Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEP2017-00033 Bulkhead - SEP Determinations - 6/21/2017 STA MASON COUNTY P c DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS IL� � o s° = 100 W Public Works Dr, Shelton, WA 98584 i o T z (360)427-9670 NY ti OJ �O 1864 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-340) SEP2017-00033 Description of Proposal: SEPA SUBMITTED TO REPLACE BULKHEAD (SEE BLD2017-00547) Proponent: RONALD ANWAY Location of Proposal: 590 E NORTH BAY RD ALLYN Parcel Number: 122174100080 Legal Description: TR 8 OF G.L. 3 & NW SE Directions to Site: ST RT 3 TO ALLYN, R ON NORTH BAY RD TO SITE ADDRESS ON THE RIGHT SIDE Lead Agency: Mason County The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public upon request. Please contact Ron Buckholt at ext. 287 with any questions. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Public Works,100 W Public Works DR, Shelton WA 98584 by 7/5/2017. Appeal of this determination must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals. Authorized Local Government Official bate � r Coastal Solutions, LLC 11027 Mamtou Beach Drive NE Banbridge Island,WA 98110 206.459.7264 June 6,2017 Project No. 17031 Ron Anway 16036 SE 292nd St Kent,WA 98042 Re: Geologic Slope and Beach Processes Reconnaissance Anway Property 590 East North Bay Rd,Allyn, Washington Dear Mr.Anway: This letter-report summarizes Coastal Solutions' observations made during a recent geologic slope and coastal processes reconnaissance of the subject property. The purpose of our study was to observe and evaluate the existing shoreline conditions at the site with regard to the proposed concrete bulkhead replacement and repair project. Observations Site Conditions and Topography The site is located on the west shore of the North Bay area of Case Inlet approximately one mile north of Allyn,Washington. The residential property consists of a flat upland on the west side adjacent to East North Bay Road,where the house and driveway were located,and the shoreline of North Bay to the east. The house consisted of a wood-frame structure with a conventional footing/crawlspace foundation. The house was located approximately 38 feet from the top of the existing concrete bulkhead. The property was protected by a concrete seawall that extended along the southern 125 feet of the shoreline at the site. A gap in the bulkhead near the north property line served as an outlet for a small seasonal drainage course. North of the drainage course the property was protected by a timber and piling wall for approximately 65 feet. We understand that the septic system is located on the west side of the house away from the water. The area landward of the seawall was flat and consisted of grass lawn,the driveway areas for the house,and contains at least 2 to 4 feet of fill placed behind the seawall when the wall was built. The top of the concrete seawall was on the order of 5 feet above the beach face. The northern portion consisted of piling and timber lagging and was approximately 4 feet above the beach face. Both walls showed signs of undermining,piping of the fill material,and waterward deflection as a result of periodic overtopping by wave action. Placing fill over the upper intertidal area was common from the 1950's to the 1980's. Walls of this type were also constructed using available materials and were not always sufficiently reinforced. The property was surrounded by similar private properties to the north and south,the East North Bay Road to the west, and the tidelands of North Bay to the east. The existing concrete f � t Ron Anway June 6,2017 Project No. 17031 seawall that protects the site was essentially vertical,but showed signs of cracking, deterioration,undermining and deflection in places. The wall protected the fill area directly behind the wall,and in turn,the yard area and the foundation for the house. The seawall was still performing as intended but is at high risk of collapse resulting in a subsequent breach. The neighboring property to the south was protected by a failing timber bulkhead wall. The neighboring property to the north was protected by a rock bulkhead on the order of 4 feet high. Existing Shoreline Conditions Current plans call for the replacement of the seawall with a new,irregular-faced,rock bulkhead on the order of 5 feet tall placed at or landward of the existing seawall. The rock wall will be constructed in such a manner as to blend with the existing piling wall to the south and the rock wall to the north. The drainage outlet will remain and will consist of an offset at the mouth with a culvert and high flow bypass system over the top of the bulkhead.The existing concrete steps will be removed and replaced with new precast concrete steps integrated into the bulkhead. The proposed replacement wall type,location,and configuration will result in a net decreased impact to coastal and littoral processes created by the existing flat surface wall. Beach and Coastal Conditions The beach consisted of an approximately 20H:1 V sand,mud,and seashell beach-face. Based on our observations of barnacles and other indications of periodic inundation on the beach, ordinary high water(OHW)was located at the face of the existing seawall. The most recent data regarding coastal processes published by the Washington State Department of Ecology, (Ecology) Washington Coastal Atlas indicated that the property lies within a littoral drift cell that begins at a approximately 1.5 miles south of the site and terminates approximately 1/4 mile north of the site at a small accretion sand spit. Drift cells contain zones along the shoreline that include erosion areas,transport corridors,and deposition or accretion areas. We noted subtle