HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2011-00012 WSDOT CUP Sherwood Creek Bridge Exhibits Decision - SHR Permit / Conditions - 11/17/2011 ti STATE
P f4.'r 9 E.VEL
� — x
d�
n
889 DEC® 16 2011
r
STATE OF WASHINGTON .MASON CO. PLAN
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PLANNING DEPT.
PO Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (360) 407-6300
N l 2.ZZ011 DD 1 b DOOM
December 13, 2011
TO. BE KEPT IN THE
Jeff Sawyer PARCEL FILE
WSDOT
PO Box 47440
Olympia, WA 98504
Re: Mason County Local Permit SHR2011-00012
WSDOT - Applicant
Approved Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permits
Dear Mr. Sawyer:
On November 23, 2011, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) received the Mason County
decision on your Shoreline Substantial Development (SDP) and Conditional Use Permits for
construction of armoring to protect the concrete buttresses on the Sherwood Creek bridge. The
proposal will maintain channel configuration, place new heavy loose riprap, establish a
temporary work area and restore native vegetation (post-project) in the temporarily disturbed
area.
By law, local governments must review all SDPs for compliance with the following:
• The Shoreline Management Act(Chapter 90.58 RCW)
• Ecology's Substantial Development Permit approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-150 WAC)
• The Mason County Local Shoreline Master Program
Local governments, after reviewing the SDP for compliance, are required to submit the SDPs to
Ecology for filing
Your approved SDP has been received and filed by Ecology
By law, Ecology must review Conditional Use Permits,for compliance with:
• The Shoreline Management Act(Chapter 90.58 RCW)
• Ecology's Conditional Use Permit approval criteria (Chapter 173-27-160 WAC)
• The Mason County Local Shoreline Master Program
After reviewing Conditional Use Permits for compliance, Ecology must decide whether to
approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove them.
CONDITIONS FOR SHR2011-00012
1. Upon review construction documents, as well as the Endangered Species Act
consultation,a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) shall be obtained from the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to beginning any site
preparation and construction work.
2. All fill will be from upland sources. WA Staten Dept. of Transportation shall
assure that fill materials shall be of such quality that they will not cause
degradation of water quality.
3. As construction proceeds,Staff shall confirm that the proposed fill is
appropriately sloped and planted with vegetation to prevent erosion and shall
require redesign as necessary to comply with Landfill Use Regulation No. 5.
4. The Applicant will employ best management practices as approved by staff to
protect water quality and prevent erosion during construction. All debris,
overburden and other waste materials from construction will be disposed of in
such a manner as to prevent their entry by erosion from drainage into any
water body(per Use Reg.#1 of Transportation Chapter).
5. All excess debris/fill not required for the project design must be removed from
the site after project completion. Such debris may not enter or cause water
quality degradation of State waters.
6. Fill materials for bridge abutments shall be of such quality that they will not
cause degradation of water quality.
7. Silt fencing, straw,or jute matting to be installed and maintained for erosion
control in all disturbed areas. Erodible cuts shall be protected by planting or
matting immediately following construction(per Policy#14 and Use
Regulation 94).
8. Construction staging areas shall have proper erosion control in place during
their usage and the site shall be restored to a natural condition shortly after
abandonment by construction activity.
9. Staff shall confirm that the project will not adversely affect other properties by
factors such as increased erosion caused by increased flows. Staff shall
further condition the project if necessary to mitigate for such impacts.
10. The disturbed areas on either side of the bridge must be re-planted with native
riparian vegetation(per Policy#14 and Use Reg. #4 of the Transportation
Chapter).
REUNIV ED
Nov 14 2011
• MASON CO. PLA JNING DEPT.
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
3
4 RE: Washington State Department FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
of Transportation OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
5
Shoreline Substantial
6 Development/
Conditional Use Permit
7 (SHR2011-00012)
8
9 INTRODUCTION
10 The Applicant has applied for a shoreline substantial development permit and
conditional use permit for the repair of the buttresses to the Sherwood Creek Bridge,
11 including the introduction of stabilization measures to the underlying channel. The
12 shoreline substantial development permit and conditional use permit are approved
subject to conditions.
13
TESTIMONY
14
Allan Borden, Mason County senior planner, summarized the proposal. The
15 Applicant will repair the bridge abutments to protect the bridge for long term usage
16 and to maintain the channel configuration. Heavy rip rap will be replaced with large
woody debris. Old in-channel pilings, that used to support the bridge but are no
17 longer needed, will be removed. A temporary work access road will be placed on the
northwest side of the bridge. The project will prevent channel erosion. In response to
18 questions from the Examiner Mr. Borden stated that the project would be considered
water dependent under County shoreline regulations. He also noted that the fill for the
19 project is not"additional fill", but more of a replacement fill.
20
Bill Elliot, WSDOT project engineer, introduced some site plans, photographs and
21 project drawings as Exhibit 9. The bridge was constructed in 1952 and has become
more "in-water" than desired due to scour. The pier cap of a couple columns is being
22 exposed due to the scour. Access will be done a temporary access road. The material
23 for the temporary access roads will be removed. The most significant scour has been
on Pier 3, where most of the work will be done. Large woody debris will provide
24 stabilization of the channel and fish habitat. Heavy rock will be used to directly the
bridge abutments. Fish will be manually removed from the work area. The stream
25 will be diverted from the work zone during construction. Turbidity curtains will be
used to protect water quality. The project will be done between August 1 and
SSD/CUP -Public Works Dept. P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
September 15 as required by HPA approval. Staff biologists have prepared a
1 biological assessment for an ESA consultation and the HPA was approved.
2 EXHIBITS
3
See Exhibit List attached to the October 25, 2011, staff report. In addition, Ex. 9 was
4 admitted from the Applicant during the hearing, composed of seven photographs of
the project site, one annotated aerial photograph and two diagrams of the proposed
5 work.
6 FINDINGS OF FACT
7 Procedural:
8 1. Applicant. The applicant is the Washington State Department of
9 Transportation.
10 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
application on October 25, 2011, at or about 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County
11 Commissioners Meeting Room.
12 Substantive:
13 3. Site/Project Description. The Applicant requests a shoreline substantial
14 development permit and a conditional use permit for the repair of Sherwood Creek
Bridge and the stabilization of the underlying channel to protect the bridge from
15 future erosion. The project includes removal and new placement of heavy loose
riprap, installation of large woody debris, removal of old in-channel piling, temporary
16 work access, and native plant restoration.
