species.
Mechanisms identified as having potential for impacting ESA-listed species or species habitat
include noise from construction equipment and a potential increase in turbidity from sediment in-
water suspension caused by construction activities. The Action Area for these potential impact
mechanisms is depicted in Appendix D.
2.5.1 Calculating Terrestrial Noise Attenuation
Calculations for the distance to terrestrial noise attenuation to ambient levels were conducted using
WSDOT Biological Assessment preparation methods (WSDOT, 2015). Terrestrial construction
noise sources will consist of a vibratory pile driver, an excavator, and a concrete pump truck.
Vibratory pile drivers are estimated to have a terrestrial noise level of 101 dB at 50 feet,and both an
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 4 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
excavator and concrete pump truck have a noise level of 81 dB per Table 7-4 of the WSDOT
Guidance (WSDOT,2015). Using decibel addition,it was determined that the combined noise level
of all construction equipment is 101 dB. The normal attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling distance
for a hard site was applied to provide a conservative estimate because the site is adjacent to water,
residential areas, and a main road (East Grapeview Loop Road) that are considered reflective
surfaces that do not provide much attenuation.
Using 101 dB as the noise impact level along with an ambient level of 61 dB (WSDOT, 2015)
considering the noise level for traffic volume for East Grapeview Loop Road that has a speed limit
of 40 miles per hour (mph) and a likely traffic volume (vehicles/hour) of 250, the following table
and graph present the estimated construction noise attenuation distance. This analysis results in
attenuation to ambient noise levels at 5,482 feet from the Project Area, which is demonstrated in
Table 1 and graphically depicted in Figure 2. From the table and trend line equation on the chart an
estimated perimeter for the terrestrial action area would denoted by a radius of 5,482 feet beyond
the Project Area.
Table 1. Terrestrial Noise Attenuation Calculations.
Terrestrial Attenuation Table Hard Sites
Distance from Source Construction Noise Background Noise Measured Noise Pressure
(Feet) (Miles) dBA) (dBA (Micro-P atm
50 0.009469697 101 61 2244036.909 2.27359E-07
100 0.018939394 95 61 1124682.65 1.1395E-07
200 0.037878788 89 61 563676.5863 5.71101E-08
400 0.075757576 83 61 282507.5089 2.86228E-08
800 0.151515152 77 61 141589.1569 1.43454E-08
1600 0.303030303 71 61 70962.67785 7.18973E-09
3200 0.606060606 65 61 35565.5882 3.6034E-09
6400 1.212121212 59 61 1 17825.01876 1.80598E-09
12800 2.424242424 53 61 8933.671843 1 9.05134E-10
25600 4.848494848 47 61 4477.442277 1 4.53642E-10
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 5 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Figure 2. Terrestrial Project Noise Attenuation to Ambient Levels.
Terrestrial Attenuation for Hard Sites
120
1
100
80
60 11
40 j r- tBackgtound Noisese
c --*—Construction Noise
rn
20
�4i4 LH-- y= -8.6561n(a) + 134.86
4�,
50 300 5000 50000
Distance (feet)
2.5.2 Calculating In-Water Noise Attenuation
To minimize in-water impacts, only vibratory pile driving methods will be used for in-water pile
installation and only seven, 10-inch in diameter pile will be used. To determine the Action Area
impacted by the sound from the vibratory hammer, an in-water sound area model was created. The
aquatic sound Action Area occurs in Case Inlet, South Puget Sound,where it is constrained by land
masses on all sides. Calculations were conducted using noise methods outlined in the WSDOT
Biological Assessment preparation manual (WSDOT,2015).
In-water construction will consist of vibratory pile driving of seven, 10-inch diameter steel pile.
Using WSDOT Biological Assessment preparation methods,vibratory pile drivers emit sound levels
10-20 dB below that of impact pile drivers. The WSDOT guidance document, for a 12-inch steel
pile,recommends a value of 173 dB (RMS) at a distance of 10 meters (32.81 feet) for a vibratory pile
driver. This is used here as conservative comparison, as the guidance does not provide noise
estimates for driving 10-inch pile using vibratory pile driving methods. WSDOT guidance suggests
that background sound levels be compared to that of previous WSDOT noise analysis studies within
the Puget Sound. The ambient underwater noise level for the project site will be estimated using the
ambient underwater noise level for a site on Vashon Island,which has an underwater noise level of
128 dB.
Applying the normal attenuation rate of 4.5 dBA per underwater doubling distance results in an
attenuation line as demonstrated below in Table 2 and displayed in Figure 3. From the table, the
calculated perimeter for the in-water Action Area would extend to approximately 33,592 feet (6.4
miles); however, the underwater noise will reach land on all sides prior to this calculated distance.
1267.0004-Port of Grepeview Dock 6 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
The underwater noise Action Area would be constrained by land rather than attenuated in all
directions to a maximum distance of approximately 12,000 feet (2.3 miles) to the northeast, just
north of Rocky Bay.
Table 2. Underwater Noise Attenuation Calculations.
Vibratory Water Attenuation Table
Construction Noise Background Noise
Distance from Source Measured Noise Pressure
(Feet) (Miles) dB dB (Micro-Pascals) atm
32.81 0.006214015 173 128 8933671843 0.000905134
65.62 0.01242803 168.5 128 5321450120 0.000539154
131.24 0.024856061 164 128 3169786385 0.000321154
262.48 0.049712121 159.5 128 1888121753 0.000191299
524.96 0.099424242 155 128 1124682650 0.00011395
1049.92 0.198848485 150.5 128 669930878.3 6.78755E-05
2099.84 0.39769697 146 128 399052463 4.04308E-05
4199.68 0.795393939 141.5 128 237700445.5 2.40831E-05
8399.36 1.590787879 137 128 141589156.9 1.43454E-05
16798.72 3.181575758 132.5 128 84339300.69 8.54502E-06
33597.44 6.363151515 128 128 50237728.63 5.08994E-06
67194.88 12.72630303 123.5 128 29924713.12 3.03189E-06
134389.76 25.45260606 119 128 17825018.76 1.80598E-06
Figure 3. Underwater Project Noise Attenuation to Ambient Levels.
Underwater Attenuation Table
200 ----
180
160
120
v 100
a Construction Noise
:~ 80
c (Background Noise
cn 60
40 y= -6.4921n(x)+ 195.66
20
50 500 5000 50000 500000
Distance(feet)
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 7 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
2.5.3 Turbidity
The proposed construction activities may incidentally suspend sediment materials in the marine
waters adjacent to the project site. Such occurrences, if at all, would be temporary in duration. To
avoid or minimize potential temporary increases in turbidity, all appropriate temporary erosion and
sediment control(MSC) measures and construction BMps will be implemented.
The Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173-201A-210(1)(e)) makes allowances for temporary
turbidity in marine waters due to construction activities. Temporary mixing is subject to constraints
of WAC 173-201A-400(4) and (6). A 150-foot plume limit is being included in the Action Area to
account for possible temporary increases in turbidity. Any turbidity impacts are expected to be
temporary due to the conservation measures and BMPs that will be in place for the project and will
comply with WAC 173-201A-400(4) and (6).
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 8 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Chapter 3. Methods
SVC investigated and assessed shoreline conditions and potentially-regulated wetlands,waterbodies,
and other fish and wildlife habitat on and within 250 feet of the subject property in January,April,
and June of 2017. All determinations were made using observable vegetation, hydrology, and soils
in conjunction with data collected from the U.S. Geographic Survey (USGS) topographic map, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey, the USFWS National Wetland
Inventory (NWI), WDFW priority habitats and species (PHS) and Salmonscape mapping tools,
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) stream typing data, WSDOE coastal atlas
map data, Mason County Geographic Information Systems (GIS), local precipitation data, and
various orthophotographic resources. Appendix A contains further details for the methods and
tools used to prepare this report.
Wetland presence/absence was determined in accordance with Mason County Code (MCC)
8.52.110, and as outlined in the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory,
1987) as modified according to the guidelines established in the Regional Supplement to the Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains,Valleys, and Coast Region,Version
2.0 (USACE,2010).
OHW mark determinations were made using the WSDOE's method detailed in Anderson, P.S., S.
Meyer, P. Olson, and E. Stockdale, 2016, Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline
ManagementAct Compliance in Washington State(Anderson,P.S.,et al.) and the definitions established in
the Shoreline Management Act (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 90.58.030(2)(b) and
Washington Administrative Code(WAC) 173-22-030(11)).
The fish and wildlife habitat assessment was conducted during the same site visits by qualified fish
and wildlife biologists. Experienced biologists made visual observations using stationary and
walking survey methods for both aquatic and upland habitats noting any special habitat features or
signs of fish and wildlife activity. A low tide beach survey for submerged aquatic vegetation and
other aquatic organisms and features was completed by qualified SVC staff on May 27, 2017 per
WDFW guidance (WDFW, 2008). A technical memo documenting the results of that beach survey
is included here,as Appendix F.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 9 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Chapter 4. Existing Conditions
4.1 Landscape Setting
The subject property is in an urban residential setting, in unincorporated Mason County and
includes approximately 28 linear feet of nearly horizontal marine shoreline located along Case Inlet
of Puget Sound. A community concrete ramp is currently on the subject property shoreline
extending out into Case Inlet and encumbering portions of the south adjoining property. Existing
upland features include a paved access road (Griswold Avenue) to the existing ramp. The shoreline
consists of a coarse pebble substrate in the upper intertidal zone transitioning to very coarse, rocky
substrate in the lower intertidal zone. Quarry spalls have been placed on the shoreline on the north
of the existing concrete ramp. The intertidal area shows signs of sorting and shifting of finer
substrate, suggesting there is a moderate degree of tidal energy being exerted. The shoreline is
moderately populated with small mollusks and other macroinvertebrates (red rock crab, ghost
shrimp,mud snail,moon snail). Sea lettuce (Ulna spp.) was observed attached to and growing within
the beach substrate, but the shoreline lacks any significant rooted, vascular plant species. Adjacent
properties to the north are developed with single-family residences, to the east by Case Inlet, to the
south by Fair Harbor Marina and associated structures, which provides boat moorage for
recreational boaters, fuel for motorized boats and grocery/gift shopping, and to the west by East
Grapeview Loop Road. The adjoining properties that abut Case Inlet to the north and south
contain hardened shorelines encumbered by concrete bulkheads with upland vegetation consisting
predominantly of ornamental grass with some ornamental trees and shrubs. A storm drainage pipe
extends out from the north adjoining concrete bulkhead, just north of the existing ramp with water
draining out onto the surface of the shoreline and into Case Inlet.
Topography on the upland is approximately 20 feet above mean sea level (amsl) with a gentle slope
downward to the east toward Case Inlet. A topographic map is provided in Appendix B1.
4.2 Soils
The Natural Resource Conservation Service identified one soil series on the subject property,
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes. This soil formed in ridges and hills with a
parent material consisting of glacial drift and/or glacial outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits.
In a typical profile, the surface consists of gravelly sandy loam from 0 to 7 inches below ground
surface (bgs). The subsurface consists of very gravelly sandy loam from 7 to 59 inches bgs. A soil
map is provided in Appendix B2.
4.3 Vegetation
Upland portions of the subject property do not contain any vegetation, as it consists primarily of a
paved road (Griswold Avenue). Shoreline areas at the subject property lack any significant rooted,
vascular plant species although there is a small patch of salt tolerant emergent vegetation in the
vicinity of the stormwater outfall: an area measuring approximately 30 square feet contains small
clumps of pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and seaside plantain (Plantago maritima). Several species of
marine algae were observed including sea lettuce (Ulva spp.) and red algae (Odonthalia floccose).
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 10 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
4.4 Hydrology
4.4.1 Streams and Wetlands
The Mason County Streams and Wetlands map (Appendix B3) and the USFWS NWI map
(Appendix 134) identifies estuarine and marine wetlands within Case Inlet adjacent to the site;
however, the site investigation did not observe such habitats. The DNR Stream Typing map
(Appendix B5) and WDFW SalmonScape map (Appendix 136) did not identify any potentially
regulated streams on or in the vicinity of the subject property.
4.4.2 FEMA Mapped Flood Area
The Mason County Flood Zone map indicates that a portion of the project is within a special flood
hazard area, subject to inundation by the one percent annual chance of flood (100-year flood). A
Mason County Flood Zone map is provided in Appendix B7.
4.5 Priority Habitat and Species
The WDFW PHS map data (Appendix 138) identifies the potential for estuarine and marine wetlands
and a purple martin breeding area. One purple martin breeding area location was identified at the
Fair Harbor Marina, which is the south adjoining property and is listed with a candidate status,
which is not identified as endangered, threatened, or sensitive. The WDFW Forage Fish Spawning
map (Appendix 136) and SalmonScape map (Appendix 139) do not identify any priority fish species
or spawning areas within the subject property or vicinity. The WSDOE Shoreline Biology map
(Appendix B10) identifies patchy eelgrass fringes, patchy salt marsh fringes, and patchy low marsh
fringes on the shoreline of the subject property. The site investigations did not indicate any
estuarine and marine wetlands or any significant plant species within the shoreline area of the subject
property.
4.6 Shoreline of Case Inlet
The subject property abuts approximately 28 linear feet of the marine shoreline of Case Inlet within
Puget Sound. The shoreline environment for this area is designated by Mason County as Urban
Residential,with requirements found under MCC Title 17.50.074. Although the USFWS NWI map
and WSDOE shoreline biology map indicate estuarine and marine wetlands, patchy eelgrass fringes,
patchy salt marsh fringes, and patchy low marsh fringes located along the shoreline at the subject
property, the site investigations did not observe such habitats. The shoreline at the subject property
consists of a coarse pebble substrate in the upper intertidal zone transitioning to very coarse, rocky
substrate in the lower intertidal zone. The intertidal area shows signs of sorting and shifting of finer
substrate, suggesting there is a moderate degree of tidal energy being exerted. The shoreline is
moderately populated with small mollusks and other macroinvertebrates, but lacks any significant
rooted, vascular plant species. Several species of marine algae were observed including sea lettuce
(Ulna spp.) and red algae (Odonthaha floccose). The subject property has been used as a community
ramp extending out into Case Inlet for at least 60 years. Case Inlet is used as a boat thruway with
Fair Harbor Marina located on the south adjoining property. Such uses of Case Inlet have caused
significant degradation to ecological functions within the shoreline of the subject property and
surrounding areas. No priority species or potential spawning habitat for forage fish (sand lance, surf
smelt, and Pacific herring) is identified in the project vicinity. Table 3 provides a detailed summary
of the shoreline at the site.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 11 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Table 3. Shoreline Information Summary.
REGULATED SHORELINE HABITAT INFORMATION SUMMARY
Location: Along the northeastern boundary of the subject property.
t Water Body Case Inlet,Puget Sound
WRIA 14—Kennedy-
mooGoldsboro h
•�+' Local jurisdiction Mason County
Shoreline Urban Residential
Designation
Side-Yard Setback 5 feet
Potential estuarine and
PHS Documented marine wetlands and
Habitat associated aquatic habitat
along the shoreline to the
east of the project area
Location of Shoreline The shoreline is located on the east portion of the subject property where the
Relative to Project proposed project is to take place.
The side-yard consists of a coarse pebble substrate in the upper intertidal zone
Side-Yard Condition transitioning to very coarse, rocky substrate in the lower intertidal zone.
Quarry s alls remain on the beach from the previously existing boat ramp.
Priority Species Present Purple Martin
4.6.1 Shoreline History
WSDOE documented a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) on the south adjoining property
at Fair Harbor Marina and approximately 80 feet southwest of the proposed dock (Cleanup Site ID
6309, per WSDOE's online Cleanup Site Search). The LUST was first identified with leaking 200
gallons of diesel fuel and contaminating soils in 1990. The fuel was reported to have migrated to an
eastern retaining wall in a 4-foot by 4.5-foot area where bioremediation took place. In 1992,
approximately 75 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed after a 2,000-gallon underground
storage tank (UST) was removed. Soil and groundwater samples were collected after the
contaminated soil excavation and all contaminants were below detection levels. In 2007, a
subsurface investigation conducted by Sound Environmental Strategies reported the historic
removal of two 1,000-gallon USTs and one current 4,000-gallon UST containing gasoline. Seven
soil samples were collected up to a depth of 16 feet bgs. Contaminants within the soil samples were
identified below clean-up levels. Groundwater was collected; however, an insufficient quantity was
collected. In 2008,WSDOE changed the site status to"Reported Cleaned Up".
A previous SEPA determination for the installation of a ramp at the subject property raised concern
about the potential to disturb any potential contaminated soils from the past LUST at Fair Harbor
Marina (south adjoining property). BMPs regarding special handling with regards to the previous
LUST were recommended. These BMPs are addressed in the mitigation section of this report (see
Chapter 7).
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 12 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Chapter 5. Regulatory Considerations and Floodplain
Impacts
The site investigation identified the shoreline of Case Inlet of southwest Puget Sound on the subject
property. The project proposes to develop a new 165-linear foot dock. The marine shoreline is
regulated by Federal Resource agencies including the USACE, USFWS, and NOAA Fisheries, the
WSDOE and WDFW,Mason County,and several Native American Indian Tribes.
5.1 Mitigation Sequencing
Under USACE and WSDOE guidance,projects should first attempt to avoid impacts all together by
not taking certain actions (WSDOE et al.,2006). If actions cannot be eliminated,impacts should be
minimized by restraining the magnitude of an action,using different technology or by taking steps to
avoid or reduce impacts. For impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized, compensation or
rectification for the impact should be provided by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute
resources or environments, followed by monitoring and reduction of the impact over time. Project
sequencing as outlined below meets these requirements.
Avoidance
The proposed dock is a water-dependent use consisting of an overwater structure, for which impacts
cannot be avoided. As a result, reduction and compensation measures will be implemented to
minimize impacts caused by the proposed project.
Minimization
To reduce potential long-term impacts to shoreline functions, the gangway and floating dock
sections will by grated to allow sunlight to penetrate to the surface water and shoreline bed under
the structure. The number (7) and diameter (10-inches) of pile are the minimum necessary to
support the gangway and floats. The piles will be steel rather than creosoted or treated wood, and
they will be driven by vibratory, rather than impact hammer. Furthermore, because the proposed
dock is a community-use dock,it will likely reduce the need for individual and joint-use docks in the
area.
Compensation
To compensate for the unavoidable impacts to shoreline habitat, shoreline and intertidal restoration
will be completed onsite and along two parcels immediately north of the Port of Grapeview parcel.
Compensatory mitigation includes: 1) removal of angular rock from approximately 1,275 square feet
of intertidal beach and provide 12 cubic yards of beach nourishment to this area; 2) removal of 63
linear feet of a creosote timber bulkhead and provide an additional 12 cubic yards of beach
nourishment (sand and gravel) in place of the timber pilings; 3) placement of a diffuser T at the
existing stormwater outfall pipe; and 4) soft shoreline stabilization and restoration in place of the
creosote timber bulkhead. These measures will improve intertidal habitat for forage fish and
juvenile salmonids in order to offset potential impacts to aquatic habitat from the construction of
the new floating community dock on the Port of Grapeview property. (See Chapter 7 for more
details).
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 13 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
5.2 Regulated Shoreline
The shoreline environment for the subject property and surrounding area is designated Urban
Residential under MCC 17.50.074. Docks are regulated under MCC 17.50.060,which indicates that
a recreational community dock length may not exceed the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 115
feet from the OHW mark and will not exceed a depth of-5 feet as measured at the mean lower low
water (INII.LW), unless a Shoreline Variance is issued. The length of the proposed dock, at 165 ft.,
exceeds this length limit and a Shoreline Variance has been issued and approved by the Department
of Ecology. The width of the dock will not exceed 8 feet.
Floating structures will be a minimum of 8 inches above the surface of the water and will include
intermittent supports to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide. Community use docks may be
permitted on the property line without the normal 5-foot side yard setback. Recreational
development under MCC 17.50.060 requires that recreational facilities will make adequate
provisions, such as screening,buffer strips, fences,and signs, to prevent overflow and to protect the
value and enjoyment of adjacent or nearby private properties. All permanent recreational structures
and facilities will be located outside officially mapped floodways; however, the county may grant
exceptions for non-intensive accessory uses.
The project proposes a dock that is 8 feet wide but that would extend 165 feet, exceeding the
maximum length allowed for a community dock by approximately 45 feet. To achieve reasonable
use at the community dock, the dock must be long enough to reach water levels deep enough to
sustain a docked boat for a sufficient period of time. According to a topographic survey conducted
at the subject property, the dock will need to be extended out to 165 linear feet from OHW in order
to reach a depth of-4.3 feet (HHJ Architects, 2017). The dock will still completely ground during
the lowest of tides, but this length of dock will provide reasonable (temporary) moorage
opportunities while not extending out so far as to impact navigation or to extend beyond that
afforded neighboring docks (at Fair Harbor Marina to the south). A Shoreline Variance has been
approved by Mason County granting relief from these dimensional standards set forth in the
shoreline master program (MCC 17.50.090).
According to MCC 8.52.170,granting of a Mason County Environmental Permit is predicated upon
the project incorporating measures to mitigate and compensate for impacts through a Conceptual
Management Plan. Additionally, a SEPA determination, a Hydraulic Project Approval, and Section
10 (of the U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act) permit will be required.
Bedland below Mean Low Water (NMW) is owned by the DNR. The proposed dock will encroach
over DNR bedlands. The Port of Grapeview has an aquatic lands lease from DNR authorizing this
Activity.
5.3 Floodplain Impacts
The subject property includes a marine shoreline abutting Puget Sound, and a portion of the subject
property is mapped within the 100-year floodplain (Appendix 137). The proposed project does not
include any fill within the floodplain. The potential flood zone area impacts are limited to localized
interruption of shoreline sediment movement processes as the pile associated with the new dock
may impede minor sediment transport. As the site was already developed with a boat ramp for
public use and lacked any intact riparian plant communities, the project actions will have no effect
on riparian shoreline vegetation or floodplain ref igia. In addition, as the adjacent shorelines are
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 14 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
modified, and surrounding landscape developed with high intensity land uses, no loss of floodplain
storage capacity or spawning substrate is likely to occur. Although no negative impacts to the
floodplain are anticipated, BMP's and impact minimization measures will still be in place to protect
the sensitive Shoreline environment.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 15 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Chapter 6. ESA Species Information and Effects
Determinations
This chapter assesses impacts to ESA-listed species and associated critical habitat and provides
impact determinations in compliance with Section 7 of the ESA.
6.1 Species Information
While no federally or locally protected species were observed onsite during the site investigation,
several ESA-listed species and critical habitat have the potential to be found in the vicinity of the
project. Based on data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries,
USFWS,and WDFW PHS and SalmonScape data, several species listed under the ESA are found in
Mason County and were considered when investigating listed species presence for the proposed
project (Table 4). The recommended determination of effect due to the proposed project actions
are discussed in Section 6.4.
Table 4. ESA-Listed Species Potentially Found in Mason County and the Action Area.
Species Name Common Name Federal Listing Status Potential for Impacts
Me a tera nowean liae Humpback Whale Endangered Potential
Oninus orca Southern Resident Killer Endangered Potential
Whale
Oncor ncbus m kiss Puget Sound Steelhead Threatened Potential
Oncorhynew tshauytscha Puget Sound Chinook Threatened Potential
Salmon
Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout Threatened Potential
Sebastes paua. finis Bocaccio Rockfish Endangered Potential
Sebastes ruberrimus Yelloweye Rockfish Threatened Potential
Dermocbe s coriacea Leatherback Sea Turtle Endangered None
Stnx owdentaks caurina Northern Spotted Owl Threatened None
Brach ram bus marmoratus Marbled Murrelet Threatened Potential
Canis lupus Gray wolf Endangered None
Lynx canadensis Canada lynx Threatened None
Eupbydgas editha taglori Taylor's checkers of Threatened None
Etymo hila al estris strigata Streaked Homed Lark Threatened None
Coc s americamis Yellow Billed Cuckoo Threatened None
Rana pretiosa Oregon Spotted Frog Threatened None
Tbomom s ma ama spp. Mazama Pocket Gopher Threatened None
6.1.1 Species Not Likely Present
Several ESA- listed species listed in Table 4 will not be found on or near the vicinity of the Action
Area and will not be addressed further in this document. The proposed project is in an urban
residential setting. The ESA-listed species clearly not affected due to project location and
surrounding environment conditions include: streaked horned lark, yellow-billed cuckoo, Oregon
spotted frog, northern spotted owl, gray wolf, Canada lynx, Taylor's checkerspot, leatherback sea
turtle,and Mazama pocket gophers.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 16 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
• The streaked horned lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata) is found primarily in prairie habitat or
unvegetated to sparsely-vegetated open habitats (WSDOT,2015). They can be found in
developed areas such as airports and agricultural lands. No habitat for this species is found
in the vicinity of the project;therefore,the project will have No Effect on Streaked
Horned Lark.
• Yellow-billed cuckoo (Cocgy Zus americanus) are migratory birds and historically ranged from
British Columbia to northern Mexico. Approximately 17 sightings in Washington have been
reported between 1956 and 2012, 13 of those sightings were east of the Cascades (WDFW,
2012). The yellow-billed cuckoo generally prefers riparian habitat of 50 acres or more
(WDFW, 2012). Due to a lack of suitable habitat within the vicinity of the project area, the
project will have No Effect on Yellow-Billed Cuckoo.
• The Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) is endemic to the Pacific Northwest and spends the
majority of life in water. Often the Oregon spotted frog can be found in emergent wetlands
with willow, standing water. Warm, marshy areas are preferable, with an abundance of
emergent or floating vegetation, which is used for cover and forging (Watson, et.al. 2000).
As the Oregon spotted frog appears to be a freshwater species primarily associated with
wetland habitat and as no suitable habitat exists within the vicinity of the project area, the
project will have No Effect on Oregon Spotted Frog.
• Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) prefer habitat found in mature coniferous forests.
Habitat for northern spotted owl was not identified within the subject site. In Washington,
the northern spotted owl is more likely to be encountered on the Olympic Peninsula or on
both slopes of the Cascade Range. Rarely, the northern spotted owl occurs in remnant
patches of mature or structurally complex forest in the Puget Trough and southwestern
Washington (WDFW, 2012). No habitat for this species is found in the Action Area;
therefore,the project will have No Effect on the Northern Spotted Owl.
• Gray wolf (Canis lupus) generally inhabits temperate forests, mountains, tundra, taiga and
grassland environments. While they are somewhat habitat generalists, Gray Wolves do
require ungulate prey or other wild animals for scavenging. In addition, they require a large
amount of space (minimum of 10,000 to 13,000 square kilometers) with low road density to
support a viable population (USFWS, 1990). Because the Action Area and vicinity are highly
populated and densely urbanized areas, no habitat for the Gray Wolf exists in Action Area;
therefore,the project will have No Effect on Gray Wolf.
• The Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis) in North America follows the distribution of boreal forest
ecosystems and ranges the south up into the subalpine forest of the western U.S. as well as
into the boreal/hardwood forests of the eastern U.S. Their populations persist in areas with
deep snow and have a large population of snowshoe hares, which is the main prey of the
lynx (USFWS,2017). No habitat for this species is found in the Action Area; therefore, the
project will have No Effect on Canada Lynx.