signs of littoral sediment deposition on the north sides and scour/erosion at the concrete steps consistent with the published drift directions. Low-pressure storm systems from the south during winter generate the dominant south to north wave pattern in North Bay,which results in a northern drift direction. Drainage Downspout drains for the house were routed to an underground drain system that flowed to the existing drainage way. We noted a 4-inch diameter pipe near the south property line that penetrated the bulkhead with flow estimated at about 2 gallons per minute. The upland was largely vegetated but the owners reported standing water and shallow groundwater conditions at the site. It should be noted however that groundwater seepage levels and flow volumes will vary with precipitation,irrigation practices,time of year,and upland land uses both on and off- site. Comprehensive drainage analysis was beyond the scope of services for this phase of the project. The proposed replacement bulkhead design should include a suitable storm water outfall structure that the existing downspout drains can be routed toward. The outfall structure such as the existing pipe penetration to the beach or a dispersion/energy dissipater placed in the Page 2 Ron Anway June 6,2017 Project No. 17031 drainage channel should be placed in such a manner as not to jeopardize the integrity of the bulkhead or cause erosion at the beach or the toe of the slope. Vegetation Vegetation on the upland portion between the house and the road consisted primarily of undisturbed second and third growth forest. The backyard area consisted of grass lawn. Geology Soil exposures were generally good based on the vertical nature of the bluff and the lack of vegetation on the bluff face. Sediments exposed along the bluff consisted of very dense,most gray silty sand with gravel interpreted as Vashon recessional outwash. These sediments were deposited during the close of the last major glaciation of the Puget lowland,between approximately 10,000 and 12,000 years ago.As the ice sheet melted and retreated to the north, a mixture of gravel, sand,silt,and cobbles was deposited directly onto the pre-existing landscape by high-energy proglacial streams.The recessional outwash was not overridden and compacted by the ice sheet and can exhibit highly variable characteristics in strength, compressibility. The relatively loose sand and gravel is also highly susceptible to erosion when exposed to wave action. The flat area behind the seawall is consistent with typical historical fill placement during construction of this type of wall. The fill has buried the former toe of slope and has essentially stopped toe erosion in the area. Topography of adjacent lots is similar and fill placed over the former upper intertidal area was common in the 1950's through the 1980's. This time frame is consistent with the construction of this type of wall. The seawall at the site protects fill soils placed landward of the seawall and seaward of the former toe of slope near the houses. The fill consisted of loose silty sand with gravel and cobble likely placed with no engineering oversight or control. As a result,this material is highly suspect in terms of its erosion resistance and strength qualities. Even properly placed and compacted"select fill"is highly susceptible to shoreline erosion if not protected from wave action. Seawalls not designed to resist hydrostatic pressure or lateral earth pressures associated with uncontrolled fill often result in deterioration and undermining as observed at the project site. Shoreline retreat rates are dependent on factors such as upland land use,precipitation,geologic conditions,over-water fetch distance and direction,and shoreline protection. However, adequate protection of the fill soils from rapid erosion is the most important factor that will affect erosion rates and subsequent property damage at the site if the fill is exposed to wave action. Despite its generally poor condition,the wall is still providing a degree of toe protection and has resulted in its intended purpose of stopping toe erosion. A comprehensive"natural"bank retreat analysis could not be performed due to the long-term presence of the existing wall and the historically placed fill soils. Conclusions The structural integrity of the seawall is unknown. However based on its existing deteriorated condition and the degree of deflection observed,the wall is at risk of collapsing and is need of replacement. Rapid increases in hydrostatic pressure associated with overtopping wave action and limited drainage behind the wall to alleviate the buildup of groundwater will eventually Page 3 Ron Anway June 6,2017 Project No. 17031 result in the seawall toppling over and exposing the fill soils behind the wall. The wall protects the fill that in turn provides an erosion buffer for the upland improvements,most importantly the house foundation. Current plans call for replacing the entire length of the wall with a rock bulkhead on the order of 5 feet high located landward of the existing seawall face. The existing seawall,footing, and concrete steps will be removed as part of the project. Replacing the existing seawall with a properly constructed rock bulkhead as proposed will improve drainage and provide a more predictable erosion control structure(in terms of long-term performance)that will protect the existing upland features including the house. Alternatives Shoreline erosion and stability can be addressed by several methods depending on site conditions, location,and project goals. Shoreline erosion control methods can range from the use of planted supplemental vegetation to control surface erosion,constructing soft or bio- engineered