17 4. Characteristics of the Area. The general area is characterized by very low-
18 density rural development consisting of single-family residences along State Route 3,
Grapeview Loop Road and Sherwood Creek Road.
19
5. Shoreline Designation. The shoreline designation is "Rural."
20
21 6. Adverse Impacts. Overall, the project will have significant beneficial
impacts with no significant adverse impacts. However, the record contains a serious
22 deficiency in biological review, as discussed below.
23 The project involves work that is done not only on the banks of a stream, but within
the stream itself. Such activities can have significant impacts to aquatic
24 environmental resources, yet no scientific analysis of these impacts was submitted
25 into the record. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, impacts to
environmental resources are a significant part of shoreline permit review. Any work
that could potentially affect aquatic resources should be subjected to review by a
SSD/CUP -Public Works Dept. p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
qualified biologist. This is usually done by the submission of the biological
I evaluation conducted for an Endangered Species Act consultation or the work done to
2 acquire hydraulic permit approval. That work was done for this project, but none of
the studies were submitted into the record of his proceeding. This puts the Applicant
3 on very thin ice, where the Examiner must make a finding on environmental impacts
based solely upon assurances that those have been mitigated for other project review.
4 Without having access to the actual reports,it is difficult to determine what mitigation
should be incorporated into shoreline permit approval and whether the mitigation for
5 other project review is in fact adequate to satisfy shoreline permit review criteria.
6 Staff and the Applicant have referenced some of the mitigation required in other
permit review to mitigate environmental impacts. This mitigation includes a limited
7 construction window (August 1 through September 15), turbidity curtains, replanting
of native vegetation, restoration of the construction staging areas, use of fill materials
8 that don't affect water quality, use of erosion control measures during construction
etc.
9
10 Given the assurances of staff and the Applicant that impacts to aquatic environmental
resources are fully mitigated by the HPA approval and ESA consultation, as well as
11 some of the mitigation identified by staff and the Applicant, the Examiner marginally
finds that there will be no significant adverse impacts to shoreline aquatic resources if
12 all mitigation recommended in those review processes are made conditions to
shoreline permit approval. In the future, it is expected that any shoreline proposal
13 involving potential impacts to aquatic resources be accompanied by some sort of
14 biological evaluation by a qualified individual. Environmental impacts are a key
consideration in any shoreline permit proposal and a passing reference to the work
15 done for other permit review is not sufficient to meet the Applicant's burden of
establishing compliance with shoreline permit criteria. At the least, the scientific
16 reports used to assess biological impacts should be submitted into the record of
17
shoreline permit review.
18 Beyond biological impacts, the project will provide a strong overall public benefit by
stabilizing a needed transportation facility and the channel underneath without
19 narrowing the channel and thereby increasing velocity, which in turn increases
erosion and corresponding downstream adverse impacts. Flood capacity beneath the
20 bridge will also be increased by the project. The project is conditioned to require
21 staff to determine that alterations to flow or the like caused by the project will not
adversely affect other properties.
22
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
23
Procedural:
24
25 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(9) authorizes the
Examiner to review and issue a final decision regarding shoreline substantial
development permit requests and conditional use permits.
SSD/CUP-Public Works Dept. p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I Substantive:
2 2. General Review Criteria for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
3 The applicant is required to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit for any
substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction. MCC 15.09.055(a).
4 Applications for substantial development permits are subject to review by the Hearing
Examiner. MCC 15.09.055(f). The Hearing Examiner bases a decision on a
5 substantial development permit application on the Shoreline Master Program for
6 Mason County ("MCSMP"), and the policies and procedures of Chapter 90.58 RCW,
the Shoreline Management Act ("SMA"). MCC 15.09.055(f)(2)(C). A "substantial
7 development" is any development of which the total cost for market value exceeds
$5,000 or any development that materially interferes with any normal public use of
8 the water or shorelines of the state. MCC 17.50.040. As noted in the staff report, the
proposal will exceed $5,000 in cost. This proposal is reviewed under the SMP
9 Section for Transportation Facilities, Landfill and Shoreline Stabilization. In
10 addition, the filling activities require a Conditional Use Permit. The applicable
review criteria are quoted below, followed by the Examiner's consideration and
11 conclusion of law.
12 Transportation Facilities Policy No. 1: Roads should be located on stable soils,
back from a water channel using routes that avoid slumps, wetlands, and natural
13 drainage areas. When this is not possible, corrective stabilization measures should be
14 used.
15 3. The project does not involve any new roads. The currently existing bridge
is not located upon stable soils, as evidenced by the fact that scour has undermined
16 the stability of the bridge over time. It is not possible to locate the bridge in an
17 alternative location within the meaning of the policy above, since the work proposed
is for an existing bridge located along an existing transportation route. As
18 encouraged by the policy above when it is not possible to locate in a more stable area,
corrective measures are proposed to stabilize the bridge.
19
Transportation Facilities Policy No. 3: Road locations should be planned to fit the
20 topography so that minimum alterations of natural conditions will be necessary.
21 4. The proposal is to stabilize an existing bridge without any significant
22 structural alterations, which inherently involves minimal alterations to topography.
Cuts and fill around the bridge and stream channel are necessary to complete the
23 project as designed to WSDOT standards, but these actions will not narrow the stream
24 channel or significantly alter topography.
25 Transportation Facilities Policy No. 7: Location of roads and railroads should not
require the rerouting of stream and river channels.
SSD/CUP -Public Works Dept. p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
5. The stream will be rerouted on a temporary basis during construction to protect
1 water quality. The policy above is not mandatory and its purpose is served in this
2 application since the rerouting is done to protect the stream.
3 Transportation Facilities Policy No. 8: Roads should be designed, constructed and
maintained to minimize erosion and to permit natural movement of ground water and
4 floodwaters to the extent practical.
5 6. The primary purpose of the project is to prevent erosion that threatens the
6 integrity of the bridge. The removal of eight wooden pilings will restore some of the
natural flood capacity of the channel.
7
Transportation Facilities Policy No. 9: All debris, overburden and other waste
8 materials from construction should be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their
entry by erosion from drainage, high water, or other means into any surface water
9 body.
10
7. The approval will be conditioned on compliance with the above policy.
11
Transportation Facilities Policy No. 10: Waterway crossings should be designed
12 and constructed to maintain normal geohydraulic processes, as well as to minimize
13 interruption of floodwater flow.