• The Taylor's checkerspot (Euphydryas editha taylon) is found primarily in open prairie and
grass/oak woodland habitat (WSDOT, 2015). Taylor's checkerspot habitat is dependent
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 17 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
upon food sources for larvae and nectar sources for adults. No habitat for this species is
found in the vicinity of the project; therefore, the project will have No Effect on Taylor's
Checkerspot.
• Leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea)are the most migratory and widely distributed of
all sea turtles,adult females require sandy beaches with vegetation and a short distance to dry
sand for nesting, and in general, the species prefer beaches that have close proximity to
rough seas and deep water. (NMFS, 1998). Because the species is so migratory, critical
habitat has been designated in areas as far as the U.S. Virgin Islands, and has also been
designated along the shores in areas of California,Oregon and Washington,all the way up to
British Columbia but due to the urbanization of the area and lack of preferred habitat or
nesting beaches in the project area, their presence is highly unlikely; therefore, the project
will have No Effect on Leatherback Sea Turtle.
• Mazama pocket gophers (Thomomys maZama gladalis, Thomomys maZama pugetensis, Thomomys
maZama tumuli and Thomomys maZamayelmensis) require specific types of soils for their habitat.
These soils must allow them to tunnel into the ground and must be well-drained and easily-
crumbled. Soil types identified onsite by an NRCS survey identify Harstine gravelly sandy
loam and Hydraquents onsite,none of which are suitable soil types for Roy Prairie,Olympia,
Tenino and Yelm pocket gophers. In addition, the area surrounding the subject property is
fully developed and occupied by residential uses. Fragmentation of suitable habitat for
Mazama pocket gophers in historically occupied areas means that populations are not able to
move around easily, so even if suitable habitat existed onsite, it would be isolated and
surrounded by development; therefore, the project will have No Effect on Mazama
Pocket Gophers.
6.1.2 Species Potentially Present
The proposed project is in an urban residential setting. The subject property directly abuts the
marine shoreline of Case Inlet of southwest Puget Sound; as such, impacts to marine species are
considered. In addition, areas further west of the subject property beyond East Grapeview Loop
Road consist of undeveloped forested areas that may contain suitable habitat for marbled murrelet.
Life histories are discussed below for ESA-listed species considered for impacts from this project,
which include marbled murrelet, humpback whale, steelhead trout (Puget Sound distinct population
segment), chinook salmon (Puget Sound evolutionary significant unit), killer whale (southern
resident distinct population segment), bull trout,bocaccio rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. Species
determinations are presented in Section 6.6.4.
Marbled Murrelet
Brachyrhampus marmoratus—Threatened,listed 1992
Critical Habitat designated November 13,2014 (79FR68041)
Marbled murrelet are members of the Alcidae family of seabirds such as puffins, murres, and
auklets. In the state of Washington, they are year-round residents on coastal waters. They primarily
feed in waters within 500 feet of the shore out to 1.2 miles from shore at depths of less than one
hundred feet. Preferred prey includes small fish and crustaceans; nestlings may be fed larger fish.
Nests and roosts are found in mature and old growth forests of western Washington. Nesting
typically occurs from April to September (WDFW, 1991). Nest trees are typically greater than
thirty-two inches diameter at breast height, with nesting preference on large flat conifer branches,
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 18 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
often covered with moss (WDFW, 1991) and found in old growth forests. Marbled murrelets have
been found in the largest numbers in marine waters near the coastal waters surrounding the Olympic
Peninsula (Pearson et.al., 2010). Marbled murrelet are more sparsely distributed elsewhere in this
region. Prey species (sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), surf smelt (Hypomesus predosus), and Pacific
herring (Clupea harengus palkw) are important forage fish for marbled murrelets. Critical habitat has
been designated in Oregon and California;whereas no critical habitat has been designated in or near
the Action Area.
Humpback Whale
Me
gaptera novaeangliae—Endangered,listed June 2, 1970.
Humpback whale range from southern California, north through the Aleutian Islands while feeding
in the Pacific Ocean (NMFS, 1991). Humpback whales travel long distances during their seasonal
migration,and typically stay near the surface of the ocean. Their feeding grounds are in cold coastal
waters while their calving is usually in warmer, shallower waters (NOAA, 2016). While humpback
whales are found in the Puget Sound, they are more likely to remain in waters on the outer coast
during their migration.
Southern Resident Killer Whale and Critical Habitat
Orcinus orca—Endangered,listed November 15,2005.
Critical Habitat designated November 2006.
The southern resident killer whale is found in both open seas and coastal waters. They typically live
twenty-five (25) to ninety (90) years and form family groups called pods. They primarily prey on
Chinook and chum salmon and are threatened by pollution and other human activities. Southern
resident killer whale may be found in the Puget Sound, the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca
during spring through fall, though their movement into Puget Sound waters historically and most
likely still, coincides with prey movement into the Puget Sound (NMFS, 2008b). The Puget Sound
contains designated critical habitat for the southern resident killer whale in all waters deeper than
twenty(20) feet at high tide.
Bocaccio Rockfish
Sebastes paudspinis-listed Endangered listed,July 27,2010
Critical Habitat designated November 13,2014 (79FR68041)
Bocaccio rockfish give birth to live larval young. The larvae are found in surface waters and may be
distributed over a wide area. Larvae and small juveniles may remain in open waters for several
months, being passively dispersed by ocean currents. Larval fish feed on diatoms, dinoflagellates,
tintinnids, and cladocerans, while juveniles consume copepods and euphasiids of all life stages.
Adults eat demersal invertebrates and small fishes, including other species of rockfish, associated
with kelp beds, rocky reefs, pinnacles, and sharp drop-offs (NMFS, 2008a). Bocaccio rockfish are
most common between one hundred sixty (160) and eight hundred twenty (820) feet depth. In
general,adults move into deeper water as they grow and age but usually exhibit strong site fidelity to
rocky bottoms and outcrops. Juveniles and subadults may be more common than adults in
shallower water, and are associated with rocky reefs, kelp canopies, and artificial structures, such as
piers and oil platforms. Threats to bocaccio rockfish are fishing and bycatch related, and adverse
environmental factors in the early to mid-1990's that led to recruitment failures (NMFS, 2008a).
Rockfish status in the Puget Sound(South Sound) is identified by WDFW as "critical".
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 19 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Yelloweye Rockfish
Sebastes ruberrimus—listed Threatened July 27,2010.
Critical Habitat designated November 13,2014 (79FR68041)
Yelloweye rockfish give birth to live larval young. Larvae are found in surface waters and may be
distributed over a wide area. Larvae and small juvenile yelloweye rockfish may remain in open
waters for several months, being passively dispersed by ocean currents. Larval yelloweye rockfish
feed on diatoms, dinoflagellates, tintinnids, and cladocerans,while juveniles consume copepods and
euphasiids of all life stages. Adults eat demersal invertebrates and small fishes, including other
species of rockfish, associated with kelp beds, rocky reefs, pinnacles, and sharp drop-offs.
Approximately fifty percent of yelloweye rockfish are mature by about six years of age
(approximately sixteen inches total length). Yelloweye rockfish are among the longest lived of
rockfish, living up to one hundred eighteen (118) years old. Yelloweye rockfish occur in waters
eighty (80) to one thousand five hundred sixty (1,560) feet deep but are most commonly found
between three hundred (300) to five hundred ninety (590) feet deep. Juveniles and subadults tend to
be more common than adults in shallow water and are associated with rocky reefs, kelp canopies,
and artificial structures, such as piers and oil platforms. Adults generally move into deeper water as
they grow but usually exhibit strong site fidelity to rocky bottoms and outcrops. Threats to
yelloweye rockfish are fishing and bycatch related,and adverse environmental factors in the early to
mid-1990's that led to recruitment failures (NMFS, 2008a). Yelloweye rockfish status in the Puget
Sound (South Sound) is identified by WDFW as "critical".
Puget Sound Steelhead Trout
Oncorhymbus mykiss—Threatened,listed May 11,2007
NOAA Fisheries has identified 15 Distinct Population Segments (DPS) of steelhead in Washington,
Oregon, and California. Steelhead populations can be divided into two basic reproductive ecotypes,
based on the state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry (summer or winter) and duration of
spawning migration. Steelhead trout are iteroparous. Steelhead can spend up to seven years in fresh
water prior to smoltification(NMFS,2005).
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU
Oncorhynchus tshanytscha—Threatened,listed (reaffirmed)June 28,2005.
Fry and smolts will stay in freshwater environments for up to 18 months before moving to
downstream estuaries. They will spend up to 190 in estuaries before moving into ocean waters.
chinook salmon spend an average of three to four years in marine waters before returning to their
natal streams to spawn, which occurs in late summer to late fall. Their range is from Kotzebue
Sound,Alaska down to Santa Barbara, California (PSMFC,2012). Many of the rivers located within
their range are used for chinook spawning and rearing. Major runs can be found on the Columbia
River,Rogue River and within Puget Sound. As juveniles, chinook feed on insects, amphipods, and
other crustaceans and will feed primarily on other fish as adults. During early life stages mortality is
high due to natural predation and anthropogenic habitat changes including siltation, increases in
water temperature,low oxygen,and reduced stream flows (PSMFC,2012). Fall chinook populations
in the Central and South Puget Sound regions are primarily sustained through hatchery production;
indigenous populations have diminished from habitat degradation, over-fishing, and the use of
hatchery fish in the ecosystem. Chinook are highly valued by the commercial fishery.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 20 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Bull Trout
Salvelinus confluentus—Threatened,listed November 1, 1999
Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout DPS have very complex life histories and little is known about their
behavior within Puget Sound and coastal watersheds. Distinct life history forms include resident,
fluvial,adfluvial,and anadromous (WDFW,2010). Anadromous forms migrate through larger rivers
to spawn in tributaries and use marine water or estuaries for the majority of their growth and
maturation. Spawning occurs between late August and November in most Puget Sound and coastal
watersheds (WDFW,2010). The fry emerge in late winter or early spring.
Bull trout occur in less than half of their historic range, with scattered populations throughout
Oregon,Washington,Nevada, Idaho,and Montana. Bull trout in general are primarily threatened by
habitat degradation and fragmentation, blockage of migratory corridors, poor water quality, the
effects of climate change, and past fisheries management practices including the introduction of
non-native species (USFWS,2011a).
6.2 Direct and Short-Term Effects
The proposed project actions have three mechanisms for direct and short-term impacts to the
Action Area: temporary increases in terrestrial and underwater noise and a potential increase in
turbidity from in-water suspension of sediment from construction activities (primarily pile driving).
6.2.1 Terrestrial and Underwater Noise
As previously discussed in Section 2.5.1, impacts to the local environment from project noise may
occur within a 5,482-foot terrestrial radius of the Project Area. The estimated sound level from the
use of project machinery is higher than the estimated ambient sound level for the traffic volume
from East Grapeview Loop Road. Noise from project activities can adversely affect wildlife with
various behavioral and/or health-related consequences (WSDOT, 2015). Sounds affect marine
species differently. Pulse noise, such as impact pile driving, has a greater likelihood of affecting fish
behavior when compared to continuous noise. Vibratory hammers produce noise levels that are
typically 10-20 dB less than an impact hammer(WSDOT,2015).
The ambient underwater noise level for the project site is estimated using the ambient underwater
noise level for a site on Vashon Island',which has a background underwater noise level of 128 dB.
As previously discussed in Section 2.5.2, the underwater construction noise will attenuate at 33,592
feet (6.4 miles); however, the underwater noise will reach land on all sides prior to this calculated
distance. The underwater noise Action Area would be constrained by land rather than attenuated in
all directions to a maximum distance of approximately 12,000 feet (2.3 miles) to the northeast, just
north of Rocky Bay.
Per WSDOT's 2015 Biological Assessment preparation guidance, the current threshold for fish
injury is 206 dB peak. The threshold for impacting fish behavior is 150 dB RMS (Root Mean
Square); for cetaceans and pinnipeds, vibratory pile driving methods can disturb individuals at 120
1 Vashon Island was selected as an analogue for background sound because out of the 5 sites researched by WSDOT
(Mukilteo,Port Townsend,rinacortes,Edmonds,Seattle,and Vashon)and for which underwater noise attenuation
tables were developed,this is the site that is closest in proximity and scale to the Port of Grapeview. Albeit,Vashon(as
do all the WSDOT sites researched)has a ferry terminal and large boat traffic in a larger waterway;however,by using
Vashon as an analogue,we can be confident that this is a conservative calculation of underwater noise levels and
attenuation.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 21 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
dB RMS. The WSDOT underwater sound impacts fish calculator is applicable to impact pile driving
strike peaks. This model is not applicable to this project as only vibratory pile driving methods will
be used for driving in-water pile. Noise for vibratory pile driving will not exceed the threshold for
injury to fish, cetaceans, or pinnipeds; however, if a fish or marine mammal is within the Action
Area during pile driving actions the species could be exposed sound levels that may impact behavior.
6.2.2 Increased Turbidity
Increased turbidity due to pile driving activities is expected to be localized and temporary. The
proposed construction activities may incidentally suspend sediment materials in the marine waters
adjacent to the project site. WAC 173-201A-210(1)(e) makes allowances for temporary turbidity in
marine waters due to construction activities. Temporary mixing is subject to constraints of WAC
173-201A-400(4) and (6). A 150-foot plume limit is being included in the Action Area to account
for possible temporary increases in turbidity. Any turbidity impacts are expected to be temporary
due to the conservation measures and BMPs that will be in place for the project and will comply
with WAC 173-201A-400(4) and (6).
6.2.3 Concrete Pollution
The poured-in-place concrete is a potential pollutant source with localized and temporary impacts.
Wet concrete contains toxins and is caustic. Wet concrete entering waterways can harm fish gills
and eyes and interfere with reproduction (EPA,2012). The proposed project intends to contain wet
concrete with forms and impervious material; please see Section 2.4 for further description. While
the proposed BMP will reduce the risk of concrete contamination, the accidental release of concrete
during construction would harm aquatic life.
6.2.4 Creosote Pollution
An existing, deteriorating, creosote bulkhead at an offsite mitigation area (less than 100 feet away
from the proposed project area) is proposed for removal as part of compensatory mitigation for the
proposed project. Creosote is a contaminant that is associated with increased fish mortality (DNR,
2013). The proposed removal will occur during low tide and the disturbed substrate will be filled
with a clean mix of gravel and sand to minimize temporary increases in creosote load. Additional
minimization measures for creosote removal can be implemented following the WA Department of
Natural Resources BMPs for derelict creosote piling removal (DNR,2017). The long-term effect of
removing in-water creosote structures is expected to be beneficial.
6.3 Long-Term Effects
The project is located on a portion of a parcel that is approximately 0.44-acres in size and located on
the shoreline of Case Inlet in Puget Sound. The overall effect will involve the installation of seven,
10-inch steel pile, permanently displacing 12.36 square feet of upper intertidal beach substrate and
approximately 960 square feet of new overwater shading from the 48-foot by 5-foot gangway and
121-foot by 8-foot dock, both with 60 percent grated surfaces over the Upper Shore Zone (USZ)
and Lower Shore Zone (LSZ). Overwater shading has the potential to negatively interfere with
juvenile salmonid migration along the shore as juvenile salmonids likely avoid swimming under
overwater structures and will swim around the structures. Juvenile salmonid use of deeper habitat to
swim around overwater structures may expose them to increased predation risk, and the overwater
structure likely increases habitat for piscivorous predators (Ehinger et al,2015). No other long-term
impacts to species or species habitat are anticipated.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 22 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
6.4 Determinations of Effect
6.4.1 Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat is defined as: (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or
biological features (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) which may require special
management considerations or protection, and (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. Critical Habitat for a listed species contains Primary Constituent
Elements (PCEs),as defined below.
6.4.2 Physical and Biological Features
In accordance with Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the ESA, and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), to determine
which were areas occupied at the time of listing (for Critical Habitat designation), we consider the
physical or biological features (known as the PBFs) essential to the conservation of the species and
that may require special management considerations or protection. These include but are not limited
to: (1) space for individual and population growth for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light,
minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for
breeding,reproduction, or rearing(or development) of offspring; and (5) habitats that are protected
from disturbance or are representative of the historical,geographical, and ecological distributions of
a species.
USFWS (1996), discusses PBFs of Critical Habitat for marbled murrelets: (1) trees with potential
nesting platforms and(2) forested areas within'/2 mile of potential nest trees with a canopy height of
at least 1/2 of the site potential tree height. The final rule containing descriptions of these elements
for marbled murrelets can be found in the Federal Register:Vol. 61,No. 102,Friday,May 24, 1996.
PBFs required by bull trout include (1) a constant source of water; (2) accessible migratory corridors;
(3) persistent and abundant food sources; (4) habitat complexity; (5) water temperatures between 36
and 59 degrees Fahrenheit; (6) adequately sized substrate; (7) annual fluctuations in flow; (8)
uninhibited water quality; and (9) a balanced population of predators. The actual regulatory
descriptions of critical habitat for bull trout can be found in the Federal Register: Vol. 75,No. 200,
Monday,October 18,2010.
PBFs required by salmon,including chinook salmon and steelhead trout, can be generally described
to include the following: (1) juvenile rearing areas, (2) juvenile migration corridors, (3) areas for
growth and development to adulthood, (4) adult migration corridors, and (5) spawning areas.
Within these areas, essential features of critical habitat include adequate substrate, water quality,
water quantity,water temperature,water velocity,cover,shelter, food,riparian vegetation,space,and
safe passage conditions. The actual regulatory descriptions of critical habitat for each evolutionarily
significant unit (ESU) of chinook salmon can be found in the Federal Register: Vol. 70, No. 170,
Monday, September 2, 2005. The actual regulatory descriptions of critical habitat for each ESU of
steelhead trout can be found in the Federal Register: Vol. 81, No. 36, Wednesday, February 24,
2016.
Killer whales have fewer PBFs, requiring (1) adequate water quality; (2) abundant food or prey
sources to support the growth and development of the organisms and the population; and (3)
conditions favorable to migration, resting, and foraging. The actual regulatory descriptions of
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 23 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
critical habitat for killer whales can be found in the Federal Register: Vol. 71,No. 229,Wednesday,
November 29,2006.
Although no PBFs for rockfish have been designated in a final rule, there are specific physical and
biological features that are essential to the conservation of rockfish. Adult bocaccio and yelloweye
rockfish and juvenile rockfish require: (1) a sufficient quantity, quality, and abundance of prey; (2)
adequate water quality; and (3) a structured environment that affords the opportunity to shelter and
cover from predators. The proposed rule containing descriptions of these elements for yelloweye
and bocaccio rockfish can be found in the Federal Register: Vol. 78, No. 151, Tuesday,August 6,
2013.
The following section discusses the proposed project impact determinations on ESA-listed species
and corresponding critical habitat.
6.4.3 Species Determinations
Potential project impacts are evaluated based upon specific habitat components that would be
altered or removed and the degree to which such alteration may occur; the abundance and
distribution of the habitat components; the distribution and population levels of the species (if
known); the possibility of direct or indirect impacts to the species and/or habitat, and the potential
to mitigate for adverse effects. These determinations are summarized in Table 5 and outlined in the
sections below.
Table 5. Species Determination Summary.
Species Name Common Name Determination of Effect
Megaptera novaeangliae I Iumpback Whale No Flffcct
Southern Resident Killer Whale May Affect,but Not Likely to
Adversely Affect;May Affect,but
Orcinus orca Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Southern Resident Killer Whale
Critical Habitat.
Puget Sound Steelhead May Affect,and is Likely to
Oncorhynchus mykiss Adversely Affect;May Affect and
is Likely to Adversely Affect
Critical Habitat
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon May Affect,and is Likely to
Adversely Affect;May Affect and
Oncorhyncus tshauytscha is Likely to Adversely Affect Puget
Sound Chinook Salmon Critical
Habitat.
Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout May Affect,but Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
Sebarterpaucirpinir Bocaccio Rockfish May Affect,but Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
Sebarter rzrberrimur Yelloweye Rockfish May Affect,but Not Likely to
Adversely Affect
Marbled Murrelet May Affect,but Not Likely to
Brachyramphus marmoratux Adversely Affect;No Effect on
Critical Habitat
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 24 Soundview Consultants L.L.0
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Marbled Murrelet and Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat
Bnchyrhampus matmontus—Threatened,listed 1992
Critical Habitat designated May 1996(50 CFR Part 17.11)
The Action Area contains no suitable nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet. Foraging habitat
may be found in the Puget Sound as marbled murrelet are opportunistic feeders. However,lack of
suitable habitat and the high level of human use of the Action Area make marbled murrelet presence
in the Action Area unlikely. Neither species presence nor supporting habitat is identified within the
subject property. The most likely presence of marbled murrelet would be from the species passing
over the Action Area en-route to foraging sites.
Noise resulting from project activities will be below precautionary harassment/injury guidelines for
ESA-listed species that may be present in the proposed project area. The estimated threshold of
harassment/injury for marbled murrelets is approximately 92 dBA at nest sites and at a nesting site
the disturbance threshold is an estimated 70 dBA (WSDOT,2015). Noise levels from the proposed
construction may be as high as 101 dBA at 107 feet from project activities but will attenuate to
background noise levels at 5,482 feet. The proposed actions May Affect, but are Not Likely to
Adversely Affect, the Marbled Murrelet. No critical habitat or essential habitat elements are
found within the vicinity of the Action Area (USFWS, 2011b); there will be No Effect on Marbled
Murrelet Critical Habitat.
Humpback Whale
Megapters novaeangliae—Endangered,listed June 2, 1970.
Humpback whales range from southern California, north through the Aleutian Islands while feeding
in the Pacific Ocean (NMFS, 1991). While humpback whales are more likely to remain in waters on
the outer coast during their migration, there have been several sightings within Puget Sound as
recently as May 27, 2017. However, due to the unlikelihood of humpback whales entering this far
into Case Inlet and the complete lack of suitable habitat in the vicinity of the Action Area, the
project will have No Effect on Humpback Whale.
Puget Sound Steelhead Trout
Oncorhynchus mylriss--Threatened,listed May 11,2007.
Critical habitat designated February 2016(81FB9251).
Puget Sound steelhead trout are documented within Puget Sound. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries identified fifteen (15) Distinct Population Segments
(DPS) of steelhead trout in Washington, Oregon, and California, divided into two (2) basic
reproductive ecotypes, based on the state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry (summer or
winter) and duration of spawning migration. Steelhead trout are iteroparous, meaning they can
spawn more than once. Steelhead trout can spend up to seven (7) years in freshwater prior to
smoltification (USACE, 2007). The Distinct Population Segment (DPS) in the Puget Sound
includes all naturally spawned anadromous winter-run and summer—run steelhead populations in
streams in the river basins of the Strait of Juan de Fuca,Puget Sound,and Hood Canal,Washington
bounded to the west by the Elwha River and to the north by the Nooksack River and Dakota Creek,
as well as the Green River natural and Hamma Hamma winter—run steelhead hatchery stocks.
The proposed project includes the addition of a new overwater structure into the nearshore
environment, which may negatively impact juvenile steelhead due to the increase in migratory path
length around the overwater structure and the increased predation risk. Temporary turbidity may
negatively impact any juvenile steelhead within 150 feet of the project area during construction due
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 25 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
to the clogging of fish gills from suspended sediments. The risk for accidental release of concrete
into the water is extremely low due to the proposed BMP;however, such an accidental release would
be harmful to steelhead in the project area during construction. Temporary increases in creosote
loads are being minimized due to the removal of the deteriorating creosote bulkhead at the offsite
mitigation area during low tide and covering the resulting footprint with a clean mixture of gravel
and coarse sand. Using vibratory pile-driving methods for the proposed 10-inch pile is
conservatively estimated to produce a 173 dB RMS noise level. Per WSDOT's 2015 Biological
Assessment models, the current threshold for fish injury is 206 dB peak. The threshold for
impacting fish behavior is 150 dB RMS. The conservative noise estimate for vibratory pile-driving
indicates that steelhead behavior could be impacted during construction, but the fish will not be
harmed by the noise. Most juvenile steelhead out-migrate through Puget Sound from late April to
early June (Pearson et al,2015). In-water construction for the proposed project will occur between
July 15 and February 15 of consecutive years, and juvenile steelhead are unlikely to be exposed to
temporary pollution and noise impacts. Due to the modification of the nearshore habitat resulting
from an overwater structure, the proposed project actions May Affect, and are Likely to
Adversely Affect Puget Sound Steelhead Trout.
Critical Habitat has been designated for Puget Sound steelhead trout as of February 2016. PBFs that
support steelhead trout habitat include nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with (i) water
quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting
growth and maturation, and (ii) natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood,
aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels. The proposed overwater structure
contributes an obstruction to juvenile steelhead migration along the nearshore environment that may
increase predation risk. Temporary water quality impacts during construction include the turbidity
resulting from pile-driving and the unlikely, accidental release of concrete into the water. Substrate
within the upper intertidal area currently consists of angular rock, providing poor foraging
conditions for juvenile steelhead. The proposed project includes mitigation actions to remove this
angular rock from the beach, improving foraging conditions. The removal of the deteriorating
creosote bulkhead at a nearby offsite mitigation area (less than 100 feet away from the proposed
project area) will contribute to long-term improvements in water quality. These mitigation actions
will ensure no net loss of nearshore ecological functions from the project. As the proposed project
includes an overwater structure that will likely contribute to obstructing juvenile steelhead migration,
the proposed actions May Affect and are Likely To Adversely Affect Critical Habitat for Puget
Sound Steelhead Trout.
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon
Oncorhynchys tschawytsha --Threatened,listed(reaffirmed)June 28,2005 (70FR37160).
Critical habitat designated September 2,2005 (70FB52630).
Puget Sound chinook salmon are anadromous fish,meaning adults migrate from the ocean to spawn
in freshwater lakes and streams where their offspring hatch and rear prior to migrating back to the
ocean to forage until maturity. Fry and smolts will stay in freshwater environments for up to
eighteen (18) months before moving to downstream estuaries. They will spend up to one-hundred
and ninety days in estuaries before moving into ocean waters. Juvenile chinook out-migrating from
outlying watersheds could also potentially use the Action Area from late March to mid July, as
indicated by sampling studies from the Tacoma Narrows and Commencement Bay.
The proposed project includes the addition of a new overwater structure into the nearshore
environment, which may negatively impact juvenile chinook due to the increase in migratory path
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 26 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
length around the overwater structure and the increased predation risk. Temporary turbidity may
impact any juvenile chinook within 150 feet of the project area during construction with potential
negative impacts due to the clogging of fish gills from suspended sediments. The risk for accidental
release of concrete into the water is extremely low due to the proposed BMP; however, such an
accidental release would be harmful to chinook in the project area during construction. Temporary
increases in creosote loads are being minimized due to the removal of the deteriorating creosote
bulkhead during low tide and covering the resulting footprint with a clean mixture of gravel and
coarse sand. Using vibratory pile-driving methods for the proposed 10-inch pile is conservatively
estimated to produce a 173 dB RMS noise level. Per WSDOT's 2015 Biological Assessment models,
the current threshold for fish injury is 206 dB peak. The threshold for impacting fish behavior is
150 dB RMS. The conservative noise estimate for vibratory pile-driving indicates that chinook
behavior could be impacted during construction,but the fish will not be harmed by the noise. Most
juvenile chinook out-migrate through Puget Sound from late March to mid July. In-water
construction for the proposed project will occur between July 15 and February 15 of consecutive
years, and juvenile chinook may be exposed to temporary noise and pollution impacts during the
early phases of in-water work. Due to the modification of the nearshore habitat resulting from an
overwater structure, the proposed project actions May Affect, and are Likely to Adversely Affect
Puget Sound Chinook Salmon.