shoreline protection systems,constructing hard surfaced bulkheads or rock revetments, or the application of a hybrid system that employs both hard and soft armoring techniques. Replacing an existing erosion control structure however, limits the available alternatives for the property owner to adequately protect existing improvements on the property and on adjacent properties. Supplemental Vegetation In our opinion,the existing upland vegetation at the site(grass) is providing surface erosion protection only and does not contribute to protection of the property from wave action. Supplemental vegetation can slow surface erosion from rainfall and upland surface water flow but has little to no mitigating effect on wave generated toe erosion. As a result, supplemental vegetation is not a viable option as a replacement for protection at the site. Rock Bulkhead Rock bulkheads consist of essentially vertical rock walls constructed at or near the ordinary high water line. 3,000 to 6,000 pound rocks are keyed into the beach approximately 3 feet, stacked to a typical height of approximately 5 feet above the beach surface, and backfilled with free-draining rock ballast. Of the alternatives discussed in this report,rock bulkheads are the most effective method to control toe erosion over the anticipated service life of the structure. The most significant effect of constructing a rock bulkhead is reduced sediment input to the beach. This is the result of building a structure that is necessarily designed to stop or significantly slow toe erosion. While the effects of reduced sediment input to the beach can be mitigated,rock bulkheads result in an alteration of the shoreline as compared to natural conditions. Where a rock bulkhead replaces an older outdated design such as the seawall at the site, erosion control is maintained but adverse affects to the upper intertidal area are reduced. A rock bulkhead represents less of an impact to the upper intertidal zone due to reduced wave reflection that results from the energy dissipating irregular face of the structure as compared to the flat surfaced existing seawall. Soft Bank Protection Page 4 Ron Anway June 6,2017 Project No. 17031 The use of soft bulkhead techniques includes the combined use of beach nourishment and restrained large woody debris(beach logs)at the site. Beach logs are restrained using cables and an earth retention system such as dead-man anchors or tieback style earth-anchors. The logs are arranged in such a way as to impede wave energy acting on the toe of the slope. Imported beach sediments are then placed to embed the logs aiding in energy dissipation. The beach nourishment also provides sacrificial sediment that is actively recruited by the natural coastal processes acting on the shore. In areas of diminished littoral transport volume and areas where sediment recruitment is high, soft bank protection typically results in a net loss of nourished sediment. As the sediment is eroded over time,additional nourishing sand is placed to maintain the erosion control function of the system. The amount of beach nourishment is initially estimated using average bank retreat rates for the project site but is adjusted based on actual long-term performance. Soft bank protection is best suited for low wave-energy environments where a broad,relatively flat back-beach area exists to minimize the angle of the constructed surface and maximize the wave run-up distance. Soft bank structures are also not well suited for sites that are flanked by existing hard surface structures such as the project site(rock bulkhead to the north and piling bulkhead to the south). A breach of the soft bank system during a storm event would not only jeopardize the project site but would affect the integrity of both adjacent structures. The performance of a soft bank system is directly related to the intensity, duration, and frequency of high-energy storm events. As a dynamic system,they result in the lowest overall impact to the shoreline environment but provide the least amount of bank protection during storm events. Mitigation Construction of the replacement rock bulkhead will result in a net gain of upper intertidal beach area and a net reduction in wave reflection and scour that is currently occurring on the beach due to the existing flat-surfaced seawall. Beach nourishment volume estimating was not performed due to the extensive historical modification of the shoreline and because no natural erosion(that could contribute sediment to the beach)is currently occurring at the site. Recommendations Based on our field observations,the existing concrete seawall is at risk of collapsing and is in need of replacement. To reduce the probability of acute and severe erosion of the fill between the slope and seawall and to reduce the impacts of the existing flat-surface wall to the existing coastal processes at the site we recommend replacing the existing seawall as proposed. The new rock bulkhead should be placed entirely landward of the existing OHW(estimated at the face of the existing seawall). Construction of the bulkhead flush to the adjacent seawalls to the north and south will reduce scour and erosion that may be occurring. Construction of the bulkhead landward of the OHW and angled as proposed will reduce the adverse impacts to the existing littoral sediment movement in the area. To reduce the probability of erosion of the fill soils behind the proposed bulkhead,we recommend the following: Page 5 Ron Anway June 6,2017 Project No. 17031 • Verify that the existing surface water drainage systems including roof runoff from the house are functioning properly and are effectively routed toward the beach when the new bulkhead is constructed. This