14 8. According to staff, the project, as proposed, is designed and will be
constructed to maintain normal geohydraulic processes, as well as to minimize
15 interruption of floodwater flow. The introduction of rip rap arguably creates an
artificial channeling situation, but is reasonably necessary to protect a transportation
16 corridor. Further, as previously noted the removal of pilings restores natural flood
17 capacity.
18 Transportation Facilities Policy No. 11: The number of waterway crossing should
be minimized.
19
9. The policy is satisfied in this project by facilitating the preservation of an
20 existing bridge instead of allowing further scour to damage the bridge and thereby
21 create a need for a new bridge.
22 Transportation Facilities Policy No. 13: Trail and bicycle systems should be
encouraged along shorelines to the maximum extent feasible.
23
10. The project work is not associated with any trail or bicycle system and
24 does not create any need for such facilities. Given these circumstances, the project
25 cannot legally be conditioned to provide for trail and bicycle amenities.
SSD/CUP -Public Works Dept. p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Transportation Facilities Policy No. 14: All transportation facilities in shoreline
I areas should be located, designed, constructed and maintained to cause the least
2 possible adverse impacts on the land and water environments, should respect the
natural character of the shoreline and should make every effort to preserve wildlife,
3 aquatic life and their habitats.
4 10. As discussed in the Findings of Fact, the Examiner is able to marginally
conclude that the project will not adversely affect aquatic environmental resources
5 and other environmental resources due to extensive biological review conducted for
6 other permit applications. Since the scientific evidence used to support that
biological review has not been submitted into the record of this application, the
7 project will be conditioned to comply with all conditions of approval related to those
studies in order to ensure that all impacts are adequately mitigated. As to the natural
8 character of the shoreline, as previously discussed the project involves minimal
alterations to topography and the removal of the wooden pilings will restore some of
9 the natural flood capacity of the stream channel.
10
Transportation Facilities Use Regulation No. 2: Bridge construction shall conform
11 to the following:
- Excavation and placement for the sills or abutments and outside placement of
12 stringers or girders shall be accomplished from above the ordinary high water mark,
as a Conditional Use.
13 _ Bridge approach fills shall not encroach in the flood way of any stream or river.
14 - All bridges shall be high enough (minimum of three feet above 100 year flood
elevation) to pass all expected debris and anticipated high water flows from a 100-
15 year flood.
16 11. A conditional use permit for the proposed excavation and placement. It is
17 unclear from the record whether any proposed fill will be located within a floodway.
However, if the fill will not extend into the floodway or stream beyond existing fill
18 and so would be allowed as repair work for a nonconforming use as authorized by
WAC 173-27-080(3).
19
Transportation Facilities Use Regulation No. 6: Excess construction material shall
20 be removed from the shoreline area.
21 12. As conditioned.
22
Transportation Facilities Use Regulation No. 8: All excavation materials and soils
23 exposed to erosion by all phases of road, bridge and culvert work shall be stabilized
and protected by seeding, mulching or other effective means both during and after
24 construction.
25 13. As conditioned.
SSD/CUP - Public Works Dept. p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Transportation Facilities Use Regulation No. 9: When permitted to parallel
1 shorelines, roads shall be set back a sufficient distance from the ordinary high water
2 mark to leave a usable shoreline area for shoreline recreation or access.
3 14. The proposed transportation facility does not parallel shorelines.
4 Transportation Facilities Use Regulation No. 10: Storm water runoff shall be
controlled to reduce suspended solids and other pollutants before entering any
5 surface water body.
6 15. As proposed and conditioned.
7
Landfill Policy No. 1: Any permitted fills or shoreline cuts should be designed so
8 that no significant damage to existing ecological values or natural resources, or
alteration of local currents will occur, creating a hazard to adjacent life, property
9 ecological values or natural resources.
10 16. As previously discussed, biological evaluation conducted for other permit
11 review and associated mitigation mitigate all significant adverse environmental
impacts. The project will reduce hazards to life and property by stabilizing a bridge
12 and increasing flood capacity of the underlying stream channel.
13 Landfill Policy No. 3: In evaluating fill projects and in designating areas
14 appropriate for fill, such factors as total water surface reduction, navigation
restriction, impediment of water flow and circulation, reduction of water quality and
15 destruction of habitat should be considered.
16 17. The project is fully mitigated to protect water quality and aquatic habitat.
The rip rap will improve navigation by stabilizing the stream channel. The flood
17 capacity of the stream channel will be increased, a public benefit.
18
Landfill Use Regulation No. 1: Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary
19 high water mark except that they may be permitted as a Conditional Use for
aquacultural practices and water dependent uses where no upland or structural
20 alternative is possible. Landfill in biological wetlands for non-water dependent uses
21 may be permitted. Such fill may be considered as a Conditional use PROVIDED the
applicant can demonstrate the following: (I) Extraordinary or unique circumstances
22 relating to the property exist which require the proposed shoreline location; (2) No
viable alternative using a different method or structural solution exists.
23
18. The proposed bridge is a water dependent use to which no viable
24 alternative using a different method or structural solution exists. The Applicant has
25 applied for a conditional use permit for the fills (rip rap) placed waterward of the
ordinary high water mark.
SSD/CUP -Public Works Dept. p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 Landfill Use Regulation No. 3: Landfills are not permitted in floodplains unless it
2 can be clearly demonstrated that the geohydraulic and jloodplain storage capacity
will not be altered to increase flood hazard or other damage to life or property.
3
19. It is unclear if any fill will be placed within a floodplain. As previously
4 noted, any such fill would be authorized as repair of a nonconforming use.
5 Landfill Use Regulation No. 4: Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water
6 drainage.
7 20. The staff report concludes that there will be no disruption of surface water
drainage and there is no evidence to the contrary.
8
Landfill Use Regulation No. 5: Permitted fills shall be appropriately sloped and
9 planted with vegetation to prevent erosion.
10 21. There is no explanation in the record as to why the proposed fills are not
11 planted. Since the fills appear to be composed entirely of rip rap, it appears that
planning would not accomplish any further stabilization. However, the project will
12 be conditioned to require staff to determine that the proposed fills are appropriately
13 sloped and planted with vegetation to prevent erosion.
14 Landfill Use Regulation No. 6: Applications for landfill projects shall include the
following information (at a minimum):
15 a. Character and source offill material;
b. Method of placement and compaction;
16 c. Type of surfacing proposed, if any;
d. Method of perimeter erosion control;
1 e. Proposed use of fill area;
18 .f Location of fill relative to natural or existing drainage patterns;
g. Proposed revegetation and/or landscaping.