Critical Habitat has been designated for Puget Sound chinook salmon as of September 2005. PBFs
that support chinook salmon habitat include nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with (i)
water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes,
supporting growth and maturation, and (ii) natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large
wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels. The proposed overwater
structure contributes an obstruction to juvenile chinook migration along the nearshore environment
that may increase predation risk. Temporary water quality impacts during construction include the
turbidity resulting from pile-driving and the unlikely, accidental release of concrete into the water.
Substrate within the upper intertidal area currently consists of angular rock,providing poor foraging
conditions for juvenile chinook. The proposed project includes mitigation actions to remove this
angular rock from the beach, improving foraging conditions. The removal of the deteriorating
creosote bulkhead at a nearby offsite mitigation area (less than 100 feet away from the proposed
project area) will contribute to long-term improvements in water quality. These mitigation actions
will ensure no net loss of nearshore ecological functions from the project. As the proposed project
includes an overwater structure that will likely contribute to obstructing juvenile chinook migration,
the proposed actions May Affect and are Likely to Adversely Affect Critical Habitat for Puget
Sound Chinook Salmon.
Southern Resident Killer Whale—
Ominus oslca--Endangered,listed November 15,2005.
Critical Habitat designated November 2006.
Southern resident killer whale may be found in the Puget Sound or the Straits of Georgia and Juan
de Fuca during spring through fall. The website, www.orcanetwork.org, lists sightings near the
vicinity of the Action Area as "infrequent", however, killer whale may be found in South Puget
Sound from November through January and sightings have been reported in Carr Inlet as recently as
May 2017. A southern resident killer whale sighting compilation between 1990 and 2008 (Osborne,
2008) has compiled data regarding the average number of killer whale sightings per month over an
eighteen (18) year period. Due to unlikely presence of Southern Resident Killer Whales in the
Action Area, the short duration of sediment and noise impacts, and because turbidity is expected to
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 27 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
be localized and temporary, the proposed actions May Affect, but are Not Likely to Adversely
Affect Southern Resident Killer Whales.
Almost the entire Puget Sound has been designated as Critical Habitat for southern resident killer
whale, excluding areas that are less than twenty (20) feet deep during periods of high tide (NMFS,
2008b). Under the ESA "Critical habitat" is defined as: (1) specific areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features
essential to conservation, and those features may require special management considerations or
protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the agency
determines that the area itself is essential for conservation'. It is unlikely that a southern resident
killer whale will enter this far north within Case Inlet or come this close to shore unless it is sick or
dying. Therefore, the proposed project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat.
Coastal-Puget Sound Bull Trout
Salvelings con&entus--Threatened,listed November 1, 1999.
Critical Habitat designated October 2010 (75FR63898).
Bull trout are documented within Mason County but have not been documented in any streams
within the Action Area. Moreover, Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout are not known to use Puget
Sound waters west of the Nisqually Reach, and the occurrence of bull trout in the Action Area is
unlikely. As bull trout are unlikely to occur in Action Area, the project areas May Affect, but are
Not Likely to Adversely Affect Coastal-Puget Sound Bull Trout.
Bocaccio Rockfish Sebastes paucispinis—listed Endangered July 27,2010;and
Yelloweye rockfish Sebastes entomelas—listed Threatened July 27,2010.
Presence of adult rockfish within the Action Area is unlikely as no habitat features are present to
attract these fish. Rockfish larvae are pelagic, often occupying the surface of open waters, under
floating algae, detached seagrass, and kelp. Juvenile bocaccio rockfish settle onto nearshore water
habitats with rocky or cobble substrate that support kelp growth at three (3) to six (6) months of age
and move to progressively deeper waters as they grow (Love et al. 1991; Love et al. 2002). The
likelihood of juveniles or adults of ESA-listed rockfish within the relatively shallow and non-rocky
habitats of the project is discountable. Juvenile yelloweye rockfish do not typically occupy intertidal
waters and shallow habitats (Love et al. 1991). Adult bocaccio rockfish and yelloweye rockfish
typically occupy waters deeper than 120 feet (Love et al. 2002) and are unlikely to occur at the
project location.
Bocaccio rockfish have not been documented in the Puget Sound since 2001,although it is assumed
that an extant population exists (NMFS 2008a). Yelloweye rockfish are considered relatively rare in
the Puget Sound, observed more frequently in north Puget Sound than in southern areas (Miller and
Borton 1980). Juvenile rockfish recruitment is likely to be found in areas with shallow high—relief
zones with crevices and sponge gardens (Love et al 2002). Juveniles move from shallow rocky reefs
to deeper pinnacles and rocky habitats as they mature (NMFS 2008a). Adults are most common
between 300 to 600 feet water depth, sometimes associated with depths between 40 to 1,560 feet
deep (Love et al 2002). The existing substrate along the shoreline of the project is not ideal habitat
for rockfish recruitment and juvenile rearing which is typically associated with vegetated
(recruitment) and deeper hard substrate (rearing) high-relief deep-water habitat. The proposed
Project Area water quality conditions also likely limit the habitat suitability for juveniles. Deeper
portions of Puget Sound provide suitable habitat for adult and juvenile rockfish.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 28 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
The limited potential for occurrence of rockfish within the Action Area may include drift larval and
small juvenile forms that could potentially be present within the Puget Sound waters during the
summer months. Any project effects to larval forms of rockfish are anticipated to be highly unlikely.
Due to lack of rockfish habitat features and minimal, temporary nature of sediment impacts
proposed, the proposed project May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect these
Distinct Population Segments of Rockfish.
6.5 Essential Fish Habitat analysis
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Act(MSA) and the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act
of 1996 (SFA)(Pubhc Law 104-267) requires Federal agencies to consult with the National Marine
Fisheries (NMFS) on activities that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is
defined by the MSA in 50 CFR 600.905-930 as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for
spawning,breeding, feeding,or growth to maturity."
The object of this EFH assessment is to notify NMFS of the project and potential effects and
determine whether or not the proposed actions "may adversely affect" designated EFH for relevant
commercially, federally-managed fisheries species within the proposed Action Area. It also
describes conservation measures proposed to avoid,minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse
effects to designated EFH resulting from the proposed action. The following EFH analysis is
provided in conjunction with ESA consultation; some previous sections of the document may be
referenced in order to reduce redundancies.
The proposed project actions are detailed in Section 2.3 of this Assessment Report. Effects of the
actions (Chapter 6) will occur within the Action Area, defined in Section 2.5 of this Assessment
Report. Relevant assessment of EFH at the proposed project site includes the intertidal areas and
subtidal areas. Species of fishes with potential for project effects in the estuarine EFH composite
include groundfish, salmon, and coastal pelagic species of fish. Discussion of impacts to the EFH
for relevant species follows.
6.5.1 Salmon EFH
Effects of pile driving and increases in overwater coverage in the proposed project are discussed in
Chapter 6 of this document. Temporary disturbance to substrate will result in temporary, localized
increases in turbidity during the construction actions. Also, there exists the potential for behavioral
effects to occur to salmonids from the noise associated with pile driving. These noise effects would
be temporary,within the work period described in Section 2.4 of this document,and localized to the
Action Area, described in Section 2.5 of this document. Temporary increases in creosote loads are
being minimized due to the removal of the deteriorating creosote bulkhead at the nearby offsite
mitigation area (less than 100 feet away from the proposed project area) during low tide and
covering the resulting footprint with a clean mixture of gravel and coarse sand. The removal of the
deteriorating creosote bulkhead will contribute to long-term improvements in water quality. The
increase in overwater coverage may interfere with juvenile salmonid migration through the
nearshore.
The proposed dock construction may adversely affect salmon EFH by interfering with juvenile
salmonid migration through the nearshore. These adverse effects are being mitigated by grated
decking for the dock, beach nourishment, and removal of a creosote bulkhead as described in
Section 5.1 and Chapter 7.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 29 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
6.5.2 Groundfish EFH
Effects of pile driving and increases in overwater grated coverage in the proposed project are
discussed in Chapter 6 of this document. Temporary disturbance to substrate below ML.LW at the
Project Area will result in temporary,localized increases in turbidity during the construction actions.
A potential for unintentional releases of fuel or other fluids from construction equipment exists,
with potential for effects on water quality. Also, potential for effects to groundfish EFH from the
noise associated with pile driving methods exists. These noise effects would be temporary, within
the work period described in Section 2.4 of this document, and localized to the Action Area,
described in Section 2.5 of this document. Upon completion of the project actions, the direct and
short-term effects of turbidity and noise created by the project are anticipated to diminish.The long-
term effects of changes in overwater coverage are anticipated to be partially mitigated by using
grated decking over the proposed ramp and float and providing additional compensatory mitigation
to offset impacts. The proposed effects to groundfish EFH are temporary and/or small, and the
dock construction is not likely to adversely affect groundfish EFH.
6.5.3 Coastal Pelagic EFH
A potential for unintentional releases of fuel or other fluids from construction equipment exists,
with potential for effects on water quality. Also, potential for effects to coastal pelagic EFH from
the noise associated with pile driving methods exists. These noise effects would be temporary,
within the work period described in Section 2.4 of this document, and localized to the Action Area,
described in Section 2.5 of this document. Upon completion of the project actions, the direct and
short-term effects of turbidity and noise created by the project are anticipated to diminish. The
proposed effects to groundfish EFH are temporary and/or small, and the proposed bulkhead
replacement and dock construction are not likely to adversely affect groundfish EFH.
6.5.4 EFH Conservation measures
The proposed project has been designed to meet RGP-6 standards. Additionally, the project will be
implemented with the best management practices detailed in Section 2.4 and mitigation sequencing
detailed in Section 5.1.
6.5.5 Conclusions
The overall effect on fish habitat will involve the installation of seven, 10-inch new pile that will
permanently obscure 3.82 square feet of substrate and could also impede natural sediment transport
processes. Some of the length of the ramp overlaps the landward-most floating dock section,
making the effective overwater length of the ramp 43.5 feet. The 217.5 square feet (43.5 feet x 5
feet) of effective overwater ramp will provide some shading of the aquatic environment, although
the shading level is reduced by the elevation of the ramp off the water. The proposed float will be
constructed with six, 20-foot by 8-foot, pre-fabricated fiberglass sections with greater than 50
percent grated surfaces,creating 960 square feet of new overwater shading.
Conservation measures that are incorporated into the project are expected to reduce the potential
effects of this project as discussed in Sections 2.4 and 5.1. The project may adversely affect EFH
used by Pacific salmon; however, these impacts are being mitigated through implementation of 60
percent functional grating for the floating dock, removal of angular rock, beach nourishment, and
creosote bulkhead removal. The project is not likely to adversely affect EFH utilized by groundfish
and coastal pelagic species in Washington waters due to the determinations of effect discussed
above.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 30 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Chapter 7. Conceptual Mitigation Plan
This Conceptual Mitigation Plan assures that the proposed community dock will not degrade the
functions and values of any associated critical areas.
Pursuant to 40 CFR, Parts 332 and part 230 (Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic
Resources), this project shall comply with mitigation sequencing provisions of the Section 404(b)1)
Guidelines,and the requirement that the applicant must take all appropriate and practicable steps to
avoid and minimize adverse impacts to waters of the United States.
7.1 Project Impacts
The proposed project could adversely affect Waters of the United States with direct and short-term
actions. Specifically, driving 7 piles and barging in and attaching floating dock sections may result in
temporary increases in terrestrial and underwater noise and temporary sediment and beach substrate
disturbance during construction. Upland construction of the concrete sidewalk and pier platform
could cause additional water quality impacts, even though this work is to be conducted at and above
OHW(and outside of waters of the United States).
Long term adverse impacts could result from a new overwater structure shading a portion of the
intertidal zone and interfering with fish migration along the shoreline. The floating dock could also
impede natural sediment transport processes. The proposal will involve the installation of seven, 10-
inch steel pilings and approximately 960 square feet of new overwater shading from the 48-foot by
5-foot gangway and 121-foot by 8-foot dock,both with greater than 50-percent grated surfaces.
7.2 Mitigation Sequencing
Mitigation of the proposed floating dock begins with avoiding and minimizing impacts. Minimal
work will occur over or within the water, because the pier to which the gangway attaches, will be
landward of OHW. Only the gangway and floating dock (together comprising a dock that is 165-
feet long) will extend into the waters of Case Inlet. The new floating dock will be grated, to allow
light penetration. The presence of a community dock will minimize the need for additional joint-use
and individual docks within the vicinity of Grapeview and Reach (Treasure) Island, Case Inlet.
Additional compensatory mitigation will removal of angular rock onsite, placement of beach
nourishment onsite, and removal of a deteriorating creosote bulkhead offsite. Together these
measures will improve the quality of shoreline habitat at the Port of Grapeview property and a
nearby offsite mitigation area (less than 100 feet away from the proposed project area).
Avoidance
Most of the construction associated with this project shall occur landward of the OHW. This is a
water dependent use,as such,it is not possible to completely avoid all adverse impacts.
Minimization
Unavoidable impacts of the project are minimized by incorporating BUTS including,but not limited
to:
• Limiting the disturbed areas to the maximum extent possible during project implementation.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 31 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
• Incorporating appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures.
• Using vegetable oil-based hydraulic fluids in all equipment working in-water.
• Preparing and training crews regarding a spill prevention and pollution control plan.
• Storing, staging,and refueling equipment outside the beach and riparian habitat zone.
• Inspecting equipment for leaks daily.
• Re-vegetating all upland areas temporarily disturbed with native plants.
Intertidal work is limited to installation of seven 10-inch diameter pilings. Installation of pilings will
occur from a floating barge, during high tides. Installation of the gangway and floating dock
sections will be accomplished by floating in these pre-fabricated elements and attaching them,while
working from a floating barge. Short term construction impacts are minimized by working in this
manner,as opposed to working from a barge grounded on the beach during low tide.
The proposed removal of a deteriorating creosote bulkhead at a nearby offsite mitigation area (less
than 100 feet away from the proposed project area) will occur during low tide and the disturbed
substrate will be replaced with a clean mix of gravel and sand to minimize temporary increases in
creosote load. Additional minimization measures for creosote removal can be implemented
following the WA Department of Natural Resources BMPs for derelict creosote piling removal
(DNR,2017).
The contractor will be required to submit a Construction/Tides Plan outlining possible work dates
and times that allow construction of all portions of the project during the applicable tide. It is
possible that some work may need to be conducted during the evening hours, as that is when low
tides occur during the proposed construction window.
An oil-absorbent boom will be placed around the perimeter of the over-water work area to prevent
petroleum products from inadvertent releases from overwater construction equipment. Work at the
OHW will be enclosed within a coir log barrier which will prevent sediments and debris from
migrating waterward. BMP structures will be removed when the work is completed, or tide is
flooding. All construction equipment will be inspected daily for fluid leaks and no equipment will
leave the staging area until any leaks are repaired. Fueling and maintenance of equipment will occur
in upland staging areas only. When barge equipment is to be used, no grounding will be allowed.
No excavated materials will be stockpiled below OHW. No materials will be stockpiled outside of
the staging area.
Construction impacts will be further minimized by timing all work below the OHW to occur from
July 15 through February 15 of any two consecutive years, thereby avoiding work during salmonid
migration and spawning surf smelt windows. Minimizing piling diameter and installation with a
vibratory hammer rather than impact hammer will significantly reduce potential underwater
construction noise during piling installation.
Permanent impacts from the project are minimized by providing the smallest diameter of pilings
necessary to secure the proposed floating dock, given the currents within this waterway and the
anticipated tension and pressure from boat usage. The floating dock will be comprised of fiberglass
grating that allows more than 50 percent of the light to penetrate (i.e.,more than 50 percent grated),
thereby minimizing the potential adverse shading effects of this new overwater structure.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 32 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Rectification
As noted,construction will be conducted from the landward side of the existing bulkhead or from a
floating barge. The movement and use of heavy or tracked machinery will be restricted to the
staging area. However,any beach area grades disturbed during construction will be reshaped to pre-
project conditions upon project completion. All booms and filtration barriers will be removed and
properly disposed at an upland location.
Reduction
The proposed Community dock will reduce potential impacts of individual and joint use docks over
time by reducing the need for individual property owners to construct docks for their own personal
water access. The Port of Grapeview dock and existing boat launch are intended to be used by the
general public as well as commercial boaters and fishermen.
Compensation
Despite efforts to avoid and minimize impacts, the proposed community use floating dock is a new
overwater structure;it will result in 720 square feet of new overwater structure over the Lower Shore
Zone (LSZ) and 240 square feet of new overwater structure over the Upper Shore Zone (USZ);
overall, 960 square feet of new overwater structure. Several mitigation actions will be incorporated
into the project to compensate for these unavoidable impacts.
7.3 RGP-6 Guidance Related to Debits
On October 19, 2017 the USACE modified and re-issued Regional General Permit 6 (RGP-6) (33
CFR 325.2(e)(2)) to authorize certain activities in or affecting waters of the U.S,including navigable
waters of the U.S, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, pursuant to Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). It is
understood that the RGP-6 criteria were approved to meet USACE and Programmatic ESA
Consultation Reference Numbers NWS-2002-1291, RGP-6. The subject proposal does not meet
the criteria for RGP-6 since it is not for a new residential structure; however, the USACE has
recommended the use of the RGP-6 mitigation calculator to determine the debits of impact and
mitigation credits necessary to compensate for this proposed new community dock.
The RGP-6 mitigation calculator was modified somewhat for use with this proposed community
dock. The special conditions of the RGP-6 state that no floats may installed in the USZ, and the
RGP-6 calculator accordingly does not provide a calculation for the impact of new float within the
USZ. Due to the steepness of the beach and narrow fetch of the waterway at this location,however,
the subject proposal will not have a pier over the water but does include the placement of 240
square feet of floating dock within the USZ. To calculate the impact of the proposed float within
the USZ, we used the RGP-6 calculator's equation for removing a float constructed within the last
25 years from the USZ. This equation requires an input of the solid-decking on the float. The
proposed float has 50-percent functionally grated surfaces, and we provided 50 percent of the float
(120 square feet) as the input to the equation. As the proposed project is located in potential forage
fish spawning habitat, we applied the forage fish factor to the calculation of impacts for the float
within the USZ.
While the proposed project is not subject to RGP-6; the project abides by the RGP-6 special
conditions as much as possible--with the exception that floating dock sections are proposed within
the USZ and that the gangway ramp will be five feet wide (not four feet wide). Using RGP-6
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 33 Soundview Consultants LL.0
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
calculations for unavoidable impacts, the unavoidable impacts of the project result in 42.78 debit
points (Table 6).
Table 6. Impacts to Aquatic Resources
Required
Impact Impact Element Impact Element Description Mitigation
Location Points
ebits
Riparian Zone Pedestrian access Construction of the pedestrian access will
including platform remove 192 square feet of existing lawn
and sidewalk vegetation.Replacing the lawn vegetation
with the pedestrian access will have
minimal impact on the existing riparian
condition.
Upper Shore Zone Aluminum gangway The aluminum gangway will partially shade 0.00
with greater than 240 square feet of aquatic environment.
50%grating.
Upper Shore Zone 10-inch steel pile Seven pile are proposed for the entire dock. 0.00
and Lower Shore The seven pile will permanently obscure
Zone 3.82 square feet of substrate.
Upper Shore Zone Pre-fabricated float The 240 square feet of float(with 50% 6.92
with more than 50 grated surface)in the USZ will result in 120
percent grating and square feet of shading to the aquatic
float stops environment.
Upper Shore Zone Forage fish factor Additional debit points for construction of 3.46
float within USZ that provides potential
forage fish spawning habitat
Lower Shore Zone Pre-fabricated float The 720 square feet of float(with 50% 32.40
with more than 50 grated surface)in the LSZ will partially
percent grating and shade the aquatic environment underneath.
float stops
Total Mitigation Debits 42.78
The project will not clear any vegetation or woody debris, as there is none within the project
approach or project area. There are no riparian zone impacts. A low tide beach survey in June 2017
recorded the absence of submerged aquatic vegetation throughout the project area.
7.4 Conceptual Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation measures include: 1) removing angular rock (onsite), 2) applying one-time
addition of beach gravel and coarse sand meeting WDFW specifications for beach nourishment
(onsite), 3) remove deteriorating creosote (offsite), 4) placing additional beach nourishment at the
location of the removed bulkhead (to restore the beach and replace material in the holes left from
the timber piles that comprised the bulkhead), 5) place a diffuser T at the outfall of a stormwater
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 34 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
culvert, 6) grade the existing eroding shoreline bank back to a slope not to exceed 2:1, and 7) place
soft shoreline stabilization elements to include logs, boulders,biodegradable jute matting,and native
plantings. Table 7 identifies the expected mitigation credits associated with each compensatory
mitigation action. The mitigation actions for which credit is determined through the RGP-6
mitigation calculator yield 91.84 mitigation credits out of 42.78 credits needed. Given this and the
avoidance and minimization measures, it is expected that the proposed mitigation actions will
successfully compensate for the potential adverse impacts associated with this new overwater
structure. Furthermore, the project will reduce the pressure to develop new docks for water access
in the north end of Case Inlet. The Port of Grapeview facility at full project completion will include
the existing boat ramp,the proposed floating dock,and a restroom facility and parking lot for use by
the general public as well as commercial fishermen within this area.
The Compensatory Mitigation Plan is attached as Appendix H of this report. The mitigation plan
was prepared according to the USACE's mitigation template for impacts to non-wetland aquatic
resources. This plan addresses the following:
1. Project Description
2. Existing Conditions of Aquatic Resources
3. Avoidance and Minimization of Aquatic Resource Impacts
4. Unavoidable Aquatic Resources Impacts
5. Impacted Aquatic Resource Functions
6. Mitigation Site Selection Rationale
7. Mitigation Work Plan and Description of Aquatic Functions Provided at Mitigation Site
8. Site Protection
9. Maintenance Plan
10. Performance Standards
11. Monitoring
12. Long Term Management
13. Adaptive Management Plan
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 35 Soundview Consultants LL.0
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Table 7. Proposed Mitigation Actions
Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation
Location Element Mitigation Description Function Point Value
Credits
Upper Shore Beach Re-contour beach to natural Enhance nearshore 2.55
Zone Nourishment/ grade and apply one-time habitat for forage
(onsite) Restoration addition of 12 cubic yards of fish spawning
beach gravel across 1,275
square feet.
Upper Shore Beach Angular rock("bull-rock' to Enhance nearshore 8.29
Zone Cleanup be removed from 1,275 square habitat for forage
onsite feet. fish s awn.n
Upper Shore Forage Fish Additional restoration points Improve viability of 29.34
Zone Factor for angular rock removal in habitat for potential
(onsite) USZ with potential surf smelt surf smelt spawning
habitat.
Upper Shore Forage Fish Additional mitigation credits Improve viability of 1.26
Zone Factor for placement of beach habitat for potential
(onsite) nourishment at removed surf smelt spawning
bulkhead location in shoreline
potentially utilized for forage
fish spawning.
Upper Shore Bulkhead Remove deteriorated creosote Restore natural 50.40
Zone removal—soft bulkhead along 63 linear feet wave action along
(offsite) shoreline of shoreline and replant with shoreline,improve
armoring native vegetation water quality and
habitat
Total Mitigation Credits 91.84
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 36 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Chapter 9. References
Anderson, P.S., S. Meyer,P. Olson,and E. Stockdale. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark
for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Publication No. 16-06-029. Final
Review Draft. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington State
Department of Ecology. Olympia,Washington.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1,US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg,Mississippi.
Ehinger, S.I, J.P. Fisher, R. McIntosh, D. Molenaar, and J. Walters. 2015. Working Draft, April
2015: Use of the Puget Sound Nearshore Habitat Values Model with Habitat Equivalency
Analysis for Characterizing Impacts and Avoidance Measures for Projects that Adversely Affect
Critical Habitat of ESA-Listed Chinook and Chum Salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Lacey,Washington.
Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington
Press. Seattle,Washington.
HHJ Architects. 2017. Record of Survey-Topographical Map for the Grapeview Boat Ramp.
Lichvar,R.W.,D.L. Banks,W.N. Kirchner,and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant
List. 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153
733X
Love,M.S.,M.H. Carr,and L J.Haldorson. 1991. The Ecology of Substrate-Associated Juveniles of
the Genus Sebastes. Environ. Biol. Fish. 30:225-243.
Love, M.S., M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific.
University of California Press,Berkeley.
Mason County. 2017. Case Activity Listing-Case#: PAR2017-00007—Parcel#: 121055100900.
Mason County Code (MCC). 2017. Title 8—Environmental Policy. Revised October 3,2017.
Website: https://Iibrary.municode.com/wa/mason—county/codes/code—of ordinances?
nodeld=TIT8ENPO
Mason County Code (MCC). 2017. Title 17—Zoning. Revised October 3,2017.Website:
https://Iibrary.municode.com/wa/mason—county/codes/code—of ordinances?nodeId=
TIT17ZO
Munsell0 Color. 2000. Mansell soil color charts. New Windsor,New York.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2016. Humpback Whale (Megaptera
novaeanglia). July, 2016. Website: http://www.mnfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/
whales/humpback-whale.html
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 38 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. Hydric Soils List. Mason County, Wasbington. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1991. Final Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale
(Megaptera novaeanglia). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National
Marine Fisheries Service,Silver Spring,Maryland. 105 pp.
NMFS. 1998. Recovery Plan for U.S. Populations of Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea).
National Marine Fisheries Service,Silver Spring,Maryland.
NMFS. 2005. Status Review Update for Puget Sound Steelhead. NMFS Puget Sound Biological
Review Team. July 2005.
NMFS. 2008a. Preliminary scientific conclusions of the review status of 5 species of rockfish:
bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), yelloweye rockfish
(Sebastes ruberrimus), greenstriped rockfish (Sebastes elongatus), and redstriped rockfish
(Sebastes proriger) in Puget Sound, Washington. NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science
Center. Seattle,Washington. December 2008.
NMFS. 2008b. Recovery Plan for Southern Resident Killer Whales (Oreinus orca). National Marine
Fisheries Service,Northwest Region,Seattle,Washington.
Ness, A.O. 1960. Soil Survey of Mason County, Washington. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. September 1960.
Osborne,R.W. 2008.The Whale Museum,Southern Resident Killer Whale Sighting Compilation
1990-2008.Accessed through NMFS: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected species/marine_
mammals/cetaceans_whales_dolphins_porpoise/toothed_whales/killer whales/southem_resid
ent_killer_whale/section_7_consultations/evaluating_po tential_occurrence_of sound.html.
Pacific States Marine Fishery Commission (PSMFC). 2012. Chinook salmon.Website:
http://www.psmfc.org/habitat/edu—chinook—facts.haiil.