pipe should be connected to an appropriate outfall near the beach that will not jeopardize the bulkhead or cause erosion on the beach. No concentrated flow should be allowed to discharge within the existing fill soils behind the proposed bulkhead. Energy dissipaters,rock revetments,and other means may be needed to reduce the likelihood of concentrated seepage at or behind the bulkhead. • Place sufficient size rocks landward of the OHW line to create a gravity-wall system. The rocks should be placed in a manner to provide a smooth connection to both the adjacent bulkhead to the east and the existing seawall to the west. Plans Review Construction plans were not available at the time this report was prepared. We are available to provide a geotechnical review of plans once completed. Limitations This letter-report was prepared based on a limited field reconnaissance and no subsurface explorations were performed. A more in-depth characterization of slope conditions and geotechnical analysis,including quantitative slope stability analyses for the subject property or the adjacent properties was beyond the scope of work for this study. There are inherent risks associated with construction in the shoreline environment. The longevity and effectiveness of shoreline armoring is highly dependent on the frequency and severity of wave-generating storm events that are inherently unpredictable. Other factors that impact the effectiveness of shoreline armoring are the frequency and magnitude of upland landslide activity and erosion, and the skill and care used by the contractor during construction of the bulkhead. The opinions in this letter report are meant to help the property owner manage the natural erosion that is occurring at the site and do not constitute a legal opinion or a warranty,express or implied. This letter-report was prepared for the exclusive use of Ron Anway and his agents with specific application to the project site. Page 6 Ron Anway June 6,2017 Project No. 17031 It has been a pleasure to provide these services to you. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, COASTAL SOLUTIONS, LLC o{W ash/ e oV wAS,,U Co A,, �^r Engineering Geologist V ti� 32152 2220 �y �AEGIST .10Y'Q, � Robert F.Cousins Robert F.Cousins, LEG Nina L. Cousins, PE Principal Geologist Principal Engineer rob@coastalsolns.com nina@coastalsolns.com Page 7 LoZQ� ws P.O.Box 11477 (360)866-1608 o Olympia,WA 98508 ESTIMATED PROPOSAL AND CONTRACT FOR Ron R fill Anway _ DATE April 12th 2017 590 E North Bay RD PHONE 206-919-7763 Allyn WA 98524 I PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS: ROCK EROSION CONTROL BULKHEAD Approximately 191' replacement erosion control rock bulkhead and backfill with rock or concrete steps to beach. Includes disposal of existing concrete wall. $76,490.00. E-mail: ranwayl@comcast.net FEE $hermits PERMIT AND DESIGN FEES SALES TAX $ owner TO BE PAID BY CUSTOMER IN ADVANCE TOTAL $ maintina We propose to furnish labor and materials as follows: 1. Customer is responsible for identifying the location of the bulkhead by marking corners of property. 2. ��������� �Eb�tJ�4c�RRbLbCIJk•��4i'�lo�ll ESTIMATED PRICES 76 490 00 SALES TAX$ 61.901 5 TOTAL PRICE$ 82,991 65 TERMS: 40% S 33 000 00 of estimated proposal to be paid prior to beginning of job. The entire amount of the contract shall be paid in full upon day of completion. THIS PROPOSAL IS SUBMITTED IN DUPLICATE.THE RETURN TO US OF ONE COPY WITH YOUR SIGNATURE SHALL CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT. BY 4Grt'' (�Ar EDAT —�T-,` ' CUSTOMER SIGNATU e b u..I 1 t9FMd DATE P.O.BOX 11477.OLYMPIA,WA 98508•(360)866-1608 PRINTED NAME THIS PROPOSAL IS SUBJECT TO REVISION IF NOT EXCEPTED WITHIN 90 DAYS AND IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE SIDE HERE OF. EXISTING ROCKERY a \� T MHHW 13.86' o 0� PROP.L. m a DRAINAGE SWALE REPLACE EXISTING STEPS TO BEACH RECESSED INTO ROCKERY D SINGLE FAMILY a RESIDENCE LARGE CEDARS REPLACE FAILINGCONCRETE WITH ROCK LAND ARD OF EXISTING (382 TON) t' 1 -- PROP.L. -- -- EXISTING PILING t' SCALE 1"=40' ANWAY,RONALD GEORGE&JILL ANN 590 E NORTH BAY RD BELFAIR LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL THAt PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, \NGE WEST, W.M., IN MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ON THE WEST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 AT A POINT NORTH 00 15' 32" WEST 638.72 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER; THENCE SOUTH 890 44' 39" EAST TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 14-8 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 890 44' 39^ EAST TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3;THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, 180 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO CAROL J. SUTHERS UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 182236; THENCE NORTH 890 31' 02" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SUTHERS TRACT TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 14-B; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. MASON COUNTY DCD SEPA Contact List Sent SEPA- 10 1-j- DOD X to (check all that apply) on Skokomish Tribal Nation, Nat. Res. Dept. WA Department of Ecology ATTN: Randy Lumper Environmental Review Section N 541 Tribal Center Rd., Skokomish Nation, 98584 PO BOX 47703, Olympia, 98504-7703 rlumper@skokomish.org separegister@ecy.wa.gov Skokomish Tribal Historic Preservation Officer WA Department of Commerce ATTN: Kris Miller reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov 80 N Tribal Center Rd,Skokomish Nation, 98584 shlanay1@skokomish.org U.S.Army Corps of Engineers SEPA Reviewer-Jason Sweeney Quinault Indian Nation PO Box