19
22. The information required above was submitted as part of the application
20 and/or presented in support of the application by the close of the hearing. The
21 character and source of fill material isn't immediately evident from the information in
the record, except for the staff report that states that heavy rip rap will be acquired
22 from approved sources. It is unclear who will approve the source. The conditions of
approval will require that Mason County Public Works approve the character and
23 source of fill materials.
24 Landfill Use Regulation No. 7: Perimeters of fills shall be provided with vegetation,
25 retaining walls, or other mechanisms for erosion prevention. Any fill on or adjacent
to a tideland or shoreline shall be designed to prevent erosion.
SSD/CUP -Public Works Dept. p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
23. The proposed fill, rip rap, is itself an erosion protection feature and no
1 additional permanent erosion protect is necessary. During construction, silt fences
2 and other best management practices will be used to prevent erosion.
3 Landfill Use Regulation No. 8: Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will
not cause degradation of water quality.
4
24. As conditioned.
5
6 Flood Protection and Shoreline Stabilization Policies:
7 1. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection planning should be undertaken in a
coordinated manner among affected property owners and public agencies and should
8 consider entire systems or sizable stretches of rivers, lakes or marine shorelines. Thus
planning should consider the off-site erosion, accretion or flood damage that might
9 occur as a result of stabilization or protection structures or activities.
10 2. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection works should be located, designed,
constructed and maintained to provide:
11 • Protection of the physical integrity of the shore process corridor and other
properties which may be damaged by interruptions of the geohydraulic system;
12 Protection of water quality and natural ground water movement;
Protection of valuable fish and other life forms and their habitat vital to the aquatic
13 food chain;
14 ' Preservation of valuable recreation resources and aesthetic values such as point
and channel bars, islands and other shore features and scenery.
15 4. Substantial stream channel modification, realignment and straightening should be
discouraged as a means of shoreline stabilization and flood protection.
16 S. In design of publicly financed or subsidized works, consideration should be given
to providing public pedestrian access to the shoreline for low-intensity outdoor
1 recreation.
18
Flood Protection and Shoreline Stabilization Use Regulations:
19
1. The County shall require and utilize the following information during its review of
20 shoreline stabilization and flood protection procedures:
21 ' River channel hydraulics and floodway characteristics up and downstream from the
project area;
22 Existing shoreline stabilization and flood protection works within the area;
Physical, geological and soil characteristics of the area; and
23 Predicted impact upon area shore and hydraulic processes, adjacent properties and
shoreline and water uses.
24 2. Conditions of Hydraulic Project Approval, issued by Washington State Department
25 of Fisheries, may be incorporated into permits issued for flood protection and
shoreline stabilization.
SSD/CUP - Public Works Dept. P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
3. The County shall require professional design of shoreline stabilization and flood
1 protection works where such projects may cause interference with normal river
2 geohydraulic processes, leading to erosion of other upstream and downstream
shoreline properties, or adverse effects to shoreline resources and uses.
3
25. For reasons previously discussed, the criteria quoted above are satisfied. The
4 project is professionally designed, will not harm environmental resources and will
most likely benefit downstream property owners by increasing flood capacity and
5 stabilizing the location of the stream channel. The conditions of approval will require
6 staff to confirm that the project will not adversely affect downstream property owners
by increasing flows or otherwise. Given the localized and site specific nature of the
7 stabilization it does not appear that any coordination with other agencies or property
8 owners is necessary. No substantial stream channel modification is proposed.
Conditional Uses
9
10 MCC 17.50.080(1): That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of
RC 90.58 and the policies of the master program;
11
26. The policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW are well served by the project. The
12 statewide interest is protected over the local interest by protecting an existing
transportation route and increasing flood capacity. The natural character of the
13 shoreline is preserved by the moderate alterations proposed — most of the work will
14 be done within existing fill areas. The preservation of the bridge by protecting its
support structures from scour results in long term over short term benefit by
15 preventing the need for more major repairs or realignments in the future.
16 MCC 17.50.080(2): That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public
17 use of the shorelines;
18 27. The project is largely within the footprint of existing construction and will
only affect navigation temporarily during construction.
19
MCC 17.50.080(3): That the proposed use of the site and design of the project will
20 be compatible with other permitted uses within the area;
21 28. The project will protect and preserve an essential transportation route for
22 the permitted uses of the area and will not adversely affect them.
23 MCC 17.50.080(4): That the proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse
24
effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located;
25 29. As previously discussed, as conditioned the project will not create any
significant adverse environmental impacts.
SSD/CUP - Public Works Dept. P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I MCC 17.50.080(5): That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
2 30. As previously discussed, the project will not create any adverse impacts to
the environmental or adjoining properties while at the same time improving flood
3 capacity and preserving a needed transportation facility. No substantial detrimental
effect will be caused by the project.
4
Additional Review Criteria
5
6 MMC 15.09.050 Type III review
7 (1) The development does not conflict with the comprehensive plan and meets the
requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Titles 6, 8, and 16.
8
31. The policies of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program are
9 considered part of the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, as specified in RCW
10 36.70A.480. Those policies, the most directly applicable of the Comprehensive Plan,
are consistent with the development proposal as discussed throughout this decision.
11 The proposal does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Title Nos. 6 and 16 do
not apply for this particular proposal.
12
(2) The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in
13 the public interest.
14
33. As noted previously, the project protects needed public facilities with no
15 corresponding adverse impacts. The project is in the public interest and does not
impact public health, safety and welfare.
16
17 (3) The development does not lower the level of service of transportation andlor
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
18 comprehensive plan. If the development results in a level of service lower than those
set forth in the comprehensive plan, the development may be approved if
19 improvements or strategies to raise the level of service above the minimum standard
are made concurrent with the development. For the purpose of this section,
20 "concurrent with the development" is defined as the required improvements or
21 strategies in place at the time of occupancy, or a financial commitment is in place to
complete the improvements or strategies within six years of approval of the
22 development.
23 34. This project, a bridge redevelopment, will not lower the level of service
24 for transportation or park facilities.
25 DECISION
SSD/CUP - Public Works Dept. P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
The Examiner approves the requested shoreline substantial development and
1 conditional use permit, subject to the conditions recommended by staff in the staff
2 report for SHR 2011-00012 as well as the following:
3 1. Staff shall determine whether the proposed fill is appropriately sloped and planted
with vegetation to prevent erosion and shall require redesign as necessary to
4 comply with Landfill Use Regulation No. 5.