Pearson,S.F.,S.J.Jeffries,M.M. Lance,and A.0 Thomas. 2015. Identifying potential juvenile
steelhead predators in the marine waters of the Salish Sea.Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Olympia,Washington.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). 2012. Stormwater best management practice:
concrete washout.Website: htWs://www3.el2a.gov/nl2des/12ubs/concretewashout.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Endangered and threatened species recovery
program: report to Congress.406 pp.
USFWS. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet;Final Rule50 CFR Part 17.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 39 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
USFWS. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Critical Habitat for the Northern
Spotted Owl; Final Rule 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Revised
USFWS. 2011a. Bull Trout Recovery Plan Finalized. Website: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/
bulltrout/
USFWS. 2011b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet;Final Rule50 CFR Part 17.
USFWS. 2017. Species profile for Canada lynx. Environmental Conservation Online System
(ECOS).Website: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecpO/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=AO73
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2007. Analysis of Effects to Puget Sound
Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Resulting from Transport of Dredged Material and
Disposal at Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) Open-water Disposal Sites.
Seattle District Environmental Resources Section. May 21,2007.
USACE. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos P.
United States&Carabell v. United States. EPA/USACE. December 2,2008.
USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual- Western
Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Uchvar, and C. V.
Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3.Vicksburg,MS:U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indictors of
Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasialas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.).
USDA,NRCS,in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
Watson, J.W., K. R. McAllister, D.J. Pierce, and A. Alvarado. 2000. Ecology of a Remnant
Population of Oregon Spotted Frogs (Rana pretiosa) in Thurston County, Washington. Final
Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia,Washington. March,2000.
Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2017. Derelict Creosote Piling Removal
Best Management Practices for Pile Removal&Disposal. Updated January 25,2017.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1991. Management Recommendations for
Washington's Priority Habitats and Species. May 1991.
Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE). 1994. Shoreline Armoring Effects on Coastal
Ecology and Biological Resources in Puget Sound, Washington, Coastal Erosion Management
Studies,Volume 7,Washington State Department of Ecology.August, 1994.
WDFW. 2008. Eelgrass/Macroalgae Habitat Interim Survey Guidelines. Revised 06/16/008.
WDFW. 2012a. Endangered Species 2012a Annual Report,Northern Spotted Owl (Strix oeddentalis
caurina).
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 40 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
WDFW. 2012b. 2012 Annual Report: Candidate Species,Yellow-billed Cuckoo. 200-202 pp.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2016. Toxics Cleanup Letter for Fair Harbor Marina.
Washington State Department of Ecology.
WSDOE,USACE,and EPA. 2006.Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part 2: Developing
Mitigation Plans (Version 1).Washington State Department of Ecology.Publication#06-06-
011b. Olympia,Washington.
WSDOE. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State
Department of Ecology. Publication#96-94.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2015. Biological Assessment Preparation
Advanced Training Manual Version 02 2015. Website: http://nww.wsdot.wagov/Environment/Biology
/BA/BAguidance.htm#Manual.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 41 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Appendix A — Methods and Tools
Parameter Method or Tool Website Reference
FEMA Flood FEMA Flood Map https://msc.fema.gov Website
Hazard Areas Service Center /portal
Report Mason County Code https://Iibrary.munico MCC Title 8—Envronmental Policy and MCC Title 17—
Preparation de.com/wa/mason_c Zoning.Revised October 3,2017.
ounty/codes/code—of
ordinances
Shoreline Federal Ordinary http://www.usace.ar Congressional Federal Register 33 Part 328 Definition of
Delineation High Water Mark my.mil/inet/functions Waters of the United States.
Definition /cw/cecwo/reg/33cfr
328.htm
Wetland 2016 National https://www.fws.gov Lichvar,R.W.,D.L. Banks,W.N. Kirchner,and N.C.
Indicator Status Wetland Plant List /wetlands/documents Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List.1016 wetland
/National-Wetland- ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30:1-17. Published 28 April
Plant-List-2016- 2016. ISSN 2153 733X
Wetland-Ratings.pdf
Plant Names USDA Plant http://plants.usda.gov Website(see Appendix A)
Database /
Soils Data NRCS Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey. Website GIS data based upon:
nres.usda.gov/app/W Ness,A.O.1960.Soil Survey of Mason County,
ebSoiLSurvey.aspx Washington. United States Department of Agriculture,Soil
Conservation Service in cooperation with Washington State
Department of Natural Resources,and Washington State
University,Agriculture Research Center. Washington,D.C.
Hydric Soils Mason County http://www.nres.usda Natural Resources Conservation Service.2015. Hydric
Data Hydric Soils List gov/wps/PA_NRCS Soils List:Mason County,Washington. U.S.Department of
Consumption/downlo Agriculture. Washington D.C.
ad?cid=stelprdbl2485
96&ext=xlsx
Threatened and Washington Natural http://data- Washington Natural Heritage Program(Data published
Endangered Heritage Program wadnr.opendata.arcgis 7/19/17). Endangered,threatened,and sensitive plants of
Species com/datasets/wnhp- Washington. Washington State Department of Natural
current-element- Resources,Washington Natural Heritage Program,Olympia,
occurrences WA
Washington Priority http://wdfw.wa.gov/ WDFW PHS Program(Data produced 11/22/17). Map of
Habitats and Species hab/phspage.htm priority habitats and species in project vicinity.
USFWS species lists http://www.fws.gov/ Website
by County wafwo/speciesmap.ht
ml
NOAA fisheries http://www.nwr.noaa Website
species list and maps gov/ESA-Salmon-
Listings/Salmon-
Populations/Index.cf
m
and
http://www.nmfs.noa
a.gov/pr/species/
Species of Mason County Code http://www.mfsc.org Mason County Code Titles 8,14,and 17
Local /codes.aspx
Importance
Toxics Cleanup Washington State https://fortress.wa.go Website
Department of v/ecy/gsp/SiteSearch
Ecology Page.aspx
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock ] Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Appendix B - Background Information
This appendix includes a Mason County Topographic Map (B1), NRCS Soil Survey Map (B2),
Mason County Streams and Wetlands Map (B3),USFWS NWI Map (B4),DNR Stream Typing Map
(B5), WDFW SalmonScape Map (B6), Mason County Flood Zone Map (B7), WDFW PHS Map
(B8),WDFW Forage Fish and Spawning Map (B9),and WSDOE Shoreline Biology Map (B10).
1267.0004-Port of Grepeview Dock 2 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
A endix B1—Mason Coun To o ra hic Ma
—y
Subject PreP eir- +�
h t.
i J 1
t
1267.0004-Port of Grapetriew Dock l Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Appendix B2—NRCS Soil Survey Map
I Sod --MaoMasor.Courty.Nashnglon
R G
� R
haw a'� awu +yaw .I�m rav! +�aoo ••m .rm.l
47w1rn QR I sw DIVI
R
Suhiert .ropeltr
_7��LOS1I)11 Le. 5
r
P
pl J B
I I ea L a�,•t i'
Map Unit Legend
aralrn
HAW
a Mnen county.WnMngron rM11M61..
Rws :1.IAW fplrldm Alveo{t ttl'.ti�)lhed Wp WA ly.bd Wp 11"14ame Acne mA* T f��dA01
at 0 16 n m �m� ,v� NJln.wul Wa.Nvl,lu, —<a'' M.MI
0 w IM ED ]]OI11 Toler tar Ana d IIn«w! __i_ t.1; 1MJ%
Mppeowic fw"Noen Cwwa)olwena Wt�l t6RME un4lore 1CN VF.?3i1 -- ._-----. .._.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 2 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Appendix B3—Mason County Streams and Wetlands Map
Sobiect Ptopeits
I Applosunate;
g/
Fhvers and Streams
rilanNational Wet
ds
Inventory
1267.0004-Port of GrapeNiew Dock i Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Appendix B4—USFWS NWI Map
Soun64ew Consultants - USFWS NWI Map
Subject
C_ Al
r
c
Apnl 13,2017 1.4,514
1M�tl�nds . 0 OW5 c.a c.t m F esh�ralet Enetyenl Wetland . Lake J
0 0.0425 0015 t7 km
Esttanne and Nha e Dzepwater c.
Freshwater ForestevShrob Wetland ® CY.tk-r
J-S fW,NO NYk srr,r.�o,d 9.—IY=—SMyu,ies,.
■ Estt�a,tne and Marne A'elland ® Froshwater Paid ■ R-verinc rrr 1r�Hn yr wvv M..�,Mn lord
1267.0004-Port of Grapexiew Dock 4 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Appendix B5—DNR Stream Typing Map
Soundview Consultants- DNR Stream Typing Map
5uhlect Fropem-
i:lpproxui�atel
Apni 13.2017 1:4.514
0 Gino Gu? a04 in
ONR-stnmm Typing
Type N.Np,Ns o 0.0425 nags 017 b,
01.t NO&JSGS.A—GiC 104 nnne GM Uer C—to
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 5 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Appendix B6—WDFW SalmonScape Map
Soundview Consultants - WDFW SalmonScape Map
�u eject Propem-
Appronunnte i
xr
Ppril 13 2017 1:4,511
0 0.035 0.01 &14 III
— Ali SalmonScape Spenpc 1 —--
0 00425 0085 0.17Ion
5— raw.,.ter, du-...—w n. —I v C.F.amcc
UMB.rip.VPSMFIGN.aewA—ION.M -.N40--ft-W
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 6 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Appendix B7 —Mason County Flood Zone Map
Ilk
•r
W
Subject Pzoperr,-
_�pl�zoy.unate
Ir
r
.. t
4► 5° ; 1'%,Chanta Annual Flood
2011 NAIP Aenal Photo%
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 7 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Appendix B8—WDFW PHS Map
Soundview Consultants - WDFW PHS Map
Subject Propei--
APpio�:rn:tte;
v
/OW 14,2017 0 1:9.026
0.073 O.li ohm
• Pl POLY i .: :r
AS MAPPED 0 C076 0.16 09NM
LN Suave.Es.,004w7ae,C—L Vy cams Gaiyyun.RVr0Md6J
OH,JBD,I uB]S,Ave0RII CN 'le 30 U.,C--.."
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 8 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Display Feature
Common Name Scientific Name Priority Area Full Record .
Resolution Type
Purple martin show Progne subis Breeding Site AS MAPPED Point Show Full
Record
Estuarine and Marine Null Aquatic Habitat AS MAPPED Area Show Full
Wetland show Record
.....................................
Item ;Value
Common Name ^� �^ ^^ ^Purple martin
Scientific Name Progne subis
Priority Area Breeding Site
Display Resolution AS MAPPED
Federal Status N/A
State Status Candidate
SGCN Y
PHS Listing Status PHS LISTED OCCURRENCE
Source Date 8/14/2013
Source Dataset WS_OccurPoint
Source Record 79318
Source Entity WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Source Name Null
Geometry Type Points
1/8 mile (Quarter/Quay-ter
Accuracy Section)
Sensitive Data N
Site Name FAIR HARBOR MARINA
Mgmt Recommendations Click Here
More Info Null
Notes Null
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock 9 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEbIA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Appendix B9—WDFW Forage Fish and Spawning Map
Soundview Consultants - WSDFW Forage Fish and Spawning Map
St:hIect
_y}>l�xasunatll
.1
a
i
Apn1 13,2C17 1A,614
a 0.077 oor U.14A
iiiiii non Sava Lando Spawning Pro spawner Hsreng Holdng A 1 . t---- '
o 00425 0.0e5 0.1
r Smad Spawrung w.p eww.ry uca r.r..c.�.�.� 5o m eon Ms.a
0 Heuing Spamrir g Qw•r.saiu 1013110A+D
1267.0004-Port of Grapei7ew Dock 10 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FRMA and GSA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Appendix B10—WSDOE Shoreline Biology Map
Soundview Consultants - WSDOE Shoreline Biology Map
SLTla4ect Ptopern
_�ppcouiaiate
1
L
April 13,Z011 14,514
EatprassFringe FelOrassHa(Is Sale Marsh fl'gp .eat Marsh toed Low—Marsh—fringe Low Mershbed 0 0.036 087 Qta m
s�
errea ,!nh TiNL1nu5 . CnmTlwtw)uR CANTINUnLK a' CONTINLnUS . M1,11INUOL1R 0 00425 0089 Q17 wn
PATCHY @ rATCHY rA-Cir PATCHY ■- PATCHY ® r•ATCHY w+i�aurryd Woe F.r.r�C.prRwK, rYf even useer
beer+-w e n n«Lace aua
1267.0004-Port of GrapeTriew Dock 11 Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Appendix C - Site Plans
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
PORT OF GRAPEVIEW - DOCKS
8
NEW FLOATING DOCKS & BULKHEAD, GRAPEVIEW, WASHINGTON
VICINITY MAP PROJECT DATA CODES AND STANDARDS SHEET INDEX a
s
LEGAL OESCPoPTgN vaG�ECT NAME GRAaEVIHV BDAi IAUNDN.FIGATNG DofxSL suu(IEA➢ PRIMTCW—ON" xvLrwyH SIOaEUN111"EEAENTACT REmu ANO SHEET INDEX-DOCK o
.A oos®ev wmN mLMv Aln iHEOERToc Eminor.n1H° ARCHITECTS
ID AveiL�E�WDnoxD TO THE PLAT OF AmaEss. 5oa>1—VEWIooR Roao.aRAIE EW.WA*11 ]1MERxATI-1.LWo m.E final RD]o15�W5sC AmFmn•m.AJi,,n,F, }^ PLLC
CO.aolTNoxAS.E..—DNwwNE I GF Furs.I..a. .wlsoKraN. cm of GRAFEvew.xAsoN co— .nEeczD,s.maNSEma Q
— L RAacELs. ,ro-s,eem,s,rmsltlm, wcaumta HFPHA%N FP`�isq`CODE b.u.c lxc�swssc N..�e.....+w,.xro. n..xRyw,.KRcl.l..os
1 mNCREIE AccEss vLArroaN lsuLNIEAD wnNeeecuNeow.L M6=BWAT ONAL FREmDE t«,ae.y FC wlswasc Am.iMm.Aug,,n,e,.b Rb..:I]AN 1pANLF
���^ 3 huxNux cwGwav ADA ACCEssaE Lots Widw PLu.ISINo mDEl.MwgUIC]MSWSBC AmNmm,AM,.nMI
/• ,i i' I.STEEL VLNcs wean Nygg WRAC s,.nq� ATpN mCE.wawaN.oen9m A�wr�b o vm,w..,N.
11 ACOEssoRES Al IIESSRLE 6
A.coNCRE*EADasoEwhNTUAxEssau*FORx so,.NAnoN.EFu:ciwu moE,rsPAiy v PORT Of
A m,ANNSIA,t1.2DORACCE LEANDWFBI OMUMSANDFAWIEswhw MW � GRAPEVIEW
�aFM afW, .b��,w,n,M�GaA.b Nxn®I PROJECTS
PO Box s
Grapeview,WA 88646
. R FGRm Rai-T A.«.R.
Ev eaNc a°oENollgR
{ CGOg HAtNCTNE SUBMTiM We BRSvR®RE NCWDNG
Io T,EauuNDaels,oi=.amb R xF°�Dr ITIE.— COVER
r j,�' . _ ,a TrlTµp,D g FLOATING
°II SEEN IEWED T E DOCKS
---— +s. THE E9J"MInAWmcuxEr�irs wWE OEBI A ED er THE eUIDNG Z
OFFITHE
EH
3
PROJECT TEAM a,R
i; _,,,:amp
aAPEv6w GENERAL NOTES-CONTRACTOR
Otltl 1 Is REGUIR®To vHilFv
MU
UnUTv LOGnoNs wEaa io
u
to Ewu WA COITRACToa 9HKLCALL TIESI,WDRHRu Du0H J x bn C.Mn RIADTD;.IDDCv. SI CR CaMRFcf WTHA RSVATElnII1nESLmaiINC FlRx C _
pn�npr.apP..lmm tl WTo mrMRUC THE—BE MDTIESIN THE
mxlEssoHBK 3 —R.TC.tlS ,Ofw Fla ATHGRGu^N CIE.IH Fp1 NIxN9t NArtl
Gbm C.ha RE9EiIlE voal(DNLr.v�O AT PRO.IFii CLO£.an.uP I! ti�bW
D.Rer Lorl,hru� . L'bARACTCR IS RE SI Fla aaGTECTIND AU METING INPRMEIIEMS ■ ♦.YxMti
WWIAMWECT
svuc TEH KDExA owIvvalluTswvW Ws TSffO1E YG wx hllrrr.a
"q DEsc HAUEEeaomlrt TGTIEaTTanlo.aF E iu
Z Dr pw
5 AYECAEIE TI NOnR®oF TRB/+ICIESBEiv®i w�
AM.xtl 5 T oMMilNsl ITI WI 1Mr sEFAEEBIf AND NOT
b�RExo/®d1 xDGREo.w
NISVS11tFaS: T mNCRETE FORrnNc,v HFrxImRADE ELEVATIONS WTI
W�Fc.LLG •WCMT— 8
Et] s
moil w.b Eh CSYa.RIS
u.
•�ca.ronD�+�
GAUIIONIII OVERHEAD AND UNDEROROMO"I.171ES R
¢coMaACTo2SHAUREFILur REsroNSRIE CGR rHE 4 u^
ATION AHD O TEGTIOHa ALL EX6TNGUf1UTEL THE Y
mMRADTC11 Ill—11 AlEµDDrGOCATOM RSOR TO
aouNDLDCATELNEAr,. AP2
sp6Q�Y35aYtiluYGFMImRsvPoDRTGaN'IES WEAT
a
!Jd ijiv%-1 7J;�Jr l�J�,1J1�!► U.J;j
SYMBOL LEGEND: THE S.W. 1/4 OF N.E. 1/4 AND N.W. 1/4 OF S.E.1/4 OF SECTION 5,T.21 N.,R. 1 W.,W.N.,MASON COUNTY.WASHINGTON
9 raw•a.on a.oa VERTICAL DATUM:
•U a•.u.n n.rn un.
UfAL DESCRIPTION: DESCRIPTION FOR_AQUATIC RESOURCES LEASE'
a� aaw
A.
aaR as A.Re•a oa[ a•a usl
(a'-tan 4¢A�n xm,.arf Was[•• mvswvsv,•x v[vn` [seeat[ueaH fsrtReart L�gII I�/w11P6�aIRM •Mt 9..'rM w¢naOa+ +u � JO
1Q1.sen sM[Naal Nav a�a,t�wva�ra�R rwwF.,.wr,-x
: m T v.a 4[nn snuz�•�«'m a'u nx r�"a,a` [w l WILED la Inrs wwa BASIS OF BEARINGS.
Al. .0 m¢
u.N.�as ¢'� IS'/ '• ........ h _
—Cl aa,a,�ea.ae � � •mI[[. �I � f,ae[�a iC ,�"��
ar lw
. �. [ roA s/f a AW ■ Yoq. oH[A>q [P at.96'
a � �� _ ;v� �r •:ew -I /Rr _ er. au _ e�uv.eu.x•., '�rws:
�c •,"�• ,g: 'ate s-'ate —�`�TT� —111_A..
.�o �wf T4-'e'a-• _Imo, ��a P14a'eW; �,'mr„r �,•
A.
I % _ _ -" N x u T N•e ufo wa 2.-GRIAVE. �' nor A_ _ Y
F � p •�� q' ,s„1 a � k A � + wAei �&'', eTt ~, �; 5 �•
. yF / •aa I N how..ea y. ,
embtau
lv I al,rl,r os.e u —— — --A.ua
.......'�.....• FF• alsn,r mN.Rxa•::A. ... ri.
wI I� •� SEE/DETAIL'A' / exr.oma
N �'
mill
DETAIL"A
' I
—J
weAo rr I-.
mm>QAO[F
AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE SURVEY IN: -7
taro FDA rEaw na`ar a w_ n[s Na aNecv Aaemlrs•4/MY•NN R.I[a uom n `` W.f. Comes Surveying PORTION DF TIDELANDS AND BEDLANOS IN AND ow rn�T
: for
•.N eoa_a Ar PAGE ONE C—[I caiarnra ea M aaN[NENIS tt 9 ,acaoxc :� ARORMG THE
S.M.I/4 Of N.C.I/4 AND N.W.1/.
• yyplll���x m aaI h.f[ OF S.E.14 OF SECTION 5.T.21 N..
R.I W.
u
Al n[a4a5f a eE a>wxs AeaW10 A[I AI IK aaESr a — --- W.N.,MASON COUNTY.WASNING1- u lEC
__ a r[gwuw•`..._.____1D iF- III��__.r I �• u (GOV'T LOTS 2 AND s) �w awr NUA
AT. L--- �
O urn FOR:mi ftIPE1[.
awn Aumw cane nOrOR annneAn: asea APN: Sheet 1 o1 2
\ , /
i //� /'—JJ
PROJECT
F�OATNG DOCKS/ 1 1 RWRAM ME
TN`DRNEWAY y 1.1Cd°JC\WAII\ ASNECESMm 1 �/ 1 1 N
O EN[fNCE py� .I STMu6v\"�HIU`v6s� Ar/ .nNro Tsl u
ARCHITECTS
o PLLC
I .
x P
// R x p PORISWOLD AV EI u21
� 1 I =j���L--oe 1—' —r.�PIEYKKIS PROJECT t t i I ,b b 21 n.....w..wrclan swx
z
N a/'g Pno�:lsStl n]y
T.
D"R
/ XDEGR Al NDR Nwr / i i / 1 PORTOF
BE
KG"�P� '� / , / / ; � GRAPEVIEW
N\
/ pG oNEwN 'A-% PROJECTS
ADCE� .r
wREp lb , /
UWANO oORIMDIITI wnr ) ' / °
3
PO Box 3
------------------ FAIR HARBOR MARINA
' SITE PLAN-
DOCKAREA
SITE PLAN-DOCK AREA
r=w-0-
N,NM x�.ti.
i
o ��
f
0 4M
CI]nElruelbn NObE A RwMIFRmEME w
TIE mNT—MW A 11PLEMMT A SITE-- MEVENipx. E.E IMEAGMMSMVIReEDpURM000NsrauCTMxs LIERESNn TI , gfwENS R Oa
mxTNNMF]ITAREMwuo<Axr O ICR—FIED Db RE BBIEFOR M&F—JECT LEV¢SUPoN MOJER mNRETpN. .—
A FMTg D ibNEOUPMEMS IMNSf TMMLLYFORFLUDLEA x0
sRucTVJ OF Axrn OF xoiG SIALI MN E ANCE oEOUwAE T_m L IEU0.AN LcU YATTDST--
MOJ W
TIE ECT OVR NG TME_T,FLOES IA,
W— AREA.
p ,TIFEAR1-1 EMbTpEE1J]Eo,01MUNOND]XAI,EE—I. q
Ess1ipa pABITs MTXE a—FMMSFORWY <
BE
MTixc wATERWARO°REMOVEDMENMRI.E-1XEp DRi1DE SfuLLq WCO°FLLb mTO"�EVFNT LEnCHNp OF WET mNCRETE. �w
uY EJP—CONCRETE mT UxED 3 b fLmGNO ME M`OCWTACEciwrtN sniE wnTERs foR15SIMPENNOU4 O
n STI. roSSB1ETo ACCOMFiIW xORa IN NJrcMDppx E[CEm MATERINSWKL REMAN NTI<ELNTETXEcoxCRfTE RcuR®. F
IHDTIIMAEnTnweun 11INEu—I—MaMA—A°EREaFLEo
ALL�NroVLE0WSFALLEDA MANTNNED W TXE—TRACTM FOR TIE T FEATURES M TIE BEAM I—B LARGM TIUT tT N
DUxU ACmMPUWEOMA�JIIMERGED COxprtpx t].ALL HAIRALNNpnANfD off TIE IIEAw FaLLolRIO CONSFRucrpI XANrnT 0
fMTUiES FUYBE MOVED mNNO CONSiMKrIOII P NECESEAaY.
'�PRO%T nCTNrtIES NULL NOT CEGRA[E WATDi wA1IfY i0 iIE DET.='M _Z
IiE PAT ANYTHE AS ARES R Mo.ECT fLavaEsfbl/aEOSSERYEDIx K L1°° IEG
[�OgPMEM°lFNtsO URs.oR WATM OUALrtv MOBIEMSDEVEwRON0.uaxG WTMaS.—TIERMPERNW'9°IMTEF° S—IMEYEMt°EDROMCOMACTNO TINE O Ci
uS1IMM— ENOTPK._$XALL BE MACE iO TIE _I BEDORWATERS FTIESTATE, ST WISMTNMMNOS—M
WASXNDTWDEanRTMENTOFEmLooY.t2ou]]S50°O.ATOTNEMEAIUBITAT REAEREnEMSM ERMOT�AGSfO MF UKAl S ITIATTNEYWNOT
Eq aOlSi,t.S]D.V1.]tn. M A G r^
a IV. TM OWWAEeJE��.cNur1"owTIAITERMNIEEGRAINED— CAUTIONIII OVERHEAD AND UNDERGROUND UMMES RArt6\A91
WALL IOT BE STod(
]. EICAYATED MA LBE SfoacfEEO ouTSDEMMESTbMl AREn I.YJLEU covTRACTORSU F LYRE E—t TIE <� n
RnIMDVELENTtUSEOFIEAW MTRKNEOMAC"WRYISRESIMCTEDTO TIE iXEY VAIIWUS®NTIAT pnYSYA2( CpNTRnCµ SN4 RVV Auk �IpNNS Rp.EO y RE T x
sr AREAA XEfmTMNT OFRENEWSOATM- G s�tw n.s x)teoA lw
NY Excmx. ws IMa�.E�AMMM1MDF�IGM]FbDRTDA AP2.1
RESUBMITTAL SET-FLOATING DOCK-082718 0
TtMeaa tu.1 Dnws 1 �I we w.0 � m,esrEr::wes 1 Im e.mEw.rMrv� �a / /
v ♦ � , 1 m'-v 3 / 1
"I;Eoc�r®Ifao°c tr l IMTFD°: `.sow,Gw". 1 m-tr rrP / ?� 1 I
ir
\ 1 1 1 I I I\ f I I 1 1 1
PREVIOUS sHq OJECT. O
BOAT MP 11 '
I+qI
\, f ARCHITECTS
o PLLC
M��.- IC P°EWKK M.x wwR 1 1 I I I I 1 z
+pz M.xGaoas aDm,° I I - I I I r..�,w
7 oi:.yeon etuoz
II I I � �•-Is'+fitDz♦ta
8E .Tm M FOE p
bl�p,x ryµf I I I 1 I I 1
pEua Rurcc�w o P�°R`tnb
N PORT OF
IT—6TEELRLE.TYR GRAPEVIEW
PROJECTS
_, — I I [OeTMW�"°
Y
w»tWeM
II..i.w1 MILL B w PO Box 3
GraP eview,WA 98646
D PLATFORM&
FLOAT DETAILS
BEACH PROFILE AT DOCK&PILINGS o
� r-loa
I rowcwti: \
�� N� NNNNNN�IfftN�� \ , ` Rw+..u.ew. WAIe
I°,oG.Tmlep9c q-Q •.P ' RI I�I1ART�oRM DRun _N� ��N��N��N��NNN � pn.n
iFAT,HIGRIDE
__�__ _ MTMBE. b ry.y,
�I.I_TKWw41 •-�C:`. r.76i..`:'.•i.t:}`: ;Ki' :;';;: ',r: -
a RE.nso.,s
♦:�.�i�.�':y+ •if�:�Afi i :1n�tiF ii•L'.. aanrlrvc u v..De D..niOon
vY4... '•.`I.��! ,f .<n�/LcJ4:5•.te c} 2 rollle ewy�l.. �•� �.[' cNgw
A.PIWTIM
3
io
ENLARGED PLATFORM PLAN cw,a,ualoRv.erlexlon A. i
2 Ila•=ta wu suu mereonRw;ron ReloR -
"GR+THE—HE�µo NEReREP.E.EM",E To �$ .