C-3755, Seattle, 98124 ATTN: Mark Mobbs Jason.t.sweeney@usace.army.mil PO Box 189,Tahola, 98587 mobbs@quinault.org � WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife �, S PAdesk@dfw.wa.gov Squaxin Tribal Nation, Natural Res. Dept. 2952 SE Old Olympic HWY, Shelton 98584 WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife jdickison@squaxin.us ATTN: Joshua Benton(360)602-0364 emarbet@squaxin.us (Habitat Biologist-Hood Canal Watershed) szaniewski@squaxin.us 450 Port Orchard Blvd,Suite 290 sneil@squaxin.us Port Orchard,WA 98366 joshua.Benton@dfw.wa.gov The Confederated Tribe of the Chehalis ATTN: SEPA Reviewer-Glen Connelly 420 Howanut Rd.,Oakville,98568 WA Dept.of Fish and Wildlife gconnelly@chehalistribe.org ATTN: Margie Bigelow (Habitat Biologist-S Puget Sound Watershed) WA DNR,South Puget Sound Region 2391 W Deegan Rd., Shelton, 98574 950 Farman Avenue N, Enumclaw, 98022-9282 margaret.bigelow@dfw.wa.gov southpuget.region@dnr.wa.gov WA Dept.of Transportation WA DNR,Aquatic Resources ATTN: Dale Severson PO BOX 47027,Olympia, 98504-7027 P.O. Box 47440,Olympia 98504-7440 and@dnr.wa.gov OR-SEPA-REVIEW@wsdot.wa.gov 12(WA DNR,SEPA Center City of Shelton ATTN: External Coordinator ATTN:Jason Dose PO BOX 47015,Olympia,98504-7015 525 West Cota St., Shelton 98584 sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov jasond@ci.shelton.wa.us Olympic Region Clean Air Agency Port of Shelton ATTN:Aaron Manley ATTN: Brandon Palmer 2940-B Limited Ln. NW, Olympia.98502 21 West Sanderson Way, Shelton 98584 aaron.manley@orcaa.org BrandonP@portofshelton.com Mason County Transit Office of Archaeology&Historic Preservation ATTN: Mike Oliver ATTN: Lance Wollwage PO Box 1880, Shelton,98584 P.O. Box 48343,Olympia, 98504-8343 moliver@masontransit.org Lance.Wollwage@dahp.wa.gov Mason County PUD#1 Tacoma Public Utilities-Real Property Services ATTN: Steve Taylor ATTN: Dave Letterman N 21971 Hwy 101, Shelton,98584 3628 S 35th St,Tacoma, 98409-3192 sntaylor@mason-pud1.org dletterm@cityoftacoma.org Mason Cty P.W.ATTN: Mason Cty E.H.ATTN: Other: rare L41109�H�COMCA��� School District: Mason Cty Bldg ATTN: Agent: MC DCD last updated on 11/8/2016 Applicant: L48 SEPA Environmental Checklist Mason County Permit Center Use: Single Family DNS: $385 SEP � ❑ Other DNS: 0 to 9.99 acres: $630 Parcel#: 1 ZZ 1 7 1—eoa-Yo 10 to 20 acres: $ 5 Date RcvRECEIVED Over 20 acres: $94945 ❑ DS/EIS: $2,525+70 Per hr JUN 15 2017 615 W. Alder Street Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: hLelp1 This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use"not applicable" or "does not apply"only when you can explain why it does not applv and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. A. BACKGROUND hf m 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: LtIeM 2. Name of applicant: Lkm 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: LneM SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2016 Page 1 of 11 4. Date checklist prepared: of gM 5. Agency requesting checklist: r,[ p1pl 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): n[ M 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. nei N b 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal k ovC SG. i_ }��,�CFfEp 6�- U� 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. n[ [pl No 10. List any government approvals or permit f��t will be needed for your proposal, if known. Lg )0 J �cc 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)lktl 'S A)V&W1'AJ A-vtt� 171copOSJ 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. of elpl Parcel#(s): / Z?—j 7 — 4/ — 606 8"0 Address: s' /O F— /)over (jai RS— Legal Description: 1W.16+ 6. L, 3 A#"!ED Le�''-l Twp/Range/Section and/or GPS location: SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2016 Page 2 of 11 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS of elpl 1. Earth a. General descni of the site LLeM (circle one): Flat rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: b. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope)? n[ ep] rj—l�T c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, sand rate, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and no a any gricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. hf eM d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. of gM kU e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. of eIp] S-ee f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. n[ elpl h4( h( hAk g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?ltgjo QVeuArfi't "CK h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: of pjo y 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. of M /lid�)E_ b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Lkipi k 6 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: of m Alt lJf,- SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2016 Page 3 of 11 3. Water a. Surface Water: LneM 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. LneM 2) Will the project require any wor over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet)the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. k �� 5�-e �► (it A s 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. hf eM S e ,Z p(ec,�� 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. hf M Ao 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. k Alb 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. hf elpl At0 b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. LkM P/4 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any(for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. IkM c. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. k N t7 SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2016 Page 4 of 11 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. n[ m A1G 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. M) d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: 4. Plants hf elpl a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: of elpl ✓deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ✓ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be o removed or altered? f M c. List threatened and endangered syecies known to be on or near the site. nL pjpj d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance o vegetation on the site, if any: f M N`� e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. NOu'p— 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: of gm birds: haw heron, agle, songbirds, other: 19 LA Lo w mammals: deer-bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bat,'ssalmon rout, herring, shellfish, other: e�- 10 k4C SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11.960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2016 Page 5 of 11 b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. 1q@-1PJ c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. hr gM d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: nLeM e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. 6. Energy and natural resources N PC a. What kinds of energy(electric, nat ral gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. hel b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. nt M c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: hL eM 7. Environmental health V f a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.LLeM 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2016 Page 6 of 11 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?LLeipi NLNF_ 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. nI eM D k (r Y 4 f A Mi61tWq_( kid(5 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: of elpl 8. Land and shoreline use l a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. n[ e!p IV b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. /N 0 How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? NOA)F_ If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? of gM )p N F 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: 'do c. Describe any structures on the site. of m � � � ( 1�s Co Yt�'zr� bu�f<k e cto� d. Will any structures be demolished. If so, what. of eM X St 6 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? of elpl 2 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? nel g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? n� elpl h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. nC elpl A/9 SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2016 Page 7 of 11 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? h[ elpl dVGWE j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? of el N©NIP k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: of elpl N f lV L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: hey m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: 9. Housing a. Approxima ely how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. of M b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. LkM c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: of elpl 10. Aesthetics N a. What is the tal est height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? n[ em b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? of eM c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: h[ eip 11. Light and glare N A a. What type of light r glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?lLeipj b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? h[ elpl c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? hf elpl d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: [help] SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2016 Page 8 of 11 12. Recreation IVA a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? nLeip] b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. ltgm c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: nL el 13. Historic and cultural preservation /Ul/j- a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. LLem b. Are there any landmarks,features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. nr em c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. nr elpl d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. 14. Transportation �) a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. nr eM b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?ltgm c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? of elgl SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2016 Page 9 of 11 d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe(indicate whether public or private). n[ el e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. of M f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? nI M g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 1neM 15. Public services N/14 a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services(for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. of M b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. ItLei 16. Utilities a. Circl s currently available at the site: LneM ele icity natural gas, wate refuse servic elephone sanitary sewer eptic system, other b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the s' a or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. of [o All+ SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2016 Page 10 of 11 C. SIGNATURE hf ei The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: f Date Signed: 0_0 / Print Name of Signee: Ae 4e( I4Z If applicable, Position and Agency/Organization: Date Submitted: SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2016 Page 11 of 11