2. All fill will be from upland sources approved by the Mason County Department
5 of Public Works. Public Works shall assure that fill materials shall be of such
6 quality that they will not cause degradation of water quality.
3. The Applicant will employ best management practices as approved by staff to
7 protect water quality and prevent erosion during construction.
4. Staff shall confirm that the project will not adversely affect other properties by
8 factors such as increased erosion caused by increased flows. Staff shall fitrther
condition the project if necessary to mitigate for such impacts.
9 5. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures imposed and/or
10 recommended in the HPA approval and review documents as well as the ESA
consultation.
11
Dated this 9 h day of November, 2011.
12
13
14
Phil A. Olbrechts
15
Mason County Hearing Examiner
16 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
17
This land use decision is final and subject to appeal to the Shoreline Hearings Board
18 superior court as governed by Chapter 90.58 RCW. Appeal deadlines are short and
procedures strictly construed. Anyone wishing to file an appeal of this decision
19 should consult with an attorney to ensure that all procedural requirements are
20 satisfied.
21 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
22
23
24
25
SSD/CUP -Public Works Dept. p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
CASE INDEX
Washington State Department of Transportation
Shoreline Substantial Development/ Conditional Use Permit
SHR2011-00012
Exhibit# Date Description
1 October 25, 2011 Staff Report
2 August 26, 2011 Substantial Development Conditional Use Application
3 October 5, 2011 Project Location Ma
4 October 5, 2011 Project Vicinity Ma
5 October 5, 2011 Project Site Aerial Photo
6 March 8, 2011 SEPA Determination of Non-Significance WSDOT
7 September 15, 2011 Notice of Application
8 October 13, 2011 Affidavit of Posting
Sherwood Ck bridge WSDOT SHR2011-00012 case index.doc
i
Mason County
Department of Community Development
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton,Washington 98584
October 25, 2011
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Allan Borden; 360.427.9670 ext 365; ahbAco.mason.wa.us
RE: Mason County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SHR2011-00012).
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates an application for a Shoreline Substantial
Development and Conditional Use Permit for the repair of the buttresses to the Sherwood
Creek Bridge under the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IX, Shoreline
Management Program, Transportation Facilities Policies and the Mason County
Shoreline Master Program 17.50.060 Use Regulations Transportation Facilities. This
bridge repair is part of a long-term goal to protect the bridge and maintain stream channel
configuration. It includes removal and new placement of heavy loose riprap, installation
of large woody debris,removal of old in-channel piling, removal of temporary work
access, and native plant revegetation of the project site. See attached Project Description
for more details (Exhibit 6). Staff recommends permit conditions.
II. Applicant: Washington State Department of Transportation
III. Agent: Dennis Engel P.E.
IV. Date of Complete Application: August 26, 2011.
V. Site address and Project Location: State Route 3 between Mileposts 20.36 and 20.39.
Located just south of Allyn and the intersection of Grapeview Loop Rd. Parcel No.
12220-00-60000. (Exhibit 4)
VI. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the site and area. The general area(exhibit 3 and 5)is
characterized by very low-density rural development consisting of single-family
residences along the State Route 3, Grapeview Loop Rd., and Sherwood Creek Rd.
The existing bridge spans a narrow portion of Sherwood Creek,a Type F stream that
is subject to high tide inundation from Case Inlet.
B. Shoreline Master Program Designation. The Shoreline Master Program
environmental designation at the site is Urban.
C. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation surrounding the site is Rural Area.
Sherwood Ck bridge WSDOT SBR2011-00012.doc 1
D. Zoning. The state highway right-of-way parcel is not zoned. Surrounding properties
are zoned as Rural Residential 5 (RR-5)to the south and Allyn Urban Growth Area
Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone to the west and north.
VII. SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements. The proposal was reviewed
under SEPA authority by WA. Dept. of Transportation; a DNS was issued in mid-March
2011 (Exhibit 6). The Shoreline Management Permit application for a Substantial
Development/Conditional Use Permit(SHR2011-00012)is attached(Exhibit 2) and a
Notice of Shoreline Management Permit(Exhibit 7)was issued on September 15, 2011.
The Affidavit of Publication of Shoreline Management Permit is attached(Exhibit 8).
VIII. Other Permits. The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit, Hydraulic
Project Approval(HPA)from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW),
and approvals from Washington Dept. of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
IX. Analysis. The proposal is a bridge repair to protect the structure as a long-term goal and
as well as maintain stream channel configuration. The project includes removal and new
placement of heavy loose riprap, installation of large woody debris,removal of old in-
channel piling, removal of temporary work access, and native plant restoration of the
project site. This project is within the jurisdiction of a Type 1 water(Sherwood Creek)
and is reviewed under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program review standards.
Per the Mason County Development Code 15.09.055 A. 1.,this proposal requires a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SDP) due to the cost exceeding$5,000 as
well as being beyond the scope of"normal maintenance and repair"as defined under
WAC 173-27-040(2)(b). This SDP proposal is reviewed under Transportation Facilities
Chapter,the Landfill Chapter, and the Conditional Use Chapter of the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IX. Shoreline Management Program, and the Mason
County Code, Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Chapter 17.50.060. The applicable
policies and use regulations are the following:
Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Management Program Policies:
Transportation Facilities
1. Roads should be located on stable soils,back from a water channel using routes that
avoid slumps,wetlands,and natural drainage areas. When this is not possible,
corrective stabilization measures should be used.
Bridge project is along existing alignment that provides access to shoreline properties that
are near streams, saltwater, and wetlands;no new routes through these critical areas.
3. Road locations should be planned to fit the topography so that minimum alterations of
natural conditions will be necessary.
Bridge abutment repairs are in an existing right-of-way road corridor. Cuts and fill
around the bridge and stream cannel are necessary to complete the project as
designed to WSDOT standards.
7 Location of road should not require the rerouting of stream and river channels.
During the removal of old materials and placement of new riprap, stream channels
will be temporarily rerouted;following placement, the waterjlows will be directed to
the original stream channel and buffer areas replanted.
8. Roads should be designed, constructed and maintained to minimize erosion and to
permit natural movement of ground water and flood waters to the extent practical.
Sherwood Ck bridge WSDOT SHR2011-OW12.doc 2
The bridge abutment repairs and riprap along the banks will allow to the most extent
possible the natural flow of the tidally influenced mouth and lowest areas of
Sherwood Creek Removal of eight old pilings prior to riprap placement will open
channel area on the upstream portion of the bridge crossing.