��RaR .Flo
E.e T—H Ilob(.eKl,s
I AWITVVa�s=o �,�.RR—Rm.RER—I A—I THEI— � AP2.2
RESUBMITTAL SET-FLOATING DOCK-082718 g
. .........
SIB loll _
all IL .II�11 I
..... .......
HalII I
Eff ...........
uu
ll IL
..........
. .........
............................
.................
.......................
....................
............................
................
................
11011a
I 'If
If
UNION If ;;Jell
Appendix D - Action Area Map
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
.40
0 750 1,500 3,000 �` ✓r T,.�
i
GRAPHIC SCALE
c
i
s'
I fi REACH
' ISLAND
—
r FAIR HARBOR
r6 ` MARINA
VI
LEGEND: '� _ � .,- ce •'
UNDER WATER N g ACTION AREA #{ "' CASE
(33,592 FT RADIUS) STRET INLET
ISLAND f.
T RESTRIAL NOISE AC ION AEA
82 FT RADIUS)
s-v
e � FIGURE I
OTENWAL TURBtbITY AEA PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
(150 F "'` '` ,• K ,�i" COMMUNITY FLOATING DOCK
-0 2/01/2018
0 1,250 2,500 5,000
OWN
f !F
GRAPHIC SCALE a` �
i'=zsoo' 'r
6' r
.,J / � r r 1 •I
�° SITE /
{ g ' REACH
SLAND
LIJGEND: GRAP i FAIR HARBOR
MARINA
ikI NDER WATER NOISE ACTION AREA , 4 lr� CASE
(33,592 FT RADIUS) �R INLET
T'ERRESTRIALNOISE-ACTION p �
(5,482 FT RADIUS) :. �"• �:,F ,-
POTENTIAL TURBIDITY AREA "'--sw ,s FIGURE 2
PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
(150 FT) ' s, * f COMMUNITY FLOATING CK
2/01/2018
.Q_
Appendix E — Author Qualifications
Ann Boeholt
Senior Environmental Planner
Professional Experience: 29 years
Ann Boeholt is a Senior Environmental Planner and a Certified Professional Wetland Scientist with 29 years
of experience in aquatic resources management in western Washington. She has worked within all levels of
government. Ann began her career working two part-time positions--with a local government (Mason
County) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.This transitioned to a full-time position as a Wetland Biologist
with the USFWS, then 14 years as a regional Wetland Specialist at the Washington State Department of
Ecology where she had a hand in developing many of the wetland tools in use to this day within the State of
Washington.Also, during that time,Ann served an 8-month appointment as a Marine Habitat Biologist with
the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and attended graduate school. She then served 12 years at Pierce
County Surface Water Management as a Wetland Biologist and Project Manager. She joined SVC in July
2016. Ann has extensive experience in wetlands delineation and rating, native plant selection and care,
restoration design,maintenance,monitoring,and mitigation banking and In-Lieu Fee Programs.
Ann earned a Bachelor of Science degree from The Evergreen State College, in Olympia Washington and
completed coursework and a thesis towards a Master of Science at the University of Washington's School of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. On the job education and training has included training in wetland
delineation, the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System and Credit/Debit Assessment,
Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark,Designing Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects,
Construction Management,and more.
Kyla Caddey
Staff Scientist
Professional Experience: 3 years
Kyla Caddey is a Staff Scientist and Pierce County Certified Wildlife Biologist with 3 years of professional
experience in riparian habitat restoration and stewardship projects throughout western Washington while
working for both a state agency and a small non-profit. Kyla has a background in habitat restoration design,
implementation, and maintenance, wildlife studies, grant writing, project management, report writing, water
quality monitoring, benthic macroinvertebrate assessments, vegetation surveys and monitoring, forest
surveying, data entry and statistical analysis, research writing and presentations, fish/salmonid monitoring,
rain garden design and implementation,native plant nursery maintenance,and customer service.
Kyla earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Science and Resource Management from the
University of Washington,Seattle with a focus in Wildlife Conservation and a minor in Quantitative Science.
She has received formal training through the Coastal Training Program in Determining the Ordinary High
Water Mark, Using the Credit-Debit Method in Estimating Mitigation Needs, How to Administer
Development Permits in Washington Shorelines, and Forage Fish Survey Techniques, as well as training
through UW Botanic Gardens in Restoring Natural Areas in the Built Environment. Her education and
experience has provided her with the knowledge base and tools necessary to assist in scientific field work and
report preparation for the development, management, and implementation of Soundview Consultant's
environmental planning and land use services.
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Appendix F — Eelgrass and Macroalgae Survey Results
Technical Memorandum
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Soundview Consultants
Environmental Assessment•Planning•Land Use Solutions
2907 Harborview Drive,Suite D
Gig Harbor,WA 98335
Phone: 253.514.9852
Fax: 253.514.8954
Technical Memorandum
To: Jason Sweeney, Army Corps of Engineers File Number: 1267.0004
From: Ann Boeholt, Soundview Consultants LLC Date:June 7, 2017
Re: Eelgrass and Macroalgae Survey Results for Grapeview Loop Road & Griswold
Avenue, Grapeview, WA, Mason County Tax Parcel Number 12105-51-00900
Dear Mr. Sweeney,
Soundview Consultants LLC (SVC) was hired by HHJ Architects,PLLC and the Port of Grapeview
(Applicants) to provide an aquatic vegetation assessment for two isolated projects: a community-use
ramp and joint-use dock. The subject property is located at Grapeview Loop Road and Griswold
Avenue along Case Inlet of southwest Puget Sound in Grapeview, unincorporated Mason County,
Washington. The subject property is situated in the Southwest '/4 of Section 5,Township 21 North,
Range 01 West, W.M. (Mason County Tax Parcel Number 12105-51-00900). This survey was
conducted to verify presence or absence of protected areas of macroalgae or eelgrass under and
surrounding the project area, and to also ensure that significant benthic vegetation is fully quantified
in consideration of potential project impacts. The eelgrass/macroalgae survey was completed on May
27,2017 and with accordance to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)guidance.
Methods
This preliminary eelgrass/macroalgae survey was conducted by qualified SVC staff according to
WDFW guidance, entitled Eelgrass/Macroalgae Habitat Interim Survey Guidelines (06/16/2008).
The survey transects were referenced to one fixed location where a stormwater culvert outfall extends
out of an existing bulkhead. One centerline and four outer transects were analyzed. Please refer to
the Attachment A for photographs of the survey. In a typical survey, the intermediate transects are
parallel to the centerline transect on either side. For this project, the centerline transect,Transect 1
(T1), extended from the fixed culvert location out 190 feet (25 feet waterward from the end of the
proposed dock). The four outer transects were measured 25 feet north of and parallel to the centerline
(T2), 25 feet south of and parallel to the centerline (T3), 77 feet south of the centerline (T4), and
parallel to the location of the southern edge of the existing ramp,and along the waterward edge of T2
to T4 (T5). All transects were surveyed from the existing bulkhead to approximate ordinary high
water (OHW) at a tidal elevation of-7 feet. The survey area was investigated for occurrence and
density(if found) of submerged aquatic vegetation. Other observed aquatic life was also noted during
the survey. Project area photographs are provided in Attachment A and a site map outlining the
aquatic survey is provided in Attachment B.
Soundview Consultants uc June 2,2017
1267.0004 Eelgrass and Macroalgae Survey Results Page 1 of 11
Results
The survey occurred on May 27, 2017 from approximately 12:30 to 2:30 pm, with a -3.68-foot low
tide observed at 1:42 pm. During the survey, the weather conditions were sunny and visibility was
good.
The substrate on the shoreline consists of 100 percent imported angular rock from the approximate
16-foot to 10-foot elevations. Small cobble over mucky sand and barnacles were observed from the
approximate 10-foot to 4-foot elevations. A mud flat consisting of mucky silt was observed from the
approximate 4-foot to-7-foot elevations.
The survey team did not identify any eelgrass or magroalgae species. However, small patches of
pickleweed (Salicornia depressa) and seaside plantain (Plantago maritima) were observed on either side of
the stormwater outfall culvert. Observations from the OHW to the approximate 4-foot elevation
identified sparse patches of sea lettuce (Ulva spp.) and numerous barnacles (Balanus glandula), mud
snails (Batillaria attramentaria),and clam holes. Observations from the approximate 4-foot elevation to
-7-foot elevation identified one moon snail (Ulva sp.), several moon snail collars (Neverita lewisi:), and
several red rock crabs (Cancer productus). Observations at the waterward end of the existing ramp
identified one Bay ghost shrimp (Neotrypoa spp.), one bent-nosed clam (Macoma nasuta), and one sea
star (Pilaster spp.). An oyster bed (Crassostreagigas) was observed along the terminal end of T2 at the
approximate 3-foot elevation. Red branched algae (Odonthalia floccose) was observed unmatched and
drifting in the water within the survey area. Observations concluded that the area was not conducive
to good forage fish habitat. Table 1 summarizes the flora and fauna identified during this survey.
Please refer to Attachment B for a site map detailing the beach/aquatic survey results.
Table 1. Observed Species in the Vicinity of the Project Area.
d,flp /Fau... ti a O
Pickleweed (Salicornia depmssa) Small patch observed on either side of culvert
Seaside lantain Planta o maritima Small patch observed on either side of culvert
Sea lettuce Ulva s Sparse patches observed at the OHW to the 4-foot elevation
Barnacles Balanus landula Numerous observed at the OHW to the 4-foot elevation
Mud snail Batillaria attramentana Numerous observed at the OHW to the 4-foot elevation
Clam holes Numerous observed at the OHW to the 4-foot elevation
Moon snail Ulva s One identified in the mud flat area
Moon snail collar(Neverita lewisii) Several identified in the mud flat area from approximate 4-foot
elevation to-8-foot elevation
Red rock crab (Cancerpmductus) Several identified in the mud flat area from approximate 4-foot
elevation to-8-foot elevation
Bay host shrimp Neot oa s . One individual identified at waterward end of existing boat ram
Bent-nosed clam Macoma nasuta One individual identified in mud flat area by end of existing ram
Sea star (Pilasters One individual identified at waterward end of existing boat ram
Pacific oyster(Crassostiragigas) Observed along terminal end of the T2 at the approximate 3-foot
elevation
Red branched algae (Odonthalia Unattached;observed drifting in the water
fiboose)
Soundview Consultants uc June 6,2017
1267.0004 Eelgrass and Macroalgae Survey Results Page 2 of 11
Summary
While various flora and fauna species were identified during the beach/aquatic survey, no sensitive
macroalgae or eelgrass were observed;as such,no impacts to protected areas of macroalgae or eelgrass
are anticipated from the proposed project. Hopefully this survey data provides sufficient information
for Mason County,WDFW,and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to process and review
the project application.
If you have any further questions,please contact us at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
k'e4�'� v June 6,2017
Racheal Villa Date
Senior Biologist
Soundview Consultants LLC
rcheal@soundviewconsultants.com
June 6,2017
Date
Ann Boeholt
Senior Environmental Planner
Soundview Consultants LLC
ann@soundviewconsultants.com
Soundview Consultants u.c June 6,2017
1267.0004 Eelgrass and Macroalgae Survey Results Page 3 of 11
Attachment A —Photograph of Centerline Transect
View of Transect 1 facing west towards the shoreline with existing boat ramp depicted in
the upper left and sea lettuce (Ulva spp.) depicted green on the shoreline.
w
Soundview Consultants u.c June 6,2017
1267.0004 Eelgrass and Macroalgae Survey Results Page 4 of 11
' ttachment A2 — Photograph of • Shoreline,
NorthFacing
. • .i�f.♦�`�..��- ? � ram; ��-y,♦4-:
n.
1267.0004
Attachment A3 — Photograph of Project Area, Facing
Northeast
Photograph taken from existing ramp with imported angular rocks depicted transitioning to
small cobble over mucky sand.
"'w
17
46
�K
K
1 YA
� .. ..� it � ?''1A.`°S. / ♦ ti
i�t � �•Y%� h it � _ �'.-�L 4 L ♦ L. � t�l..
Soundview Consultants etc March 16,2017
1267.0004 Eelgrass and Macroalgae Survey Results Page 6 of 11
Attachment A4 — Photograph of Project Area, Facing
Southwest
Photograph taken from approximate waterline depicting shoreline conditions and existing
ramp in the upper left.
0,9
it
t_—Q�,t
"' ia, *..,"w ems'"✓ �"d .. _-`..v M '.k-. .t++„'�".F4. OL;.
!/!'r'4�`r'
will
Soundview Consultants LLc March 16,2017
1267.0004 Eelgrass and Macroalgae Survey Results Page 7 of 11
Attachment A5 — Photograph of General Project Area
Substrate Conditions
wrf.• tt ya .�.
il All
J ry'
�. , , ,�' h er X`•J za
fir. s t r*r A s�
`Al10
14 R.Y T
5 r ' ♦ k
Ur
�z+1
Soundview Consultants u,c March 16,2017
1267.0004 Eelgrass and Macroalgae Survey Results Page 8 of 11
Attachment B — Site Map
Soundview Consultants L Lc March 16,2017
1267.0004 Eelgmss and Macroalgae Survey Results Page 9 of 11
PORT OF GRAPEVIEW - BEACH/AQUATIC SURVEY
SMALL COBBLE OVER MUCKY MUD FLAT WITH WATER LINE PUGET
SAND WITH BARNACLES SPARSE PATCHES -3.68'(RELATIVE SOUND
(Balanus glandula)&MUD OF SEA LETTUCE TO MLLW)DURING
SNAILS(Batillana aMrarmniana) (Ulva sp.) SURVEY
/ PACIFIC OYSTER BED
1 / (Cressostrea gigas) 1 w
�u J —1055—.
%,;
GRAPHIC SCALE
N E ! 75 u: 8
u]
Oag
P
OHW 16.6f - - / " w
— — GPoSWOLD ALE
E � 4
S
PROPERTY BOUNDARY ,
w�
wu�
.00nnLwe. -L___
/ ANGULAR ROCK
—1243 SF W4 O
/MLLW 9.V 5
PRELIMINARY
INFORMATION ONLY
DATE 6/7/2017
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION _ _ \ \� / / / /
/
tA6oa
SO W CONSULTANTS,U.C.ASSUMES /FAIR H I BY: DLS
NO LLABDY OR RESPONSIBILITY
PDR _ ) I/)
CONSTRUCTION,IMPROVEMENTS,OR SCALE:SEE GRAPHIC
ESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET 1
SHEET 1 OF I
Attachment C — Qualifications
Ann Boeholt
Senior Environmental Planner
Professional Experience:30 years
Ann Boeholt is a Senior Environmental Planner and a Certified Professional Wetland Scientist with
30 years of experience in aquatic resources management in western Washington. She has worked
within all levels of government. Ann began her career working two part-time positions--with a local
government (Mason County) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This transitioned to a full-time
position as a Wetland Biologist with the USFWS,then 14 years as a regional Wetland Specialist at the
Washington State Department of Ecology where she had a hand in developing many of the wetland
tools in use to this day within the State of Washington.Also,during that time,Ann served an 8-month
appointment as a Marine Habitat Biologist with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and
attended graduate school. She then served 12 years at Pierce County Surface Water Management as a
Wetland Biologist and Project Manager. She joined SVC in July 2016. Ann has extensive experience
in wetlands delineation and rating, native plant selection and care, restoration design, maintenance,
monitoring,and mitigation banking and In-Lieu Fee Programs.
Ann earned a Bachelor of Science degree from The Evergreen State College,in Olympia Washington
and completed coursework and a thesis towards a Master of Science at the University of Washington's
School of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. On the job education and training has included training in
wetland delineation, the use of the Washington State Wetland Rating System and Credit/Debit
Assessment,Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark,Designing Compensatory Mitigation and
Restoration Projects,Construction Management,and more.
Racheal Villa
Senior Biologist
Professional Experience: 13 years
Racheal Villa is a professional fisheries biologist with a diverse background in both fresh water and
marine ecology with emphasis in salmonid life histories and habitat. She has experience in assessing
marine, shoreline, stream, and wetland systems, reporting on biological evaluations, permitting, and
site assessments. Racheal earned a Bachelor's of Science degree in Fisheries Biology from the
University of Washington,Seattle,with additional graduate level training in salmonid behavior and life
history; restoration of fish communities and habitats in river ecosystems; biological problems with
water pollution;and biomonitoring and assessment.
In addition, she has received formal training from the Washington State Department of Ecology in
Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects,Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark,the
revised Washington State Wetland Rating System, Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a
Watershed Approach, and Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects from the
Washington State Department of Transportation. She is also a Pierce County qualified Fisheries
Biologist. For a list of representative projects,please contact her at Soundview Consultants LLC.
Soundview Consultants u.c March 16,2017
1267.0004 Eelgrass and Macroalgae Survey Results Page 10 of 11
Melissa Cole
Staff Scientist
Professional Experience: 5 years
Melissa Cole is a Staff Scientist with a background in research writing, project management, peer
review,executing scopes of work,budgeting and financing,organizing and attending technical science
seminars, public outreach, data entry and analysis, Phase I and Phase II environmental site
assessments,soil sampling,soil vapor sampling,soil excavation monitoring,field classification of soils,
stormwater surveying, water sampling, asbestos sampling, lead in water sampling, lead in paint
sampling, noise monitoring, radon sampling, tree height / width and condition measurements, tree
density measurements,seedling and sapling counting,analyzing grazing conditions,statistical analysis,
and research presentation.
Melissa received a Bachelor of Science degree from San Jose State University in Environmental Studies
with a minor in Biology. This program provided her with a strong background in natural resource
management, environmental laws and regulations, habitat conservation, and environmental
restoration. Melissa's interest in habitat conservation drove her to minor in Biological Science where
she had courses in botany,zoology,computer literacy,biostatistical analysis,and ecology.
Soundview Consultants u.c March 16,2017
1267.0004 Eelgrass and Macmalgae Survey Results Page 11 of 11
Appendix G - RGP 6 Mitigation Calculations
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Overwater Structure Mitigation Version: 06/07/2018
Reference # NWS-2018-161
Project Name Grapeview Floating Community Dock
Prepared on: 12/10/2018
Marine Overwater Structure Mitigation Calculation Tool
(RGP-6, Appendix B)
This tool can be used to estimate mitigation required under the Regional General Permit (RGP) 6 (See
RGP-6 Appendix B). In addition this tool can be used to estimate mitigate requirements for similar
projects in inland-marine waters. Before proposing compensatory mitigation, the applicant MUST first
demonstrate that impacts to waters of the U.S., including special aquatic sites have been avoided then
minimized (in that order) to the maximum extent possible. To calculate compensatory mitigation
requirements, briefly describe the project and then enter the applicable information into the Required
Mitigation tab. This will report the number of Mitigation Points (MPs) required for the project. Next, on
the Proposed Mitigation tab, briefly describe the mitigation proposal and enter the applicable
information. Some mitigative measures yield MPs on a case-by-case basis. Discuss these options
with your Regulatory Project Manager. Return to the cover sheet to review the totals and any
remaining mitigation requirement.
Mitigation Points DSAYS
Total Required Mitigation (Appendix B, Table 2) 42.45 0.4245
Total Proposed Mitigation (Appendix B, Table 3) 91.84 0.9184
Remaining Mitigation Points Required 0.00 0.0000
SHORE ZONES Description
Riparian Zone HTL to 50 feet landward of HTL
Upper Shore Zone (USZ) HTL to+5 feet MLLW
Lower Shore Zone (LSZ) +5 feet MLLW to-10 feet MLLW and limits of SAV
Deeper Shore Zone (DSZ) Deeper than -10 feet MLLW or outer limits of SAV
Appendix B: Table 1
Native Eelgrass and/or Other SA V occurs within 25 feet
VEGETATION SCENARIO Kelp occurs within 25 of project area (no native eelgrass
feet of project area or kelp present)
Scenario 0 N/A < 10%
Scenario 1 1-25% Combined SAV 11-25%
Scenario 2 26-69% Combined SAV 26-75%
Scenario 3 > 70% Combined SAV > 75%
'SAV defined as rooted vascular plants and attached macroalgae. Drift algae and Ulva spp. Are not included
when determining cover percentage except where Ulva spp. occurs in documented herring spawning areas.
EXAMPLE: Site has 25% Native eelgrass and 45% other SAV (total 70 % cover) within 25 feet of project area.
Select Scenario 3 from Column 1 because native eelgrass is present.
Overwater Structure Mitigation Version: 6/7/2018
Total Required Mitigation
Brief description of proposed project
The proposed project is to construct a new 165-linear foot community dock consisting of a 48-foot by 5-foot
gangway and a 121-foot by 8-foot floating dock. Calculation Notes: calculated the value for the 240 square
feet of float with 50% grated surface in USZ by using the equation for removal of existing functional floats in
forage fish spawning habitat. 7.26 points for 120 square feet of solid-surface on float in USZ +3.63 points for
forage fish spawning
Impact Units Qtv Mitigation
Points
RIPARIAN ZONE IMPACTS
Vegetation removal adjacent to soft
d y shorelines (including soft bioengineered SF of woody
shorelines): Enter SF of woody vegetation vegetation 0 0.00
with a DBH > 4 in riparian work strip to be permanently
cn — permanently cleared for access to overwater cleared
structure.
UPPER SHORE ZONE (USZ) IMPACTS
Pier
If the pier is fully grated and width is < 4 feet
� for single use or< 6 feet for joint-use, no SF of structure 0
}`� R mitigation points.
06
C Piles are spaced closer than 40 feet apart Yes or No N/A
R �
C
Q
Project is located in documented sand lance Yes or No N/A
a or surf smelt spawning habitat
If the USZ pier is fully grated and width is > 4 SF of structure
yfeet for single use or> 6 feet for joint-use, 0.00
enter SF of structure. (may be required for Number of all pier
o (n ADA Access). pilings in USZ.
If the pier in the USZ has solid-decking, SF of solid-deck
Y i include the SF of solid-decked portion of the structure
structure here (Does not qualify for RGP-6). 0.00
- r If the structure also exceeds width Number of all pier
o Cn requirements, enter any grated SQFT of pier ilin sin USZ.
`n above. p g
Float Grated float in USZ SF solid 132 7.2624
at Forage I Forage fish factor for grated float in USZ 3.6312
Overwater Structure Mitigation Version: 6/7/2018
Impact Units Qty Mitigation
Points
USZ Forage Fish Factor(for oversized or solid-decked structures)
Forage Fish Factor: Project is located in
documented or potential sand lance or surf Yes or No Yes 0.00
= smelt spawning habitat.
Forage Fish Maps
LOWER SHORE ZONE (LSZ) IMPACTS
a Must enter vegetation scenario for LSZ Enter Vegetation 0 NIA
cn (See table 1) Scenario 0-3
Piers & Piles
a ;v If the pier is fully grated and width is < 4 feet
for single use or< 6 feet for joint-use, enter SF of structure 0.00
the SF of structure. No MPs accrued if
N Cn vegetation scenario 0-2.
SF of structure
N If the pier in the LSZ is fully grated and
in u3 width is > 4 feet for single use or > 6 feet for &00
> — joint-use, enter SF of structure. Number of all pier
o Cn pilings in LSZ.
If the pier in the LSZ is proposed to include SF of solid-deck
structure
W d solid-decking, include the SF of solid-decked
portion of the structure here (Does not Number of all pier 0.00
-6 Y qualify for RGP-6). If the structure also pilings for piers
o Cn exceeds width requirements, enter grated with solid decking,
SQFT of pier above. only in LSZ.
Floats
L Enter the SF of float(s), including access
3 float, located in LSZ where the float is 50% SF of structure 696 31.56
grated with 60% or more open space and
N there are 8 or less piles.
Floating Watercraft Lifts
d
Z Enter the SF of floating watercraft lifts SF of pontoon 0.00
L located in the LSZ.
Overwater Structure Mitigation Version: 6/7/2018
Impact Units Qty Mitigation
Points
LSZ Forage Fish Factor
If the project is located in documented or
�9 potential herring spawning habitat, enter
Yes, otherwise No. Yes or No no 0.00
x
Forage Fish Maps
DEEPER SHORE ZONE (DSZ) IMPACTS
as
Enter the square feet of floats located in the SF of structure 0.00
L DSZ.
REQUIRED MITIGATION SUB-TOTAL 42.45
OTHER DEBITTING FACTORS
If the project is located within a pocket
estuary, bluff-backed beach, or pocket
beach, enter Yes, otherwise No. Yes or No 0.00
Coastal Atlas Map
= If the project is located within a Major
Estuary Zone (see Corps webpage for zone
mapping), enter Yes, otherwise No. Yes or No 0.00
Maior Estuary Zone Maps
TOTAL REQUIRED MITIGATION 42.45
Overwater Structure Mitigation Version:6/7/2018
MITIGATION CREDITS
Brief description of proposed mitigation
Compensatory mitigation measures include.
1)removing angular rock from 1,275 square feet of beach(onsite)
2)applying one-time addition of 12 cubic yards of beach gravel across 1,275 square feet(onsite)
3)remove deteriorating creosote bulkhead across 63 feet of shoreline(including removal of 44 pilings),and re-plant
the shoreline. Place 63 linear feet of beach nourishment(another 12 cubic yards)along the soft stabilization
shoreline.
Mitigation Option Units Qty Mitigation Points
(Credit)
Riparian Planting
d Plant native woody vegetation(within 10C on planted area in SF 0.00
c
feet of bulkhead)
o �
Plant native woody vegetation(within 10
� a Planted area in SF 0.00
feet of natural shoreline)
Spawning Gravel
Placement of beach nourishment(forage
fish habitat improvement). Credit given if LF of Shoreline for
required or recommend by WDFW. placement 63 1.26
Typically linear placement waterward of
bulkhead
Erosion Potential Calculated Score 1
Shoretype Score Enter score from 0 N/A
below
Fetch Score Enter score from 1
below
c
mCUMULATIVE RISK MODEL
E
t EROSION POTENTIAL
u!
Shoretyps Score Fetch Score
0
Z No Appreciable Dnft(NAD)-Bedroclutow 0
nergy
Modified,Accretion Shoreform.NAD- 1 D-t mile 1
pp Delta
NAD-Artifiaal.Transport Zone.Pocket 2 1-5 miles 2
Beach
Feeder Bluff 3 5-15 miles 3
Feeder Bluff Exceptional A 15•moles 4
Erosion Potential Score Shoratype Score+Fetch Score
Optional
Placement of beach nourishment in an
irregular polygon(not common). Case-by placement area in
case evaluation. Provide SF of SF 1275 2,55
placement area and erosion potential
(above)
Large Woody Material(LWM)
2 Install large woody material anchored in Placement area in 0.00
USZ SF
Remove Piles
Remove non-treated wood,concrete
oplastic,steel piles,or creosote stub/ Number of piles 0.00
E broken pile
11 of
m
a Remove creosote-treated piles Number of piles 0 0.00
Remove degraded bulkhead Feet of shoreline 0 0.00
Install Float Stops
Overwater Structure Mitigation version:6/7/2018
Mitigation Option Units Qty
Mitigation Points
(Credit)
a Install float stops on existing float that SF of existing
0 o currently grounds out(does not count if 0.00
% float is being removed) structure
Overwater Structure Mitigation Version:617/2018
Mitigation Option Units Qty Mitigation Points
(Credit)
Remove Existing Old Structures
(Constructed more than 25 years ago)
UPPER SHORE ZONE(USZ)MITIGATION
a Remove existing pier in USZ: Enter SF
for fully grated structure if width is>4 SF of structure 0.00
feet for single use or>6 feet for joint-
0 use.
d
T Remove existing pier in USZ. Enter SF
of solid surface,only(assumes
a SF of solid-decking
Y vegetation scenario 0) Additional credit
on elevated pier in 0.00
c may be granted if removal is proposed in
p a high quality SAV scenario. Piling USZ.
rn 6 removal counted separately.
c
X Remove old float or floating watercraft lift
w in USZ(assumes vegetation scenario 0). SF of solid-decking
o o Additional credit may be granted if on float or area of 0.00
E removal is proposed in high quality SAV pontoons on lifts in
—LL° scenario. Piling removal counted USZ
separately.
Forage Fish Factor: Project is located in
documented or potential sand lance or Yes or No 0.00
= surf smelt spawning habitat.
LOWER SHORE ZONE(LSZ)MITIGATION
> Must enter vegetation scenario for LSZ Enter Vegetation N/A
(See table 1) Scenario in LSZ
Piers
d Removal of fully grated pier sections in
the LSZ with width>4 feet for single use
a SF of structure 0.00
R
or>6 feet for joint-use;enter SF of
grated portions of pier.
a Removal of pier in LSZ with solid-
decking, include the SF of solid-decked
portion of the structure here. If the SF of solid-deck 0.00
d structure also exceeds width structure
�2 requirements,enter grated SF of pier
° o above.
O N
m
Floats
c
0 d A Remove grated float(assumes 50% SF of existing grated 0.00
.T LL grated surface)including pilings. float in LSZ
a
> a
o d
E Remove solid-decked float or watercraft SF of existing solid-
-0 �, lift in LSZ. Piling removal counted decked float or 0.00
6 ° separately. watercraft lift in LSZ
O LL
rN
Forage Fish Factor: Project is located in
n documented or potential herring Yes or No 0.00
= spawning habitat.
d
Remove structure in DSZ
SF of existing 0.00
structure in DSZ
in
Overwater Structure Mitigation Version:6/7/2018
Mitigation Option Units Qty Mitigation Points
(Credit)
Remove Existing Functional Structures
(Constructed within the last 2S years)
UPPER SHORE ZONE(USZ)MITIGATION
8 Remove existing pier in USZ: Enter SF
4 ° for fully grated structure if width is>4
SF of structure 0.00
feet for single use or>6 feet for joint-
LL N use.
d
� 3
Remove existing pier in USZ(vegetation
N ' iTLscenario 0): Enter SF of solid-decked
.T
w N portion of the structure here. If the SF of solid-deck 0.00
> structure also exceeds width structure
Ev requirements,enter any grated SF of pier
o above.
Remove existing float or boat lift in USZ
v J (assumes vegetation scenario 0).
r o Additional credit may be granted if SF of solid-decking
a 0.00
removal is proposed in high quality SAV on float in USZ
m
w Cn ° scenario. Piling removal counted
> R separately.
o =
0
;, , Forage Fish Factor: Project is located in
documented or potential sand lance or Yes or No 0.00
LL
x surf smelt spawning habitat.
LOWER SHORE ZONE(LSZ)MITIGATION
> Must enter vegetation scenario for LSZ Enter Vegetation N/A
uai (See table 1) Scenario in LSZ
Piers
d Removal of fully grated pier sections in
a the LSZ with width>4 feet for single use
SF of structure 0.00
m
or>6 feet for joint-use;enter SF of
grated portions of pier.
w
v
Removal of in the LSZ with solid-decking,
include the SF of solid-decked portion of
v ° the structure here. If the structure also SF of solid-deck 0.00
cn a structure
.a
� exceeds width requirements, enter grated
0
r°n SF of pier above.
c Floats
7
V_
Of
= d R Remove grated float(assumes 50% SF of existing grated 0,00
0
K LL grated surface)including pilings. float in LSZ
w
v
> .o
o d
E Remove solid-decked float or floating SF of existing solid-
v watercraft lift in LSZ. Piling removal decked float or 0.00
-6 o counted separately watercraft lift in LSZ
O LL
N
M Forage Fish Factor: Project is located in
n documented or potential herring Yes or No 0,00
i spawning habitat
SF of existing 0.00
Remove structure in DSZ structure in DSZ
Overwater Structure Mitigation Version:6/7/2018
Mitigation Option Units Qty Mitigation Points
(Credit)
Remove Existing Bank Stabilization/Groin/Debris
c Remove existing bank stabilization and
Rplant(Note:used this calculation for LF removed and 63 50.40
N removal of a detetiorating creosote planted
o bulkhead)
Remove entire existing manmade groin SF of groin removed 0.00
o Replacement of hardened bank
o aE Case-by-Case
stabilization with pocket beach
a Complete or partial removal of boat ramp SF of boat ramp 0.00
Lh a �
Removal of concrete debris(Note:used
SF of concrete debris
a) E d this cacluation for removal of angular 1275 829
a rock) removed
N Complete or partial removal of marine Case-by-Case
railway
Forage Fish Factor: Bank stabilization,
R boat ramp,or debris removal occurs in
n documented or potential forage fish Yes or No yes 29.34
= spawning(surf smelt/sand lance in USZ,
herring in LSZ)
Other Case-by-Case
Mitigation Debit Sub-Total 91.84
OTHER CREDITING FACTORS
If the project is located within a pocket
estuary,bluff-backed beach,or pocket Yes or No 0.00
beach enter Yes otherwise No.
Coastal Atlas Map
R If the project is located within a Major
= Estuary Zone(see Corps webpage for
Yes or No 0,00
zone mapping),enter Yes,otherwise No
Maior Estuary Zone Maps
Credit Purchase
�+ N
v Mitigation Bank or In-Lieu-Fee Credit Case-by-Case
U 3
a
TOTAL PROPOSED MITIGATION 91.84
Appendix H - Compensatory Mitigation Plan
1267.0004-Port of Grapeview Dock Soundview Consultants LLC
Shoreline,Critical Areas,FEMA and ESA Assessment Report and Habitat Management Plan December 10,2018
Soundview Consultants LLc
Environmental Assessment • Planning • Land Use Solutions
2907 Harborview Dr.,Suite D, Gig Harbor,WA 98335
Phone:(253)514-8952 Fax:(253)514-8954
Compensatory Mitigation Plan for Impacts to Non-Wetland Aquatic
Resources
NWS-2018-161 Port of Grapeview(Bloating Community Dock)
Port of Grapeview Dock—Grapeview Loop Road&Griswold Avenue
Port of Grapeview
Grapeview, WA:Case Inlet
Revised December 10, 2018
Ann Boebolt, Senior Environmental Planner, Soundview Consultants, LLC
1. Project Description
The proposed project is to construct a new 162-linear foot community dock consisting of a 48-foot by 5-
foot gangway that is partially over land and a 121-foot by 8-foot floating dock. The floating dock will
consist of six (6), 20-foot by 8-foot pre-fabricated fiberglass sections with more than 50 percent grating.
Each float section will be supported by a 10-inch diameter steel pile. The waterward end of the dock will
reach-4.0 feet(relative to MLLVV) in elevation with the furthest waterward steel pile placed at-3.0 feet. A
48-foot by 5-foot grated aluminum gangway with metal railings will be attached to the floating dock and
supported by one (1), 10-inch steel pile. A total of seven (7) piles are proposed for the entire dock. A
footing will be placed landward of the existing bulkhead (and above OHW) in order to support the
platform onto which the gangway will attach. The existing bulkhead along the Port of Grapeview property
will not be altered. The 8-foot square concrete platform will be ADA compliant,with wood railings. This
platform will connect further landward to a new approximately 142-square-foot concrete sidewalk,which
will provide pedestrian access (including ADA access) from Griswold Avenue.
2. Existing Conditions of Aquatic Resources
The proposed floating dock is proposed to be along the west side of that portion of Case Inlet between
Reach (Treasure) Island and the mainland. A 2017 beach and aquatic vegetation survey (SVC, 2017)
observed that the beach substrate consisted of 100 percent imported angular rock from approximately 16-
foot to 10-foot elevations,small cobble over mucky sand and barnacles from approximately 10-foot to 4-
foot elevations, and a mud flat consisting of mucky silt from approximate 4-foot to minus 7-foot
elevations. The survey team observed no eelgrass or macroalgae species. However, small patches of
pickleweed (Salicornia depressa) and seaside plantain (Plantago maritima) were observed on either side of the
stormwater outfall culvert. Observations concluded that the area was not conducive to good forage fish
habitat. Table 1 summarizes the flora and fauna identified during this survey.
Soundview Consultants i.tc Revised December 10,2018
1267.0004 Port of Grapeview—Compensatory Mitigation Plan Page 1 of 13
Table 1. Observed Species in the Vicinity of the Project Area (SVC, 2017).
Observed Flora/Fauna ' eseri tion/Other Infortnatiol
Pickleweed (Salicornia depnssa) Small patch observed on either side of culvert
Seaside plantain (Plantago Small patch observed on either side of culvert
maritima
Sea lettuce Ulva s Sparse patches observed at the OHW to the 4-foot elevation
Barnacles Balanus landula Numerous observed at the OHW to the 4-foot elevation
Mud snail Batillaria attramentaria Numerous observed at the OHW to the 4-foot elevation
Clam holes Numerous observed at the OHW to the 4-foot elevation
Moon snail Ulva s One identified in the mud flat area
Moon snail collar(Nemita lenisii) Several identified in the mud flat area from approximate 4-foot
elevation to minus 8-foot elevation
Red rock crab (Cancerproductus) Several identified in the mud flat area from approximate 4-foot
elevation to minus 8-foot elevation
Bay host shrimp Neot oa s . One individual identified at waterward end of existing boat ram
Bent-nosed clam(Macoma nasuta) One individual identified in mud flat area by end of existing
ram
Sea star Pisaster s One individual identified at waterward end of existing boat ram
Pacific oyster o Crassostreagg i as) Observed along terminal end of the T2 at the approximate 3-
y ( foot elevation
Red branched algae (Odonthalia Unattached; observed drifting in the water
floccose)
3. Avoidance and Minimization of Aquatic Resource Impacts
Minimal work will occur over or within the water because the pier to which the gangway attaches will be
landward of OHW. Only the gangway and floating dock(together comprising a dock that is 162-feet long)
will extend into the waters of Case Inlet. The new floating dock will be grated,to allow light penetration.
The presence of a community dock will minimize the need for additional joint-use and individual docks
within the vicinity of Grapeview and Reach (Treasure) Island, Case Inlet. Additional compensatory
mitigation will include removal of angular rock and placement of beach nourishment material onsite,
removal of a dysfunctional creosote bulkhead along a shoreline parcel immediately north of the subject
site, and soft shoreline stabilization and shoreline plant community restoration at the prior bulkhead
location. Together these measures will significantly improve the quality of shoreline habitat at the Port of
Grapeview property.
The project will meet most of the Special Conditions for RGP-6,with the following exceptions:
1. Portions of the floating dock section (264 square feet), will be within the Upper Shore Zone
(landward of+5 feet MLLW),a condition which is disallowed in the RGP-6 special conditions.
2. The width of the ramp will be 5 feet(rather than the 4 feet maximum width allowed in the special
conditions).
Avoidance
Most of the construction associated with this project shall occur landward of the OHW. This is a water
dependent use,so it is not possible to completely avoid all adverse impacts.
Soundview Consultants uc Revised December 10,2018
1267.0004 Port of Grapeview—Compensatory Mitigation Plan Page 2 of 13
Minimization
Unavoidable impacts of the project are minimized by incorporating BMPs including,but not limited to:
• Limiting the disturbed areas to the maximum extent possible during project implementation.
• Incorporating appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures.
• Using vegetable oil-based hydraulic fluids in all equipment working in-water.
• Preparing and training crews regarding a spill prevention and pollution control plan.
• Storing,staging,and refueling equipment outside the beach and riparian habitat zone.
• Inspecting equipment for leaks daily.
• Re-vegetating all upland areas temporarily disturbed with native plants.
Intertidal work is limited to installation of seven 10-inch diameter pilings. Installation of pilings will occur
from a floating barge, during high tides. Installation of the gangway and floating dock sections will be
accomplished by floating in these pre-fabricated elements and attaching them, while working from a
floating barge. Short term construction impacts are minimized by working in this manner, as opposed to
working from a barge grounded on the beach during low tide.
The proposed removal of a deteriorating creosote bulkhead at a nearby offsite mitigation area (less than
100 feet away from the proposed project area) will occur during low tide and the disturbed substrate will
be replaced with a clean mix of gravel and sand to minimize temporary increases in creosote load.
Additional minimization measures for creosote removal can be implemented following the WA
Department of Natural Resources BMPs for derelict creosote piling removal(DNR,2017).
The contractor will be required to submit a Construction/Tides Plan outlining possible work dates and
times that allow construction of all portions of the project during the applicable tide. It is possible that
some work may need to be conducted during the evening hours,as that is when low tides occur during the
proposed construction window.
An oil-absorbent boom will be placed around the perimeter of the over-water work area to prevent
petroleum products from inadvertent releases from overwater construction equipment. Work at the OHW
will be enclosed within a coir log barrier which will prevent sediments and debris from migrating
waterward. BMP structures will be removed when the work is completed, or tide is flooding. All
construction equipment will be inspected daily for fluid leaks and no equipment will leave the staging area
until any leaks are repaired. Fueling and maintenance of equipment will occur in upland staging areas only.
When barge equipment is to be used, no grounding will be allowed. No excavated materials will be
stockpiled below OHW. No materials will be stockpiled outside of the staging area.
Construction impacts will be further minimized by timing all work below the OHW to occur from July 15
through February 15 of any two consecutive years,thereby avoiding work during salmonid migration and
spawning surf smelt windows. Minimizing piling diameter and installation with a vibratory hammer rather
than impact hammer will significantly reduce potential underwater construction noise during piling
installation.
Permanent impacts from the project are minimized by providing the smallest diameter of pilings necessary
to secure the proposed floating dock,given the currents within this waterway and the anticipated tension
and pressure from boat usage. The floating dock will be comprised of fiberglass grating that allows more
than 50 percent of the light to penetrate (i.e., more than 50 percent grated), thereby minimizing the
potential adverse shading effects of this new overwater structure.
Soundview Consultants>s.c Revised December 10,2018
1267.0004 Port of Grapeview—Compensatory Mitigation Plan Page 3 of 13 '
4. Unavoidable Aquatic Resources Impacts
On October 19, 2017 the USACE modified and re-issued Regional General Permit 6 (RGP-6) (33 CFR
325.2(e)(2)) to authorize certain activities in or affecting waters of the U.S, including navigable waters of
the U.S, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act (RHA) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). It is understood that the RGP-6
criteria were approved to meet USACE and Programmatic ESA Consultation Reference Numbers NWS-
2002-1291, RGP-6. The subject proposal does not meet the criteria for RGP-6 since it is not for a new
residential structure;however,the USACE has recommended the use of the RGP-6 mitigation calculator to
determine the debits of impact and mitigation credits necessary to compensate for this proposed new
community dock.
Project elements within Waters of the State and United States are limited to the ramp and floating dock
(including the pilings to support them). Due to physical constraints, the ramp can be no longer than 48
feet. Some of the length of the ramp overlaps the landward-most floating dock section and some of it
overlaps the land—making the effective overwater length of the ramp approximately 40.5 feet. The 202.5
square feet (40.5 feet x 5 feet) of effective overwater ramp will provide some shading of the aquatic
environment,although the shading level is reduced by the elevation of the ramp off the water. The RGP-
6 method does not include debit calculations for ramps as the method assumes that new ramps will meet
the dimensional requirements for new residential dock ramps of less than 4 feet in width with a fully grated
surface and will not provide significant overwater shading. The proposed ramp for the floating dock is 5
feet in width to accommodate the moderate to high pedestrian movement expected on the community
dock. As the RGP-6 method does not include debit calculations for new dock ramps, the proposed
gangway is assumed to have no debit calculations.
The RGP-6 mitigation calculator describes and quantifies impacts according to their location within the
Riparian Zone (RZ),Upper Shore Zone (USZ),Lower Shore Zone (LSZ),and Deep Shore Zone (DSZ).
The RZ is defined as the area 50 feet landward of the high tide line. The USZ is defined as the area between
the high tide line and +5 MLLW. The LSZ is defined as the area between +5 MLLW and-10 MLLW, or
the limits of submerged aquatic vegetation. The DSZ is defined as the area waterward of-10 MLLW or
the limits of submerged aquatic vegetation.
The RGP-6 mitigation calculator was modified somewhat for use with this proposed community dock.
The special conditions of the RGP-6 state that no floats may installed in the USZ,and the RGP-6 calculator
accordingly does not provide a calculation for the impact of new float within the USZ. Due to the
steepness of the beach and narrow fetch of the waterway at this location, however, the subject proposal
will not have a pier over the water but does include the placement of 264 square feet of floating dock
within the USZ. To calculate the impact of the proposed float within the USZ, we used the RGP-6
calculator's equation for removing a float constructed within the last 25 years from the USZ. This equation
requires an input of the solid-decking on the float. The proposed float has 50-percent functionally grated
surfaces, so we provided 50 percent of the float (132 square feet) as the input to the equation. As the
proposed project is located in potential forage fish spawning habitat,we applied the forage fish factor to
the calculation of impacts for the float within the USZ.
While the proposed project is not subject to RGP-6;the project abides by the RGP-6 special conditions as
much as possible--with the exception that floating dock sections are proposed within the USZ and that the
gangway ramp will be five feet wide (not four feet wide). Using RGP-6 calculations for unavoidable
impacts,the unavoidable impacts of the project result in 42.45 debit mitigation points (MP) (Table 2).
Soundview Consultants uc Revised December 10,2018
1267.0004 Port of Grapeview—Compensatory Mitigation Plan Page 4 of 13
Table 2. Impacts to Aquatic Resources
Required
Impact Impact Element Impact Element Description Mitigation
Location Points
Debits
Riparian Zone Pedestrian access Construction of the pedestrian access will rJ.�iu
including platform remove 219 square feet of existing lawn
and sidewalk vegetation. Replacing the lawn vegetation
with the pedestrian access will have
minimal impact on the existing riparian
condition.
Upper Shore Zone Aluminum gangway The aluminum gangway will partially shade 0.00
with greater than 202.5 square feet of aquatic environment.
50%grating.
Upper Shore Zone 10-inch steel pile Seven pile are proposed for the entire dock. 0.00
and Lower Shore The seven pile will permanently obscure
Zone 3.82 square feet of substrate.
Upper Shore Zone Pre-fabricated float The 264 square feet of float(with 50% 7.26
with more than 50 grated surface)located in the USZ will
percent grating and result in 132 square feet of shading to the
float stops aquatic environment.
Upper Shore Zone Forage fish factor Additional debit points for construction of 3.63
float within USZ that provides potential
forage fish spawning habitat
Lower Shore Zone Pre-fabricated float The 696 square feet of float(with 50% 31.56
with more than 50 grated surface)located in the LSZ will
percent grating and partially shade the aquatic environment
float stops underneath. SAV Scenario =0.
Total Mitigation Debits 42.45
5. Impacted Aquatic Resource Functions
The proposed project could adversely affect Waters of the United States with direct and short-term actions.
Specifically, driving 7 piles and barging in and attaching floating dock sections may result in temporary
increases in terrestrial and underwater noise and temporary sediment and beach substrate disturbance
during construction. Upland construction of the concrete sidewalk and pier platform,and replacement of
an eight-foot section of bulkhead could cause additional water quality impacts,even though this work is to
be conducted at and above OHW (and outside of waters of the United States). BMPs will be used to
reduce the noise and water quality disturbance from the project.
Long term adverse impacts could result from the new overwater structure shading a portion of the intertidal
zone and interfering with fish migration along the shoreline. The proposal will involve the installation of
seven, 10-inch steel pilings that will collectively displace a total of 3.82 square feet of substrate and could
also impede natural sediment transport processes. Some of the length of the ramp overlaps the landward-
most floating dock section and the other end of the ramp overlaps the upland by three feet—making the
Soundview Consultants uc Revised December 10,2018
1267.0004 Port of Grapeview—Compensatory Mitigation Plan Page 5 of 13
effective overwater length of the ramp 40.5 feet. The 202.5 square feet (40.5 feet x 5 feet) of effective
overwater ramp will provide some shading of the aquatic environment, although the shading level is
reduced by the elevation of the ramp off the water. The proposed float will be constructed with six,20-
foot by 8-foot,pre-fabricated fiberglass sections with greater than 50 percent grated surfaces,creating 960
square feet of new overwater shading. The dock is a community dock and is anticipated to experience
moderate to high levels of boat traffic from very short-term, temporary moorage of vessels. The boat
traffic may increase ambient noise levels near the dock and shading of the aquatic environment.
6. Mitigation Site Selection Rationale
The mitigation plan includes actions to occur onsite and at a nearby offsite location. The two mitigation
sites are located in Case Inlet (Puget Sound waters). The mitigation plan has been designed to improve
food availability and water quality for juvenile salmonids. Shoreline armoring and similar structures that
impede nearshore habitat formation and toxic materials have been identified as limiting salmonid recovery
in the South Puget Sound (Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, 2007). The onsite mitigation area currently
contains angular rock within the USZ that obscures surf smelt spawning habitat. Surf smelt populations
have declined in Puget Sound in recent decades (Greene et al 2015), and the proposed mitigation site
provides an opportunity to enhance surf smelt spawning habitat. Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife (WDFW) approval of the proposed onsite mitigation area is pending through a Hydraulic
Project Approval (HPA) permit for the proposed project. WDFW has approved beach nourishment as a
mitigation action for a bulkhead project on Case Inlet approximately 2.60 miles away from the proposed
project area(HPA Permit Number 2017-6-508+01),and the onsite mitigation area likely provides suitable
surf smelt spawning habitat.
The proposed offsite mitigation area (less than 100 feet away from the proposed project area) currently
contains a degraded creosote bulkhead. As a contaminant associated with increased fish mortality(DNR,
2013), creosote impairs the nearshore habitat for salmonids. The proposed offsite mitigation area offers
the opportunity to improve water quality in the nearshore habitat.
7. Mitigation Work Plan and Description of Aquatic Functions Provided at Mitigation Site
Compensatory mitigation measures include: 1) removing angular rock (onsite), 2) applying one-time
addition of beach gravel and coarse sand meeting WDFW specifications for beach nourishment (onsite),
3) remove deteriorating creosote bulkhead, replant the shoreline, and install soft shoreline stabilization
(offsite). These compensatory mitigation measures are intended to enhance nearshore habitat by providing
opportunities for forage fish spawning, improving fish migration pathways along the nearshore, and
improving water quality. Please see the project drawings (Attachment A) for the locations of these
Mitigation measures.
The existing project area includes 1,275 square feet of angular rock spread over the USZ. This rock
obscures potential forage fish spawning substrate and impedes juvenile salmonid migration along the shore.
This area of angular rock removal will be included within the 2,220-square-foot area proposed for beach
nourishment. Removal of the angular rock will occur by hand and placement of the beach nourishment
will occur using a shooter operating from the land. These actions will occur during low tide to avoid any
potential impacts on turbidity-related water quality or fish behavior. This mitigation work will occur during
WDFW's recommended fish window for the project area:July 15 to February 15 of consecutive years.
The offsite mitigation area contains a deteriorated creosote bulkhead along an eroding shoreline. The
riparian area consists entirely of lawn. The bulkhead currently stretches across approximately 63 feet of
Soundview Consultants u1c Revised December 10,2018
1267.0004 Port of Grapeview—Compensatory Mitigation Plan Page 6 of 13
shoreline and is comprised of approximately 44 pilings with some remaining cross-beams. High tides
regularly encroach landward of the degraded bulkhead, and the bulkhead no longer provides functional
shoreline stabilization(Figure 1). Mitigation will consist of: 1) removing the remaining bulkhead structure,
including the pilings and cross-beams,2)recontouring the shoreline slope,3)laying jute matting and topsoil
within 10 to 15-foot wide shoreline restoration area, 4) installing soft shoreline stabilization features
(anchored logs with root wads and embedded rocks), 5) replanting a 10 to 15-foot wide area behind the
shoreline, and 6) placing beach nourishment material in front of the soft shoreline stabilization features
along the entirety of the affected area. Bulkhead removal and soft shoreline stabilization installation will
occur using an excavator or similar equipment during low tide to minimize potential water quality impacts
related to disturbance of creosote materials and turbidity. Additional minimization measures for creosote
removal can be implemented following the WA Department of Natural Resources BMPs for derelict
creosote piling removal (DNR,2017). The footprint of the bulkhead and areas disturbed during removal
will be covered with a beach nourishment material meeting WDFW specifications. This mitigation work
will occur during WDFW's recommended fish window for the project area: July 15 to February 15 of
consecutive years.
Figure 1.
Offsite dysfunctional creosote timber bulkhead and
eroding shoreline. Site of proposed soft shoreline
stabilization/restoration and creosote timber removal.
(Photo taken at high tide—above MHHW tide).
The RGP-6 mitigation calculator was used to
support mitigation planning for this
proposed project by guiding decisions about
the appropriate mitigation quantities to be
provided. The RGP-6 calculator does not '�'�
include an equation for the removal of
angular rock from the beach, but it does
include an equation for the removal of
concrete debris from the beach. Angular
rock obscures beach substrate in a manner
similar to concrete debris, and we used the '
formula for removal of concrete debris to
determine the mitigation value provided by
removing angular rock.