9. All debris,overburden and other waste materials from construction should be
disposed of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion from drainage,high
water, or other means into any surface water body.
As proposed and conditioned.
10. Waterway crossings should be designed and constructed to maintain normal
geohydraulic processes,as well as to minimize interruption of floodwater flow.
Enlarging the cross-section area beneath the bridge and protecting the banks are the
purpose of the project as proposed, thus meeting this policy.
13. Trail and bicycle systems should be encouraged along shorelines to the maximum
extent feasible.
Not part of this proposal.
14. All transportation facilities in shoreline areas should be located, designed, constructed
and maintained to cause the least possible adverse impacts on the land and water
environments, should respect the natural character of the shoreline and should make
every effort to preserve wildlife, aquatic life and their habitats.
The work as proposed(removal of old material, careful placement of new riprap, and
the replanting of banks in the work area) meets the intent of this policy.
Chapter 17.50.060 Mason County Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations:
Transportation Facilities
2. Bridge construction shall conform to the following:
- Excavation and placement for the sills or abutments and outside placement of
stringers or girders shall be accomplished from above the ordinary high water mark,
as a Conditional Use.
Work on removal of old rockfill and wood pilings and placement of new rock riprap
requires the review of the Conditional Use permit. The new riprap is within the
footprint area of the old but will be more stable; channel capacity beneath the bridge
will be increased and flows to Case Inlet improved.
- Bridge approach fills shall not encroach in the floodway of any stream or river.
- All bridges shall be high enough(minimum of three feet above 100-year flood
elevation)to pass all expected debris and anticipated high water flows from a 100-
year flood.
No changes to bridge or approaches proposed.
5. Excess construction materials shall be removed from the shoreline area.
As proposed in the request and a condition of permit decision.
7. All excavation materials and soils exposed to erosion by all phases of road,bridge
and culvert work shall be stabilized and protected by seeding,mulching or other
effective means both during and after construction.
As proposed in the request and a condition of permit decision.
9. Storm water runoff shall be controlled to reduce suspended solids and other pollutants
before entering any surface water body.
During the temporary access and work area on the west side of the bridge, silt-
fencing and ground matting will be installed to control runoff, reduce suspended
solids and other pollutants from exiting the work area and entering the surface water.
Sherwood Ck bridge WSDOT SHR2011-00012.doc 3
Mason County Comprehensive Plan Chapter IX, Shoreline Master Program Policies:
Landfill:
1. Any permitted fills or shoreline cuts should be designed so that no significant damage to
existing ecological values or natural resources,or alteration of local currents will occur,
creating a hazard to adjacent life,property, ecological values or natural resources.
The proposed fills(new rock riprap)will provide for improved stability along the bridge
abutments and will not affect channel stability or streambanks in the vicinity.
3. In evaluating fill projects and in designating areas appropriate for fill,such factors as total
water surface reduction,navigation restriction, impediment of water flow and circulation,
reduction of water quality and destruction of habitat should be considered.
Proposed fills will be within the stream channel but will not impede streamflows or affect
navigation in the vicinity, and work site rehabilitation will include temporary fill removal and
buffer vegetation restoration as proposed.
Chapter 17.50.060 Mason County Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations:
Landfill:
1. Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark or on biological wetlands
except that they may be permitted as a Conditional use for aquacultural practices and water
dependent uses where no upland structural alternative is possible.Landfill in wetlands for non-
water dependent uses may be permitted. Such fill may be considered as a Conditional Use
PROVIDED the applicant can demonstrate the following: (1)Extraordinary or unique
circumstances relating to the property exist which require the proposed shoreline location;(2)
No viable alternative using a different method or structural solution exists.
Fills will be within the Sherwood Creek channel as a necessary element to protect the
bridge abutments but will not affect the direction or volume of channel flows..
4.Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water drainage.
Proposed fills will not affect the natural surface drainage in the project area.
5.Permitted fills shall be appropriately sloped and planted with vegetation to prevent erosion.
Fills will not be replanted but the temporary work areas will be replanted; these elements
will be part of project best management practices.
6.Applications for landfill projects shall include the following information(at a minimum):
a. Character and source of fill material; Heavy riprap will be obtained from approved upland
pit sources.
b. Method of placement and compaction; Fill materials will be placed and compacted to meet
road engineering standards.
c. Type of surfacing proposed,if any; No surfacing is proposed in this project.
d. Method of perimeter erosion control; Silt fencing and jute matting and hydroseeding of
annual species to be done prior to planting woody species.
e. Proposed use of fill area; Bank protection around bridge abutments and channel alignment.
f. Location of fill relative to natural or existing drainage patterns. Fill will be at the edge of
the channel alignment and provide for proper protection of the existing bridge structure.
g. Proposed revegetation and/or landscaping. Straw,jute-matting, hydroseeding of exposed
banks, and replanting of native plants.
7.Perimeters of fills shall be provided with vegetation,retaining walls,or other mechanisms for
erosion prevention.Any fill on or adjacent to a tideland or shoreline shall be designed to
prevent erosion. These will be part of the construction best management practices used by the
applicant.
8.Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will not cause degradation of water quality.
Clean riprap will be obtained from approved upland pit sources.
Sherwood Ck bridge WSDOT SHR2011-00012.doc 4
Chapter 17.50.080 Mason County Shoreline Master Program Conditional Use
Evaluation:
Uses which are classified or set forth in the Shoreline Master Program as conditional uses
may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
1. "The proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58 and the policies of the
Master Program."
The applicant has worked with the WA. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and Mason County Dept.
of Community Development while designing the proposed repair to protect the bridge
abutments and Sherwood Creek bankline. The proposal will protect the Statewide interest
of preserving the existing bridge over the creek and along State Route 3, a traffic corridor
connecting Shelton and Mason County with the urban and commercial areas in Kitsap
County along Puget Sound. The proposed bridge protection permits the continued
transportation use along the shoreline area via the state highway.
2. "The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of the shoreline."
The proposed bridge project will protect the normal public use and access in the vicinity of
the saltwater shoreline. This bridge abutment project will improve the condition of the
structure along the road,protect the bridge footings along the stream alignment, and,
following buffer vegetation replanting, enhance fish and wildlife habitat and access to the
stream and saltwater shoreline.
3. "The proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other
permitted uses in the area."