The removal of the creosote bulkhead was
quantified using the RGP-6 calculator's
equation using the calculator's equation for
removing a bulkhead and providing riparian
plantings. Bulkheads generally indirectly
impact the forage and migration primary
constituent elements(PCEs) [now referred to
as PBF's—Physical and Biological Features] for Puget Sound Chinook and steelhead by preventing
substrate and organic matter transport from the uplands to the nearshore environment and creating an
abrupt shoreline edge(Ehinger et al,2015). While the existing creosote bulkhead is not a fully functioning
bulkhead due to its deteriorated status,the remaining portion of the bulkhead likely alters wave action and
erosion along the shoreline, affecting the movement of material from the land to the nearshore
Soundview Consultants u.c Revised December 10,2018
1267.0004 Port of Grapeview—Compensatory Mitigation Plan Page 7 of 13
environment. The RGP-6 calculator provides a calculation for the MP value of removing a bulkhead and
replanting the riparian zone.(0.80 MP per linear foot of removal). This calculation accounts for restoration
of substrate and organic matter transport following bulkhead removal and restoration of organic matter
provision following riparian vegetation plantings. We assumed that the existing RGP-6 calculation splits
the 0.80 MP evenly between the bulkhead removal and riparian plantings actions (0.40 MP for bulkhead
removal and 0.40 MP for riparian plantings). We then assumed that removal of a degraded bulkhead is
worth half of a fully functioning bulkhead removal (0.20 MP per linear foot). However, as the degraded
bulkhead is constructed from creosote material, we used a multiplication factor of 2 and adjusted the
removal of the degraded bulkhead back to 0.40 MP per linear foot. The RGP-6 calculator uses this
multiplication factor for determining the value of removing creosote piles (1 MP per pile) compared to the
value of non-creosote pile (0.50 MP per pile) from the nearshore environment. Therefore, our final
calculation for determining the mitigation credit for removing the creosote-treated bulkhead and replanting
the shoreline uses 0.80 MP per linear foot.
Table 3. Mitigation Elements and Functions
Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation
Location Element Mitigation Description Function Point Value
Credits
Upper Shore Beach Re-contour beach to natural Enhance nearshorc 21.55
Zone Nourishment/ grade and apply one-time habitat for surf
Restoration addition of 12 cubic yards of smelt spawning
beach gravel across 1,275
square feet.
Upper Shore Beach Angular rock("bull-rock' to Enhance nearshore 8.29
Zone Cleanup be removed from 1,275 square habitat for surf
feet. smeltspawning
Upper Shore Creosote Remove deteriorated bulkhead Restore natural 50.40
Zone) Bulkhead along 63 linear feet of wave action along
Removal and shoreline,replant shoreline, shoreline
Replanting and install soft shoreline
Shoreline stabilization features
Upper Shore Beach Apply one-time addition of Enhance nearshore 1.26
Zone Nourishment beach gravel across 63 linear habitat for surf
(offsite) feet of shoreline in front of smelt spawning
soft shoreline stabilization
features
Upper Shore Forage Fish Forage Fish Factor:Bank Improve viability of 29.34
Zone Factor stabilization and debris habitat for potential
(offsite) removal occurs in potential surf smelt spawning
forage fish spawning(surf
smelt) in USZ.
Total Mitigation Credits 91.84
Soft shoreline stabilization will be installed following geotechnical recommendations for the site (Schembs
et al,2018--Attachment B). The soft shoreline stabilization features will consist of logs with attached root
balls anchored to buried boulders and embedded rocks. The anchored logs with attached root balls are
expected to enhance habitat along the replanted shoreline by providing complex structures to provide
cover for aquatic organisms. The mitigation project drawings are included in Attachment A. The logs
Soundview Consultants n.c Revised December 10,2018
1267.0004 Port of Grapeview—Compensatory Mitigation Plan Page 8 of 13
with rootwads will be placed above the MHHW and the shoreline behind the removed bulkhead will be
gently graded back at a slope not to exceed 2:1.
Table 3 lists the RGP-6 mitigation point values associated with each action. The proposed project
provides 91.84 MP credits to compensate for the 42.45 MP debits described above. This obviously
exceeds the number of MP credits required,per the RGP-6 mitigation calculator;however,the
Engineering Geology Report concluded that removal of the pilings without additional soft shoreline
stabilization and shoreline replanting would provide an unwanted opportunity for continued shoreline
erosion at the off-site shoreline location. The Port concluded they should not attempt to do this project
halfway and so have included shoreline restoration and replanting elements.
8. Site Protection Instrument
The Port of Grapeview owns the site of the proposed dock and they are in negotiations with the current
property owner of the off-site (bulkhead) mitigation location to purchase that lot. A restrictive covenant
addressing the off-site mitigation (bulkhead removal and shoreline restoration) area will be prepared and
recorded with a title company and the County assessor. This restrictive covenant will prohibit incompatible
uses that might jeopardize the objectives of the compensatory mitigation. Incompatible uses include (but
are not limited to)any future stabilization of the shoreline,other than additional soft stabilization measures
should the proposed measures fail wholly or in part; and development of boat ramps, docks, or any
additional overwater structures on the subject parcels.
9. Maintenance Plan
The Port of Grapeview is committed to compliance with the mitigation plan and overall success of the
project.
The Port of Grapeview is in the process of purchasing the offsite mitigation area and will also be
responsible for maintenance at this site. The removal of the deteriorating creosote bulkhead is a one-time
action. The removed creosote material will be sent to a state-approved disposal facility,and no additional
maintenance is anticipated. The proposed native plantings along the shoreline at the offsite mitigation area
will be maintained to minimize encroachment of any non-native, invasive species and to ensure that the
survival performance standards are met. Maintenance will include weeding and watering during the initial
establishment period and replacement of plantings as necessary. The Port of Grapeview will continue to
ensure that this area is kept free of trash and other debris that obscures the forage fish spawning substrate
as part of routine maintenance operations.
Shoreline stabilization structures (buried concrete block anchors, logs with rootwads, and boulders) are
expected to be self-sustaining and will need no maintenance, other than tightening or removing cables if
they are no longer needed or if they become a hazard. The jute matting under the shoreline planting area
will gradually decompose,concurrent with stabilization of the shoreline with roots of planted vegetation;
this will not need any maintenance.
10. Performance Standards
The goals and objectives for the mitigation actions are based on compensating for lost functions and
providing overall improvement in the quality of shoreland habitat,with the goal of improving nearshore
habitat functions that are limiting for salmonids within Puget Sound(food availability and water quality).
These compensatory mitigation measures are capable of enhancing nearshore salmonid habitat by
Soundview Consultants uc Revised December 10,2018
1267.0004 Port of Grapeview—Compensatory Mitigation Plan Page 9 of 13
providing native shoreline vegetation, forage fish spawning habitat and improving water quality. The
goals,objectives,and performance standards for the mitigation actions are as follows:
Goal 1—Establish forage fish spawning habitat by placing a mixture of beach gravel and sand to
provide a substrate for surf smelt eggs in the USZ.
Objective 1.1—Establish appropriate substrate for surf smelt spawning.
Performance Standard 1.1.1 — A minimum of 25 percent of the beach
nourishment area, to a depth of 2 inches, should contain a mixture of pea gravel
and coarse sand that is suitable to surf smelt spawning(Penttila,2007) for the first
two years after installation.
Goal 2 —Remove deteriorating creosote bulkhead.
Objective 2.1—Improve water quality in the nearshore environment.
Performance Standard 2.1.1 —The existing creosote bulkhead (including pilings
and cross-beams)will be removed,and material will be disposed of according with
state guidelines.
Goal 3—Maintain a beach that is free of garbage.
Objective 3.1—Remove garbage from the beach to improve the quality of beach habitat.
Performance Standard 3.1.1 — No garbage will be present within the mitigation
area in all monitoring years.
Goal 4—Establish shoreline riparian area consisting of native shrub and herbaceous species.
Objective 4.1—Improve habitat conditions within the riparian zone.
Performance Standard 4.1.1 — Native shrub species will have 100% survival at
Year 1. Survival rates will be 80% during following monitoring years.
11. Monitoring Requirements
The Port of Grapeview is committed to compliance with the mitigation plan and overall success of the
project. As such, the Port of Grapeview will continue to maintain the project, maintaining the native
plantings and keeping the site free of non-native invasive vegetation, trash, and waste. Therefore, the
mitigation site will be monitored for a period of three (3) years with formal inspections by a qualified
Project Biologist. Monitoring events will be scheduled at the time of construction and late in the first
through final year's growing seasons in Years 1,2,and 3. Monitoring actions and methods are as follows:
• Quantitatively describe beach substrate within the beach nourishment area by describing substrate
size using a sediment size chart from three square quadrats (1 foot by 1 foot) randomly placed
within the beach nourishment area.
• Photograph the proposed project area to document removal of creosote debris in Year 1.
Documentation, such as receipt or email confirmation, of the safe disposal of removed creosote
debris will be provided in Year 1.
• Qualify garbage presence on the beach by conducting walkthrough surveys of the onsite beach
area. Provide estimate of cubic yards of any garbage.
• Quantify native shrub plantings survival rate. Survival rates will be quantified by recording
observed live and dead plants.
Soundview Consultants uc Revised December 10,2018
1267.0004 Port of Grapeview—Compensatory Mitigation Plan Page 10 of 13
• Walkthrough surveys of the mitigation areas will also be conducted to photograph mitigation site
conditions from fixed photo points and make qualitative observations of wildlife and general
habitat function.
12. Long-term Management Plan
As the owner of the onsite mitigation area, the Port of Grapeview is responsible for the long-term
management of the mitigation project. The Port of Grapeview intends to acquire the offsite mitigation
area and will be responsible for the long-term management of this area. The Port of Grapeview shall
continue to monitor the USZ beach areas for garbage and remove any artificial debris that accumulates.
The native planting area at the offsite mitigation area will continue to be monitored for significant
encroachment of non-native,invasive species or die-off of native plants.
13. Adaptive Management Plan
The proposed mitigation actions are one-time actions that will require minimal maintenance, and
anticipated adaptive management is minimal.
14. References
Greene, Correigh, Lauren Kuehne, Casimir Rice, Kurt Fresh, and Daniel Penttila. 2015. Forty years of
change in forage fish and jellyfish abundance across greater Puget Sound, Washington (USA):
anthropogenic and climate associations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 525: 153-170.
Penttila, Dan. 2007. Marine forage fishes in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Report
No. 2007-03. Published by Seattle District,U.W.Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle,Washington.
Schembs,Keith Scott,Jordan Kovash,and Seth Mattos. 2018. Engineering Geology Report and Proposed
Shoreline Restoration, XXX-Grapeview Loop Road, Mason County, Washington. GeoResources
Earth Science and Geotechnical Engineering;Fife,Washington. September 28,2018.
Shared Strategy for Puget Sound. 2007. Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan: Volume 1. Seattle,
Washington.
Soundview Consultants,LLC (SVC). 2017. Eelgrass and Macroalgae Survey Results for Grapeview Loop
Road&Griswald Avenue,Grapeview,WA,Mason County Tax Parcel Number 12015-51-00900.June
2017. Gig Harbor,Washington.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2013. Brief Science of Creosote. Website:
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/agr_cleanup_creosote_brief.pdf. October 2,2013.
DNR. 2017. Derelict Creosote Piling Removal Best Management Practices for Pile Removal&Disposal.
Updated January 25,2017.
Soundview Consultants u.c Revised December 10,2018
1267.0004 Port of Grapeview—Compensatory Mitigation Plan Page 11 of 13
Attachment A Project Drawings
Soundview Consultants LLc Revised December 10,2018
1267.0004 Port of Grapeview—Compensatory Mitigation Plan
LOCATION:
THE SE 74 OF SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 21 N,RANGE 1 W,W.M. SHORELINE
MASON COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 12105-51-00900 RESTORATION SITE
LAT 47°20' 17"N LONG-1220 49'57.25"W
(MITIGATION SITE)
VICINITY MAP ADJACENT OWNERSHIP
x
'I fi n:rt lr s4a rr,.1
Falr Harbor
SITE Q
O�
f�rVICINITY �' O�
Q<4
SHORELINE
®�RESTORATION O
(MITIGATION SITE)
, ® Re -j.I:larrd
PROJECT PROJECT SITE
SITE
® ® w
R Lu
cn
4 ' U
SOURCE:ESRI,OSM,USGS SOURCE:MASON COUNTY GIS
ADJACENT OWNERS: PROJECT:PORT OF GRAPEVIEW COMMUNITY DOCK AND SHORELINE RESTORATION
1.BIANCHI,ROBERT&MARGARET PURPOSE:PUBLIC ACCESS AND SHORT TERM AND REFERENCE#: NWS-2018-161
2.CARTER,MARK&DIANE LIMITED DURATION MOORING OF BOATS BEFORE IN: REACH(TREASURE)ISLAND
3.PORT OF GRAPEVIEW AND AFTER LAUNCHING BOATS AT THE BOAT RAMP NEAR: REACH(TREASURE)ISLAND
4.NELSON,VERNON&SUSAN
5.NELSON,VERNON&SUSAN SITE ADDRESS: COUNTY: MASON
6.MCNEISH,JOHN ALBERT&MELISSA GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD&GRISWOLD AVE APPLICANT: PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
MARTIN GRAPEVIEW,WASHINGTON 98546 SHEET: I of 11 11 DATE: 12/07/2018
EXISTING
BULKHEAD
ERODING [y1HH1/V PACIFIC OYSTER BED
i
SEGMENT OF 14.16 , i (Crassostrea gigas)
SHORELINE i ,� I --1055 SF
PRELIMINARY / REMAINING ROW , r r! / \ /
( OF PILE FROM MLLW 0.0' ) '
INFORMATION ONLY 1
FAILED BULKHEAD
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I T EXISTING — r,i% % 3 l
BULKHEAD
SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS,LLC.ASSUMES I �
ANGULAR ROCK
NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR —1,275 SF �f \ \ / 2
CONSTRUCTION,IMPROVEMENTS, OR I r„�R,a wq' `' / (u
ESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET 1 I / / / / U
Lo _ EXISTING
STORM
nER�No OUTFALL
OIOSWOIDAVE +
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
EXISTING
CONCRETE /
BOAT RAMP /
TO REMAIN /
N
• �'� / MHHW / ljL OPERTY BOUNDARIES SHOWf
14.16' � � APPROXIMA �ENLY.
i
/ MLLW 0.0' /A I
EXISTING
LOOKING WEST AT PROJECT SITE (2006) ) / MARINA / /
/� FAIR HARBOR MARINA
(DOES NOT SHOW RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED CONC. RAMP)
TIDAL DATUM pATUM (MLLW EXISTING CONDITIONS PROJECT:PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER =+ 14.16t COMMUNITY DOCK
MEAN HIGHER WATER =+ 13.22t AND SHORELINE RESTORATION
MEAN LOW WATER =+ 3.23t REFERENCE#
MEAN LOWER LOW WATER = 0.0t 0 30 60 120 APPLICANT: PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
LOCATION: GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD&
NOTE:TIDAL ELEVATIONS DRAWN GRISWOLD AVE,GRAPEVIEW,WA,98546
APPROXIMATELY. GRAPHIC SCALE
1.=60' I SHEET: 2 of 11 DATE: 12/07/2018
MITIGATION SITES
MITIGATION AREA 2-PHASE 1: �� fyFhiH1/V PACIFIC OYSTER BED
REMOVE EXISTING ROW OF PILE AND 14.16' i (Crassostrea gigas)
INSTALL MIN.12 CU YD BEACH GRAVEL TO — I i I I —1055 SF
REPLACE VOLUME OF PILES(SEE SHEET 5) ' -- .-- -7
MITIGATION AREA 2-PHASE 2: I / MLLW 0.0' ) I I
GRADE ERODED SLOPE AND INSTALL
SHORELINE STABILIZATION ELEMENTS: 7 T
ANCHORED LOGS WITH ROOTWADS, PLATFORM FLOATING DOCK
BOULDERS AND NATIVE PLANTS(SEE ELEVATION
SHEET 6 AND SHEET 8 FOR DETAILS) 19' PILINGS(7)
I
\" ADA GANGWAY / I I uj
SIDEWALK 1 I � \ `� Ico
U
1 \ 1
Ilk
GF48WOLDAV I / OHW 16.64'
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
INSTALL DIFFUSER TEE AT
EXISTING STORMWATER OUTFALL-
SEE DETAIL SHEET 11 MITIGATION AREA 1 -
"a�.Ea REMOVE ANGULAR
/ I I
ROCK AND INSTALL
/ BEACH GRAVEL
/ / / / / / / SEE SHEET 4
PRELIMINARY � � / / ( ),
INFORMATION ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION _ \� \` j / / / / N�
MHHW / / fjLLpRO 'ERTY BOUNDARIES SHOWP
SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS,LLC.ASSUMES — — \\\ \ t /14.16' APppROXIMA7E'�NLY.
MLLW 0. /NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION,IMPROVEMENTS, OR
ESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET — — — \\ ///�/J ) / / / / / FAIR HARBOR MARINA l
TIDAL DATUM (MLLW) PROPOSED PROJECT PROJECT:PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER =+ 14.16f COMMUNITY DOCK
MEAN HIGHER WATER =+ 13.22t AND SHORELINE RESTORATION
MEAN LOW WATER =+ 3.23t REFERENCE#
MEAN LOWER LOW WATER = 0.0± 0 30 60 120 APPLICANT: PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
LOCATION: GR'PEVIEW LOOP RD&
NOTE:TIDAL ELEVATIONS DRAWN GRISWOLD AVE,GRAPEVIEW,WA,98546
APPROXIMATELY. GRAPHIC SCALE
i•=so' SHEET: 3 of I I DATE: 12/07/2018�J
l EXISTI G
I CONC
\ WALL i
\ / REMOVE ANGULAR ROCK
I AND ADD BEACH GRAVEL
\ —1,275 SF
/ GANGWAY FLOATING DOCK /
i
lo
e
tip A! d. N
r' INSTALL DIFFUSER TEE
AT STORMWATER OUTFALL— \ PREVIOUS PROJECT
SEE DETAIL SHEET 11 B T RAMP
MHHW 1 \ 1
O 14.16'
PRELIMINAR \
NFORMATION ONLY
NOT FOR ICONS7CTIONUNDVIEW CONSULTNO LIABIITIY
�r CONSTRUC170N,IDIPRO�EMEN IS,OR / /
ESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET I
TIDAL DATUM (MLLWW) MITIGATION MEASURES-AREA I PROJECT:PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER =+ 14.16t COMMUNITY DOCK
MEAN HIGHER WATER =+ 13.22t AND SHORELINE RESTORATION
MEAN LOW WATER =+ 3.23t REFERENCE#
MEAN LOWER LOW WATER = 0.0t 0 8 16 32 APPLICANT:PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
LOCATION: GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD&
NOTE:TIDAL ELEVATIONS DRAWN GRISWOLD AVE,GRAPEVIEW,WA,98546
APPROXIMATELY. GRAPHIC SCALE
1-18' SHEET: 4 of 11 DATE: 12/07/2018
EXISTING �� EXISTING
CONCRETE CONCRETE
BULKHEAD I BULKHEADu 1
AP RP O EXTENT / REMOVE APPROX.44 EXISTING
OF ERODING SLOPE/ ' ; / PILE AND REMAINING CROSS
SHORELINE SCOUR APPROX.ALIGNMENT OF MEMBERS,AND DISPOSE OF
DYSFUNCTIONAL OFF-SITE AS DIRECTED BY
TIMBER PILE BULKHEAD I ( I , PROJECT BIOLOGIST
J / \
EXISTING TIMBER PILE '/ 1
TO BE REMOVED- INST
ALL-12 CU YD BEACH
\
' APPROX.34 ABOVE SUBSTRATE, / GRAVEL THIS AREA TO
1 4 APPROX.10 BELOW SUBSTRATE 1 REPLACE VOLUME OF
REMOVED PILES
APPROX.OHW APPROX.OHW'
/ I APPrROX.MHHW
14.16'ELEV.
APPROX.MHHWI14.16'ELEV.
IPACIFIC
OYSTER BED I I
EXISTING EXISTING /
CONCRETE / / CONCRETE
BULKHEAD / BULKHEAD /
EXISTING SHORELINE CONDITIONS PHASE I -PROPOSED SHORELINE MITIGATION
TIDAL DATUM (MLLW) MITIGATION MEASURES-AREA 2 PROJECT: PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER =+ 14.16t PHASE I -PILE REMOVAL AND COMMUNITY DOCK
MEAN HIGHER WATER =+ 13.22t BEACH GRAVEL INSTALLATION AND SHORELINE RESTORATION
MEAN LOW WATER =+ 3.23t REFERENCE#
MEAN LOWER LOW WATER = 0.0t 0 8 16 32 APPLICANT: PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
LOCATION: GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD&
NOTE:TIDAL ELEVATIONS DRAWN GRISWOLD AVE,GRAPEVIEW,WA,98546
APPROXIMATELY. GRAPHIC SCALE
1'=16' SHEET: 5 of I 1 DATE: 12/07/2018
EXISTING,
BULKHEAD '
APPROX.EXTENT OF /
0
�o
REGRADED SHORELINE _
TO BLEND INTO EXISTING — —
UPLAND TERRACE(SEE / BURY BOULDER WITH
CROSS-SECTION SHEET 8) a CHAIN MIN.3 FEET TO
ANCHOR LOGS(TYP.)
PROVIDE 2'-3'WIDTH ANCHOR 3 TO 4+/-20'
GRAVEL PATH TO BEACH LOGS MIN. S T
1 iv WITH ROOTWAD TO
8 BURIED BOULDERS
PLANT SHORELINE EMBED BOULDERS 36"TO 42"DIA.
WITH NATIVE SPECIES TO DEPTH OF 1 FOOT OR 1 HEIGHT,
(SEE CROSS-SECTION / (1 OR 2 PER LOG)
ON SHEET 8&PLANT /
LIST ON SHEET 9) APPROX.OHW '
APPROX.MHHW
REGRADE ERODED SLOPE 14.16'ELEV. '
TO MAX.2:1 SLOPE / I
GRADE SLOPE(AFTER
21 M v REMOVAL OF BULKHEAD AND
stopE ^/ PILES)TO MATCH EXISTING
BEACH GRADE TO OHW
BURY BOULDER WITH CHAIN
r TO ANCHOR LOG(TYP.)SEE /
I CROSS-SECTION ON SHEET 8
EXISTING /
CONCRETE
BULKHEAD
PROPOSED SHORELINE STABILIZATION AND MITIGATION
TIDAL DATUM (MLLV� MITIGATION MEASURES-AREA 2 PROJECT: PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
PHASE 2-GRADE ERODED SLOPE AND COMMUNITY DOCK
MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER =+ 14.16t INSTALL SHORELINE STABILIZATION
AND SHORELINE RESTORATION
MEAN HIGHER WATER =+ 13.22t
ELEMENTS REFERENCE#
MEAN LOW WATER =+ 3.23t
MEAN LOWER LOW WATER = 0.0t 0 8 16 32 APPLICANT: PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
LOCATION: GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD&
NOTE:TIDAL ELEVATIONS DRAWN GRISWOLD AVE,GR'PEVIEW,WA,98546
APPROXIMATELY. GRAPHIC SCALE
V=18' SHEET: 6 of 11 DATE: 12/07/2018
TO FACE OF CONCRETE WALL
A TOP OF PILING 23'TYP,
10 PLUS PILING CAP
T I 162'
TOP OF DECK
19.50' GANGWAY 10"DIA STEEL PILE,TYP
=�TrhTl— - — — — — — MHHW
---------- — 14.16'
_ _ _ FLOATING DOCK
-III-III-I 11=1 I I I I=1 -I I IEE I I�11=11 H 11=1 11=1 - °C
I-III-III-III I H l f-I I I I 1=1 I I III III I 11=1 1 1= !=1 I I MHHW&M LL W
-I I-1T-ME In Fr=-' T(-1 1=1 1-=1 I-1TI- 1=1 I I-1 =1 11-i I i- - M �w�
=1 11=1 I I-III I=I-1 I�11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I-1 11=1 1=1 11=1 11==_ -- ------- -
1I I(-I I=I 11=T=-i 11=1 I a I I-I 11=1 I a I a I I� 1=1 1=f I I-I 11=1 I-I 11=1 11=1 I I-I 11=1 I I-III-I 11=1 I I-I 1=11 -- 0.00,
f=111=1T=T1( �fi_--1 I f�Tf=1Ti=1 ff=1Tf-1 I-1 I(-1 I f-1T_I-1 11=I I--_FI_I=1l ill-1 11-1ii T1T-TI f�I 11TI-iTiEEM=_T-1-111=1 I a I 1=1 11=I - _-
-I I I=1 I I=1TI-1 !-1 I h I I-III-1 I I I=1 I L-I 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I-I I I�I E=11=i7=1 11=1 I I-I 11=1 I I-I 11=1 I I-1 I I�11=1 11=1 11=1 I I= 11->-11=1 I IE]I El 1-111 1 I I-III-I 11=1 11
1=1 11=1 11=1 =1 11=1 I I�11=11=t I f=1 11=1 11=1 1=1 I I�I H I 1=��I I—I 11=1 11=TI f=1 I I;111-71 I�11=1 I I�1=1 11=1 I I—III—I�I�11=1 11DRAINAGE PIPE BEYOND- J J1J � I�J�
BEACH GRADE
INSTALL DIFFUSER PIPE
SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 11
J
PRELIMINARY
INFORMATION ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS,LLC.ASSUMES
PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS - NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR
PROJECT SITE LOOKING SOUTHEAST AT CONCRETE RAMP CONSTRUCTION,IMPROVEMENTS, OR
ESTIMATES BASED ON THIS PLAN SET
TIDAL DATUM (MLLWW) CROSS-SECTION PROJECT:PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER =+ 14.16+ AT PROPOSED FLOATING DOCK COMMUNITY DOCK
MEAN HIGHER WATER =+ 13.22t AND SHORELINE RESTORATION
MEAN LOW WATER =+ 3.23t REFERENCE#
MEAN LOWER LOW WATER = 0.0t 0 17.5 25 50 APPLICANT:PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
LOCATION: GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD&
NOTE:TIDAL ELEVATIONS DRAWN GRISWOLD AVE,GRAPEVIEW,WA,98546
APPROXIMATELY. GRAPHIC SCALE
1'=�' SHEET: 7 of 11 DATE: 12/07/2018
APPROX. 14'
20'
EXISTING
19' ERODED SLOPE
APPROX.LOCATION AND UPLAND
OF PREVIOUS PILE NATIVE
18' BULKHEAD AND SHORELINE
UPLAND PLANTS /
I I LOGS WITH ' JUTE MAT SLOPE
1B - _ _ - - _ _ _I ROOTWADS ROUNDING
OCCASIONAL � // AT GRADE
EMBEDDED BOULDER g RE-GRADE SLOPE TRANSITION
15' 36"TO 42"DIM.
�� .1 SLOPE (MAX.2:1 SLOPE)
I -I �
I I (1 OR 2 PER LWD)
&MHHW _-_-_-_ JJ_ _ t BURIED BOULDER
14.16 -7 - 1 WITH DRILLED HOLE
I GALV.STEEL CHAIN FOR ANCHORING
(OR SUBSTITUTE APPROVED � ;' CHAIN(TOP OF 3'MIN.
I 13 BY PROJECT BIOLOGIST) 1, BOULDER 3'BELOW
SUFFICIENT TO SECURE ; BEACH GRADE)
LOAD OF LOG PRELIMINARY
EXISTING I,! _ INFIM4AT101SLONLY.
1 I SLOPE
I I NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SOUNDVIEW CONSULTANTS,LLC.ASSUMES
NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR
CONSTRUCTION,IMPROVEMENTS, OR
ESTIMATES_BASEDDN THIS PLAN SET
TIDAL DATUM (MLLW) PROJECT:PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER =+ 14.16t CROSS-SECTION-MITIGATION AREA 2 COMMUNITY DOCK
MEAN HIGHER WATER =+ 13.22t SHORELINE STABILIZATION AND SHORELINE RESTORATION
MEAN LOW WATER =+ 3.23t REFERENCE#
MEAN LOWER LOW WATER = 0.0t 0 1 2 4 APPLICANT: PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
LOCATION: GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD&
NOTE:TIDAL ELEVATIONS DRAWN GRISWOLD AVE,GRAPEVIEW,WA,98546
APPROXIMATELY. GRAPHIC SCALE
1/2•=1'-0• SHEET: 8 of I 1 DATE: 12/07/2018
1/3 Shrubs,
2/3 Groundcover/
Tidal Area Plants,
at 100%coverage
Plant Namc
Scientific Common Quantity Spacing Size Condition Planting Area
-1,100 sf
Shrubs
Acer circinatum Vine maple 4 4 ft 2-4ft Bare root Dry/Moist
Cory/us cornuta caliijbrniru Beaked hazlenut 4 4 IN 2-4ft Bare root Moist
Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray 6 4 ft 2-4ft Bare root Dry
Ribes sanguineum Red-flowering currant 6 4 ft 2-4ft Bare root Dry/Moist
Rosa nutkana Nootka rose 4 4 ft 2-4ft Bare root Dry
Saliz hookeriana Hooker's willow 1 2 4 ft 2-4ft Stakes Mobt/Wet
- Total - 26
dioundcover/Tidal Area Plants
Carex lyngbvei Lyngbye's sedge 28 2 ft 6-12 In Plag/Bare root Makmat
Deschasrpsia cr*itasa Tufted hairgrass i 20 2 ft 6-121n Plug/Bare root Molst/Wet
m nrolRr Dune grass 24 2 ft 6-1210 Plug/Bare root Dry/Moist
Carex obnupta Slough sedge 28 2 ft 6-121m Plug/Bare root Mobt/Wet
Fragatia chiloensis Beach strawberry 36 2 ft 6-12 to Bare root Dry/Moist
P/antago maritima Seaside plantain 20 2 ft 6-12 in PlugBare root Moist/Wet
Potentilla anserina uar pacifu a Silverwecd 28 2 IN 6-12 in Plug/Bare root MoisMet
lkarnia L. Pickleweed 28 2 ft 6-12 to PluB/Bare root Mobt/Wet
Total 212
Shoreline Buffer Seed Mix 301bafacre %by w t.
Algrysti,exarata S Ac bentgmss 10
DercbaVsia itora Tufted hairgrass 10
Destba sia dawhonioides Annual haitgmss 10
Du sta elomgata Slender hairgrass 10
E miffs lamrms Blue wild rye 25
Hosdemm brat antbtrmm Meadow barley 25
L*x-pq0by11A11 Streamside lupine 10
Total lee
I-Scientific names and species identification taken frorr Flora of the Pacific Northwest(Hitchcock and Cronquist,1973).
2-Over-sized plants are suitable for replacement pending project biologist's approval.
3-All plans and schedules are conceptual for regulatory review and impact analysi,
final plans may be needed for construction,and may be subject to re ulatory approval.
NATIVE PLANT SCHEDULE PROJECT:PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
COMMUNITY DOCK
AND SHORELINE RESTORATION
REFERENCE#
APPLICANT: PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
LOCATION: GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD&
GRISWOLD AVE,GRAPEVIEW,WA,98546
SHEET: 9 of 11 I DATE: 12/07/2018
(2)2x8 PT
TIMBER HANDRAIL
2x2 CHAINLINK
FABRIC
4x6 PT TIMBER
POST
4"CONCRETE WALK, j•• ��i� GANGWAY
HEAVY BROOM FINISH 18._0cm I
"
�v 1y
- 6"CSBC G � �-
T01j��Ly'
EXISTING
\��-- AP O STORM DRAIN
A CLS
OR �l MHHW MHHW�,
C 14.16' REINFORCING 14.16'
I G PER
P AVEL---y REINFORCING PER STRUCTURAL
O� STRUCTURAL
PLATFORM SECTION A PLATFORM BULKHEAD
SCALE. 3/8"=P-0" SCALE: 3/8"=P-0"
TIDAL DATUM (MLLW) PLATFORM AND BULKHEAD DETAILS PROJECT: PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER =+ 14.16t COMMUNITY DOCK
MEAN HIGHER WATER =+ 13.22t AND SHORELINE RESTORATION
MEAN LOW WATER =+ 3.23t REFERENCE#
MEAN LOWER LOW WATER = 0.0t APPLICANT: PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
LOCATION: GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD&
NOTE:TIDAL ELEVATIONS DRAWN GRISWOLD.EVE,GRAPEVIEW,WA,98546
APPROXIMATELY.
SHEET: 10 of 11 DATE: 12/07/2018
INSTALL DIFFUSER TEE AT END OF
EXISTING STORMWATER OUTFALL
IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF BOAT RAMP -p
m Fused or flanged connection
specified in profile&plan.
6
HDPE moulded or fabricated tee same
diameter and dimension as pipe.
,. tel
o `eng�r`ame
4 G O X O
EXISTING STORMWATER OUTFALL
Drill holes in front half of tee only.
0 Hole diameter(inches)=Tee diameter
divided by 6.
(Example: 6 inch tee= 1"holes
0 0 18 inch tee= 3 inch holes)
No holes opposite pipe.
Hole spacing = 1.5 x hole diameter.
DIFFUSER TEE DETAIL PROJECT: PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
COMMUNITY DOCK
AND SHORELINE RESTORATION
REFERENCE#
Note: APPLICANT: PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
1. Source: Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)Highway Runoff LOCATION: GRAAPEVIEW LOOP RD&
Manual, Figure 5-71.
GRISI`G'OLD AVE,GRAPEVIEW,W.N,98546
SHEET: 11 of 11 DATE: 12/07/2018
Attachment B Engineering Geology Report and
Proposed Shoreline Restoration
Soundview Consultants LLC Revised December 10,2018
1267.0004 Port of Grapeview—Compensatory Mitigation Plan
GEOR ESOURCES
earth science & geotechnical engineering
5007 Pacific Hwy E., Suite 16 Fife, WA 98424 ( 253,896 1011 ( www.georesources.rocks
September 28, 2018
Port of Grapeview
c/o Soundview Consultants
2907 Harborview Drive,Suite D
Gig Harbor,Washington 98335
Attn: Ms.Ann Boeholt, PWS
(253)514-8953 ext 020
ann@soundviewconsultants.com
Engineering Geology Report
Proposed Shoreline Restoration
xxx-Grapeview Loop Road
Mason County,Washington
PN: 121055163003
Doc ID: PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoop.RG
INTRODUCTION
This geotechnical engineering report summarizes our site observations,our geotechnical data
review and engineering analyses, and provides geotechnical recommendations for the proposed
shoreline restoration to be located at xxx-Grapeview Loop Road near the Port of Grapeview in Mason
County,Washington, as shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1.
Our understanding of the project is based on our correspondence with Ann Boeholt of
Soundview Consultants, our September 20, 2018 site visit, and our experience in the site area. We
understand that the Port of Grapeview is planning to install a new floating dock to provide short term
moorage to users of the existing public boat ramp located at Grapeview Loop Road and that the Army
Corps of Engineers is requiring mitigation for potential aquatic impacts. We further understand that
the Port of Grapeview proposes to purchase an adjacent parcel that has a creosote timber pile
bulkhead that is dysfunctional, and proposes to remove the old timber pile and wood lagging
bulkhead and replace it with large woody debris soft armoring.
SCOPE
The purpose of our services was to evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions at the site
as a basis for assessing potential impacts to and from the wave and tidal erosion on the shoreline
portion of the parcel. Specifically,our scope of services for the project included the following:
1. Conducting a geologic reconnaissance of the site area;
2. Observing subsurface conditions at the site by logging the soils exposed along the beach;
3. Describing surface and subsurface conditions, including soil type;
4. Providing conclusions and recommendations regarding the type of bulkhead and
alternative materials;
PortofG ra pevi ew.G ra pevi ewLoo p Rd.RG
September 28,2018
Page 12
5. Preparing this written Geotechnical Engineering Report summarizing our site observations
and conclusions, and our geotechnical recommendations and design criteria, along with
the supporting data.
The above scope of work was summarized in our Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services
dated September 18, 2018. We received your written authorization to proceed on September 19,
2018.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The subject mitigation site is located at xxx Grapeview Loop Road, two lots north of the Port
of Grapeview boat ramp and marina in Mason County, Washington. According to the Mason County
WA GIS website,the parcel is roughly flag-pole in shape. The"flag'portion is approximately 60 feet wide
(north to south)by about 218 to 236 feet deep(east to west). The"pole"section of the parcel measures
about 20 feet wide by about 74 to 82 feet deep.The entire site area encompasses approximately 0.31
acres. The site is currently undeveloped except for the failing creosote timber bulkhead. The site is
bounded by the residence located at 5054 E Grapeview Loop Road to the south, by Grapeview Loop
Drive to the west,the residence at 5100 E Grapeview Loop Road to the north,and by the Puget Sound
to the east.
From Grapeview Loop Road, the site slopes down from the northwest to the southeast at
about 10 percent or less. The shoreline portion of the site is generally vertical and about 4 feet tall.
Total topographic relief across the site is on the order of 15 feet. The current site configuration is
shown on the Site Vicinity Map, Figure 2.
Vegetation in the upland portion of the site consists of grasses and scattered deciduous trees
in the west portion of the site. No seeps were observed on the slopes at the time of our site visit. As
stated, the old timber pile/wood lagging bulkhead that extended along the shoreline portion of the
site is failing and tidal scour is occurring behind the old bulkhead. Scour has extended back as far as
9 to 10 feet from the face of the old bulkhead. No other evidence of upland erosion, landslide activity
or deep-seated slope instability was observed at the site at the time of our site visit. The adjacent
parcels to the north and south are protected by concrete cast-in-place bulkheads.
Site Soils
The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey maps the soils in
the area of the site as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam(Ab)soils. The Alderwood soils are derived from
glacial drift or glacial outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits and form on slopes of 8 to 15 percent.
These soils have a"moderate to severe"erosion hazard when exposed,and are included in hydrologic
soils group B. A copy of the SCS map for the site vicinity is attached as Figure 3.
Site Geology
The Geologic Map of the Vaughn 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Pierce and Mason Counties, Washington
(Logan et Al., 2007) indicates the site is underlain by Vashon glacial till (Qgt) deposits. The glacial till
soils were deposited during the most recent Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation some 12,000 to
15,000 years ago. The glacial till consists of a heterogeneous mixture of gravel,sand,silt and clay that
was deposited at the base of the continental ice mass, and was subsequently over-ridden. As such,
GEORESOURC
Po rtofG ra peview.G rapeviewLoopRd.RG
September 28,2018
page 1 3
the glacial till is considered to be over consolidated and generally exhibits high strength and low
compressibility characteristics where undisturbed. The near surface soils at the site have been
disturbed by natural weathering processes that have occurred since their deposition. An excerpt of
the above referenced map is included as Figure 4.
The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) Coastal Atlas maps the site as being
"stable". We also reviewed a series of oblique aerial photos from 1992 to 2016 which show minor
erosion along the shoreline from 2000 to 2016. The Coastal Zone Atlas also shows the drift cell current
as undefined in the site area. A copy of the Coastal Zone Atlas is attached as Figure 5,while copies of
the aerial photographs are attached as Figures 6a through 6d.
Subsurface Conditions
We were able to observe subsurface conditions at the site by logging the bare soils along the
shoreline. We observed about 6 inches of sod and topsoil mantling about 18 to 24 inches of light orange-
brown silty sand with gravel that appeared to be medium dense and moist. These soils appeared to be
consistent with weathered glacial till soils. Underlying the surficial soils, we observed grey/tan with
orange mottling silty sand with gravel that appeared dense and moist. These soils appear to be
consistent with glacial till deposits.The glacial till extended down to the beach sand and gravel.
ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our site evaluation, it is our opinion that an active shoreline erosion hazard does
exist at the site. The combination of shoreline tidal and wave action is resulting in active toe erosion,
sloughing and shoreline regression. We recommend that new soft armoring be installed to prevent
additional erosion at the site. The new soft armor bulkhead will be constructed at the toe of the active
shoreline area, landward of old timber pile bulkhead, Mean High Water (MHW) and Ordinary High
Water(OHW)and tie into the adjacent concrete cast-in-place bulkheads.
Bulkhead Materials
We understand that the selected material for replacement bulkhead is large woody debris
with scattered large rocks used to hold the ends of the woody debris in place. There are a variety of
alternative materials that may be considered for the construction of shoreline bulkheads. Virtually all
shoreline protection construction methods and materials require beach access and/or beach
disturbance. In general, the shoreline protective materials can be divided into three basic types,
including the following: cast-in-place construction materials(concrete), placed materials(rock, blocks
and timber), and "soft armor" materials(anchored large woody debris).
Based on our experience, although poured in-place concrete bulkheads provide excellent
protection of the shoreline from erosion, they are not a preferred alternative by regulatory staff
because of water quality issues during construction and redirection or reflection of shoreline energy
often resulting in scour on the adjacent properties.
Large rock, block or treated timber materials are common bulkhead materials in the Puget
Sound area. Treated timber materials provide adequate protection of the toe, but are not considered
permanent, as illustrated by the number of timber bulkheads that are replaced on a regular basis
owing to damage, rot or decay.The treated timber materials are also considered to have water quality
issues by some agency staff,depending on the treatment(creosote). Because the permitted structure
GEORESOURC
Po rtofG ra pevi ew.G ra pevi ewLoop Rd.RG
September 28,2018
page 1 4
would not be at risk of failure within 3 years, the state agencies would not support the use of hard
armoring.
We understand that you propose to use soft armoring to mitigate the toe erosion along the
shoreline. Although technically not a bulkhead,anchored large wood placed at or near the toe of the
shoreline bank and beach area can provide limited erosion protection for the toe of the shoreline.
The large wood does have a limited life expectancy and requires maintenance and possibly occasional
replacement, but should adequately mitigate toe erosion at the site.
It is our opinion that the use of soft armoring will reduce the rate of shoreline regression and
will provide opportunity for biologic activity and variation of the energy dissipation patterns along the
shoreline. The shoreline across the front of the site faces east towards Reach Island and has a fetch
of less than 1,000 feet to the east,and 1,250 to 1,400 feet to the southeast and northeast respectively.
The fetch to the southeast is interrupted by the exiting Port of Grapeview Marina. The predominant
winter storm direction results in severe, damaging winds from the south and southwest, which the
site is not subject too. Also,the Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas indicates that
the site does not have "any appreciable drift'. Given the short fetch, east facing direction of the
shoreline, and little to no drift current along the shoreline, the use of soft armoring does appear
feasible from a geotechnical standpoint.
The anchored large woody debris should abut the adjacent cast-in-place concrete bulkheads
so as to not result in scour eddies or sediment traps. The logs should be installed along the new
"active" shoreline behind the failing bulkhead. The irregular shape of the logs, and the voids
associated with the soft armoring,will absorb most of the wave energy(tidal and boat traffic)thereby
reducing the potential for erosion to the site and adjacent properties. The large wood should be
anchored by using cable or chains attached to buried deadman anchors(ecology blocks)or to helical
or manta ray type anchors. We do recommend using occasional placement of individual rocks near
the end of each log in order to hold the logs in place. A typical detail for a soft armor bulkhead is
attached as Figures 7a and 7b.
It is our opinion that large woody debris and placement rock, if properly installed, should
mitigate against the active erosion. While the soft armoring will be an effective method of addressing
the active and ongoing erosion,this system will not fully eliminate or stop tidal and wave energy from
impacting the site.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for use by Port of Grapeview, Soundview Consultants, and other
members of the design and construction team, for use in the design of a portion of this project. The
data used in preparing this report and this report should be provided to prospective contractors for
their bidding or estimating purposes only. Our report, conclusions and interpretations are based on
data from others and limited site reconnaissance, and should not be construed as a warranty of the
subsurface conditions.
Variations in subsurface conditions across the site are possible and may also occur with time. A
contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient
monitoring,testing and consultation should be provided by our firm during construction to confirm that
the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide
recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those
GEORESOURC
PortofG ra peview.G rapeviewLoop Rd.RG
September 28,2018
page 1 5
anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with
contract plans and specifications.
The scope of our services does not include services related to environmental remediation and
construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's
methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for
consideration in design.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in
accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other
conditions, express or implied,should be understood.
We have appreciated the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any
questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoResources, LLC
Jordan Kovash,GIT
Staff Geologist in Training
o� Washr�
ineen G i.
KEITH SCOTT SCHEM6'�
Seth T. Mattos, LG Keith S. Schembs, LEG
Associates Principal
J LK:STM:KSS/j I k,kss
Doc ID:PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoopRd.RG
Attachments: Figure 1:Site Location Map
Figure 2:Site Vicinity&Cross-Section
Figure 3:NRCS Soils Map
Figure 4:Geology Map
Figure 5:Coastal Zone Atlas
Figures 6a-6d:Oblique Aerial Photos
Figure 7a-7b:Soft Shoreline Stabilization Details
to
GEORESOURCES
WA t0;
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
a°' f
ti
7 �
I
I
•s
Grapevlew
I
i
i
i
1 {ri
P� 1
i
4� 1
i
7
1
Approximate Site Location
Map created from Mason County Public GIS(https://gis.co.mason.wa.us/mason/)
Av+Ir
Not to Scale
�'�—�, Site Location Map
Proposed Soft Armor and Shoreline Mitigation
GEORESOURCES xxx Grapeview Loop Road
Mason County, Washington
ekir-th `.t +trit(_r & bc-ulVk-11!ilk.bl i6+rlt�11 •r.&
Spilt Iacifc*1 t,Suitt 16 1 A4,NA SUJI IS)NA.10t1 I rNt.Stt ISGUst".rscw
Doc ID:PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoopRd.F September 2018 Figure 1
µ
r,
F
Approximate Site Location
Map created from Mason County Public GIS (https://gis.co.mason.wa.us/mason/)
1.
Not to Scale
Site Vicinity Map
Proposed Soft Armor and Shoreline Mitigation
xxx Grapeview Loop Road
GEORESOURCES Mason County, Washington
earn. .. fence & geoiechni( al etigmeenr,g
$007 p4c,6-Hq I,Sude 16 1 We,NA OU24 IS]196AI't ouw.peere6sate Mk6 Doc ID:PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoopRd.i= September 2018 Figure 2
s r
it
♦ ..
r�• C 910�i
r ' u
s
9 I
Approximate ite Location
Map created from Web Soil Survey(http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx)
Soil Soil Name Parent Material Slopes Erosion Hydrologic
Type Hazard Soils Group
Ab Alderwood gravelly Glacial drift and/or glacial outwash over dense Moderate B
sandy loam glaciomarine deposits 8 to 15 to Severe
Bellingham silty None to
Be clay loam Alluvium. Lacustrine deposits and loess 0 to 3 slight C/D
�1
Not to Scale
NRCS Soils Map
Proposed Soft Armor and Shoreline Mitigation
xxx Grapeview Loop Road
GEORESOURCES Mason County, Washington
earth ,c ienr- e clifiii nl -t'I If1Fi'I ing
SOD?FACifc Hwy t.Slott 16 1 We.WA 4144 IS)116.t0"1 w.w.Ieo(,Tiva►.MU Doc ID:PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoopRd.F September 2018 Figure 3
i
r I r'
cl= i
r � �
I f r a
i „k
O
+ •
16
Approximate Site Location
An excerpt from Geologic Map of the Vaughn 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Pierce and Mason Counties, Washington by Robert L.,
Logan,and Timothy]. Walsh December 2007.
Qgt Vashon till
Not to Scale
USGS Geologic Map
Proposed Soft Armor and Shoreline Mitigation
GEORESOURCES xxx Grapeview Loop Road
Mason County, Washington
,-arth Science & geulerhnical engineering
$007/uift""I.Sodt 16 1 care.NA}UJA 1S1.1%.1011 1 w.N.jeOrtsou'tW tks Doc ID:PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoopRd.F September 2018 Figure 4
w.
d $zv
4
:w
f.
Y
Approximate Site Location
Map created from Washington State Coastal Atlas(https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatias/tools/Map.aspx)
Slope stability A Drift cells U
Stable V Divergence zone
Q�:� Intermediate --A, Left to right
ly Modified %„/ No appreciable drift
Unstable --w Right to left
y Unstable (old slide) Undefined
Unstable (recent slide)
Not to Scale
��■1.•� Coastal Zone Atlas
Proposed Soft Armor and Shoreline Mitigation
GEORESOURCES xxx Grapeview Loop Road
Mason County, Washington
SDO7►Icih Mwr[,Swlt 16 I Fife,WA SUP SS)H6.10t i; •.w{eae+owu*rx&+
Doc ID:PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoopRd.F September 2018 Figure 5
r
AdW—
+. fir
F } �
• ^�- � a.W:'ail ".
i P
Approximate Site Location
Photo obtained from Washington State Coastal Atlas(https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx)
1
AV IF
Not to Scale
Oblique Aerial Shoreline Photograph - 2016
—� Proposed Soft Armor and Shoreline Mitigation
GEORESOURCES xxx Grapeview Loop Road
Mason County, Washington
SNT►xlic Mq I.SrNs ti I iih,NA N171 ISI.HIJOt�i ww.�arnwns.rKw
Doc ID:PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoopRd.F September 2018 Figure 6a
11. 1: PMTA
- � J
4 4d `9
. t
ra
P
Approximate Site Location
Photo obtained from Washington State Coastal Atlas (https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx)
Not to Scale
,�•► Oblique Aerial Shoreline Photograph - 2006
Proposed Soft Armor and Shoreline Mitigation
GEORESOURCES xxx Grapeview Loop Road
Mason County, Washington
Nq t,fwlr if 1 Fife,MA NAi 2S3.NA.141 1 I
Doc ID:PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoopRd.F September 2018 Figure 6b
r
41
Approximate Site Location
Photo obtained from Washington State Coastal Atlas(https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx)
Not to Scale
Oblique Aerial Shoreline Photograph - 1992
00 Proposed Soft Armor and Shoreline Mitigation
GEORESOURCES xxx Grapeview Loop Road
r�rtn 5t irit�e & e�trclini� ,�i .•• S iir �• Mason County, Washington
5007 racist"11,Sate ti I iih,KA"Q4 151.11961of t i ww.tar�srwrn.rw►a
Doc ID:PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoopRd.F September 2018 Figure 6d
EXISTING PROPOSED
EXISTING EXISTING
CONCRETE
CONCRETE BULKHEAD
BULKHEAD
JUTE MAT
i
S� OHW
16.64'
�r BURY ECOLOGY
Ir BLOCKS 1.5 TO 2 FEET
FOR SCOUR
PROTECTION, ECOLOGY
�r BLOCK SPACING AND
®r, MHHW ANCHORING
♦rr 14.16' SUFFICIENT IN NUMBER
All
TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE
■I ANCHORING OF LOGS,
�I CONTRACTOR TO
�j ADJUST AS REQUIRED
Ir
♦j EMBEDDED ROCK,
MIN. 1 FT, 36" TO
EXISTING TIMBER 42" DIAMETER
BULKHEAD TO BE
REMOVED 3 TO 4 LARGE 20 FT ±
LENGTH LOGS, 12"
EXISTING MIN DIAMETER, WITH
SHORELINE ROOT BALL
(SCOUR
BEHIND
FAILING
BULKHEAD)
�— EXISTING
EXISTING CONCRETE
CONCRETE BULKHEAD
BULKHEAD PLAN
Not to Scale
Soft Shore Stabilization Typical Detail
GeoResources, LLC Proposed Shoreline Restoration
5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 xxx - Grapeview Loop Road
Fife, Washington 98424 Mason County, Washington
Ph: (253) 896-1011 Fax: (253) 896-2633 PN: 1 21 0551 63003
Doc ID: PoG.GraveviewLoop.F September 2018 Figure 7a
EXTEND JUTE TO
FOUR FEET ABOVE OHW
TOPSOIL AND
PLANTS TO BE
LARGE INSTALLED HERE
WOODY
DEBRIS
OCCASIONAL (LOGS)
EMBEDDED ROCK �
36 to 42" DIM
OH
W
JUTE MAT
BURIED ECOLOGY BLOCK
WIRE ROPE
SUFFICIENT TO CARRY
LOAD OF LOGS
ELEVATION /SECTION
I
Not to Scale
Soft Shore Stabilization Typical Detail
GeoResources, LLC Proposed Shoreline Restoration
5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 xxx - Grapeview Loop Road
Fife, Washington 98424 Mason County, Washington
Ph: (253) 896-1011 Fax: (253) 896-2633 PN: 121055163003
Doc ID: PoG.GrapeviewLoop.F September 2018 Figure 7b
.. » - ..° •.o. .i. µ ..ram Y L .
t P
a
w 1._
1�
1
� f
Am—
INW'W---
{ + w
Approximate Site Location
Photo obtained from Washington State Coastal Atlas(https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx)
f
Not to Scale
-- Oblique Aerial Shoreline Photograph - 2000
—�� Proposed Soft Armor and Shoreline Mitigation
GEORESOURCES xxx Grapeview Loop Road
i , , ` Mason County, Washington
to 16 1 file,*A"Q4 1514%101t I"w.VWetw.tn.letrt
Doc ID:PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoopRd.F September 2018 Figure 6c
All y
• y.
y
4 � a
u' ►. r
Photo - Sept 20, 2018
Looking north along failing bulkhead from south property line.
Not to Scale
Site Photographs
Proposed Soft Armor and Shoreline Mitigation
GEORESOURCES xxx Grapeview Loop Road
. Mason County, Washington
.. i!i e�e•o•• x.n 6eorteun•usic.•
Doc ID:PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoopRd.F September 2018 Figure 8a
! p
44.
Photo - Sept 20, 2018
Looking west past failing bulkhead
Site Photographs
Proposed Soft Armor and Shoreline Mitigation
GEORESOURCES xxx Grapeview Loop Road
•°arth science tar geulechnical engineersng Mason County, Washington
SOOT►Hlic Nq!.Suite 16 1 We.MA 4"J4 151 l46.1011 I rnw.{ewefwrn�.fulla
Doc ID: PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoopRcI F September 2018 Figure 8b
� t
4 � i
i
�:: � :.-�,�.,�� —..sue, :_�;, _•,,- ,��iC�+-�'i'�X.
i�-'`�•� _y�`� `ram i -'! �' � :�!
• � t
Photo - Sept 20, 2018
Looking south along failing bulkhead from north property line.
Site Photographs
Proposed Soft Armor and Shoreline Mitigation
GEORESOURCES xxx Grapeview Loop Road
earth ,t11, Mason County, Washington
S"7 hclfc llwj S Suite 16 1 File,wA SSIle iS34%.tQ11 I YI N�!O HUY'lH(p:11
Doc ID:PortofGrapeview.GrapeviewLoopRd.F September 2018 Figure 8c