The proposed bridge abutment improvements are compatible with the continuing area use
of traffic conveyance for residential and recreational activities along Case Inlet. Providing
better access to properties and safer bridge structure will enhance travel through the area
and user access to shoreline properties.
4. "The proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects to the shoreline
environment in which it is located."
The current road and bridge alignment has long provided the needed access through the
area to properties in the vicinity. The proposed temporary work areas on the west side of
the bridge will enable the work to be done mostly out of water. Sediment and erosion
control practices will limit water turbidity during the project, and on-site plant restoration
will take place once the work areas are removed at the end of project.
5. "That the Public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect."
As on-going maintenance activities, the proposed improvements to the bridge configuration
will assure continued use of the bridge by landowners, visitors, and recreational users along
the shoreline areas of Case Inlet. Permit conditions will assure that impacts to the shoreline
areas are minimized during preparation and construction of the proposed work along
Sherwood Creek
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
Type III review for permit applications require that the Hearing Examiner evaluate the
proposal for consistency with the County's Development Code, adopted plans and
Sherwood Ck bridge WSDOT SHR2011-00012.doc 5
regulations. The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal according to the following
review criteria:
l. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the
requirements and intent of the Mason County Code(MCC), especially Title 6, 8 and 16.
This staff report served to review the conditional use request from the MCC Shoreline
Master Program Chapter. The development being reviewed does not conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan and meets all the requirements and intent of the MCC, including the
Shoreline Master Program Chapter 17.50.080 Conditional Use standards. There are no
adverse effects to critical values or environmental areas.
2. The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in
the public interest.
The development proposal will not impact the public health, safety or welfare because the
project proposes to maintain an existing infrastructure element(state highway bridge), is
compatible with surrounding land uses, and does not adversely affect the natural
environment(no expansion offootprint in the stream channel). The request evaluates the
needed rock fill materials that will protect the bridge structure and stream channel.
3. The development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal does not lower the Level of Service for transportation or neighborhood
parkfacilities, as it is a reasonable effort to protect an existing bridge structure along
State Route 3 that connects Mason County with Kitsap County.
X. Conclusions. Staff finds that the proposal as proposed and conditioned is consistent with
the Mason County Comprehensive Plan Chapter IX. Shoreline Management Program
Policies, and Mason County Code, 17.50.060 Shoreline Master Program Transportation
and Landfill Chapters, and the criteria of the Conditional Use Chapter. A decision made
on this request should include the conditions listed below:
1. Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA) shall be obtained from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to beginning any site preparation and
construction work.
2. All debris, overburden and other waste materials from construction will be disposed
of in such a manner as to prevent their entry by erosion from drainage into any water
body(per Use Reg. #1 of Transportation Chapter).
3. All excess debris/fill not required for the project design must be removed from the
site after project completion. Such debris may not enter or cause water quality
degradation of State waters.
4. Fill materials for bridge abutments shall be of such quality that they will not cause
degradation of water quality.
5. Silt fencing, straw, or jute matting to be installed and maintained for erosion control
in all disturbed areas. Erodible cuts shall be protected by planting or matting
immediately following construction(per Policy#14 and Use Regulation#4).
Sherwood Ck bridge WSDOT SHR2011-00012.doc 6
6. Construction staging areas shall have proper erosion control in place during their
usage and the site shall be restored to a natural condition shortly after abandonment
by construction activity.
7. The disturbed areas on either side of the bridge must be re-planted with native
riparian vegetation(per Policy#14 and Use Reg. #4 of the Transportation Chapter).
8. Construction to occur during daylight hours to minimize noise impacts
XI. Choices of Action.
1. Approve.
2. Approve with conditions.
3. Deny(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted).
4. Deny with prejudice (reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year).
5. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with
Section 15.09.090 of Title 15
Sherwood Ck bridge WSDOT SHR2011-00012.doc 7
RECEIVED
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUG 2 6 20�1
Courthouse Annex
P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584
(360)427-9670 426 W. CEC�AR ST.
^ SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION e
PERMIT NO. .5 f fP-20I I-6WJ Z SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SHORELINE VARIANCE
DATE RECEIVED SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE X
SHORELINE EXEMPTION
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires that substantial developments within
designated shorelines of the state comply with its administrative procedures(WAC 173-14)and the provisions of the
Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program.The purpose of this Act and local program is to protect the
state's shoreline resources. The program requires that substantial development(any development of which the total
cost or fair market value exceeds$5,000.00 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or
shorelines of the State be reviewed with the goals,polices,and performance standards established in the Master
Program.
Answer all questions completely. Attach any additional information that my further describe the proposed
development. Incomplete applications will be returned.
APPLICANT: Washington State Department of Transportation(Dennis Engel,PE)
ADDRESS: PO Box 47440
Olympia (str4VA 98504
(city) (state) (zip)
TELEPHONE: (360) 357-2682
(home) (business)
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: Jeff Sawyer
ADDRESS: PO Box 47417
(street) Olympia WA 98504
(city) (state) (zip)
TELEPHONE: (360)570-6701
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
General location(include property address,water body and associated wetlands—identify the name of the
shoreline):
The property is located on SR 3 at Sherwood Creek, between milepost 20.36
and milepost 20.39.
Legal description (include section, township, and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and
longitude to the nearest minute. Projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude
location)—include all parcel numbers:
Sherwood Creek Bridge (003/015) is located in Mason County, Section
20, Township 22 N, Range 1 W, W_M P ra rel 9 122200060000_
OWNERSHIP: Contract
Applicant x Owner Lessee Purchaser (Identify) Other
Owner.
Same as above.
(street)
(city) (state) (zip)
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTON
Development(identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction
methods,principle dimensions,and other pertinent information):
See Section 6a of the JARPA application.
Use(identify current use of property with exist improvements:
The property is used as part of the state highway system.
Reason for requesting development:
The purpose of the project is to repair and prevent additional scour at
the base of the bridge piers of Bridge 003/015. The original bridge
protection (heavy loose rip rap) is no longer present. The work will
prevent further erosion and maintain the structural integrity of the
bridge.
ACKOWLEDGEMENT
I hereby declare,to th best of my knowledge and belief,the forgoing information and all attached information is
true acorredf-
I
(lipplicant or authorized r presentative) (d )
■......■.■....■..■■.■.....■...■■.■..■..■.■■.■■...■■■.■■..■........■..■■■...■..
TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL
Identify and describe existing features of the site and surrounding area:
If proposed structures will exceed a height of 35 feet above the existing grade level,indicate the location of any
residential units that will have an obstructive view:
If a Conditional Use or Variance is requested,make reference to the appropriate section in the Master Program:
REVISED: 06-25-03
• r
Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not
occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The
Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly.
I / WE understand that I /WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment
indicating and that I / WE understand that is MY/ OUR responsibility. I /WE must
submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as
complete.
DATE: 8/Z31�j
T�
C
O
APPLICANT
Special Use Permit: $1,135.00 plus Hearings Examiner: $2005 or $670 for ADU's
Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs.Acceptance of this application,by Mason County does not guarantee
approval.
I TLANNINGTACTORMS Updated 12/15/08
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Building III, 426 W. Cedar St.
P.O. Box 186
Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE
The purpose of Conditional Use Permit is to allow greater flexibility in varying the new
application of the Use Regulations of the Master Program. Conditional Use Permits
should also be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a
thwarting of the policy enumerated in R.C.W. 90.58.0200. In authorizing a Conditional
Use,.special conditions may be attached to the permit by local government or the
Department of Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use.
Uses which are classified, or set forth in the Master Program as conditional uses, may be
authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
1. Show that the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of R.C.W. 90.58.
and the policies of the Master Program. n.�e �,c�aS�,if P b3,x+ �,.w;11 pr iect 111-Q S ZfP w� e
1,41"S+ i 1 3/�l.s Cv,2,^ , L erwDgl G e e
2. Show that the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of the
shoreline.
3. Show that the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible
with other permitted uses within the area. N
( 16b,'fa f 0 li ���TQ t o,,� �'�, r`���� � f r7►� c� cif
4. Show that the proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects to the
shoreline environment in which it i to be 1 cated.
i ojec� ��t5 u i.✓Q IcS a 7�� f,S K %alp;tcc� wi d I Lie rz �o ra,y
b-e "561�1� fsa� S��er�,,ux� Cod �f�✓w1- arrlptiy
`n GCCeSS �v��� .;ill 6� �� o�e� o�'cf �.'NA .t,s. C-b�/014f q- �/-oje4
Z��� e'�`rx'���•
5. Show that the public inPe'rest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
1�,;�/�a�fS L,,,;ll b•,; te��/0a(-ar/ 2; °' vC,('(C gill ,poi- ,� �e
access_
Other uses, which are not classified or set forth in the Master Program, may be
authorized as conditional uses provided that the applicant can demonstrate, in
addition to the criteria set forth above, that extraordinary circumstances preclude
reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent with the Use Regulations of the
Master Program.
Uses, which are specifically prohibited by the Master Program, may not be
authorized.
In the granting of all Conditional Use Permits, consideration shall be given to the
cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if
Conditional Use Permits were granted for other developments in the area where
similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses should remain consistent
with the policies of the Master Program and should not produce substantial adverse
effects to the shoreline environment.
Please attach any additional information, as needed.
T. 22N. R. 1 E. W.M.
(r-/-,::: ;.. ZO/�.�,�:• __,�L_—•C`�'•' �+ �r'. sr '4p�',� :, ;f,:;.,•..•'..r. RECEIVED
I %!� r ' ' , 426 W. CEDAR ST•
,
.41
:-- . i •air• `�+ ` �t/' _`•�\ err +�•+��.
-'—�,•�J.,r' ,r. � � I D4
It
lb
V.
' ..- :•���/,•;�, ;�%� ;, :r/��l :fir; .� .••._ `_'�
0 35 so
SCALE IN FEET
RLE NAME G:IDESIGN TEAWSR 0 Shemood Creek 3courW5 CADD105.05 Leve12 CAD FIIeWL0717 PS ENV 01.d D
RME 3:43:35 PM
)ATE 112]110)0 FED.AID PROJ.NO. SR 3 �•,,,e„
'LOTTED BY Neu eeJ 10 WAS .�
)ESIGNED BY C.MIDreD SHERWOOD CREEK ENV
?NTERED BY J.Neu ebauer-Rex Washington State BRIDGE SCOUR
:NECKED BY S.Th0me0R aexn,cr a„. v,, a'rt
'ROJ.ENGR. D.En el Department of Transportation
REDIONAL ADM. K-De tOD REVISION DATE BY XL 3713 n wn .SITE PLAN ,m
T. 22N. R. 1 E. W.M. LEGEND
�w Alt ��o� /•yam/
jam: 592+70.00 / hty` �
.: (75.00,125.00 LT) d
-OHW—OHW— ORDINARY HIGH WATER LINE
m
STREAM SCALABLE EDGE
/dtffi -CP——CP—- EXISTING PSE OVERHEAD POWER
d ----- -- EXISTING ROADWAY
O
TEMPORARY / / ——— — WETLAND BOUNDARY
ACCESS ROAD /
D � .�u. TEMPORARY FILL AREA
GIs % au. WETLAND AREA
o.�•,t+ /d ((�� /y/ �Z�- BURIED TELEPHONE CONNECTION
POWER POLE
WATER VALVE
.- GUY ANCHOR
BANK RESTORATION ; X d SIGN
O
LARGE WOODY A( ,i RECEIVED
p _---- MATE Mile)RIAL ) _ 5 t
/ 426 W.CEDAR ST.
-�- H�PLOOSE
00
/ O O �A14 aN. ILL / AW
4e W
--OHVI
/ t —
TEMPORARYACCESS ROADROAD T _-
a1W--0NW
y fr qy dO
HEAVY LOOSE \
O` r} /\ RIPRAP
oHw—CHIN
�- o of.�/
Clav
SCALE IN FEET
E NANE G:%DESIGN TFAMl4R-3 Sherwood Creek SeouA05 CADD%05.04 Plob a Tasks%L-12 CAD FlleetXLntS Ie ENV oZd n
E .IIA2:47 PM "."10e," ""' FEDAID PROJ.NO. .� SR 3 """'�M0
rE. 3/712011 10 AS SHERWOOD CREEK ENV2
)TIED BY Tb"*St CAP
31GNED BY C.Minton
rERED BY J.Nsu abauer-Rex Washington State BRIDGE SCOUR 2
.e,re,�R vas en Department of Transportation
ECKED BY' S.Thomson _ 5
D.I.ENGR. D.Engel XL 3773 ,. o.a CIVIL PLAN .,..*•
31ONAL ADML K.Dayton REVISION DATE BY
BRIDGE PIER
HEAVY LOOSE RIPRAP
00 �Q
D0,3OO O
FILTER O O
BLANKET O �� EXISTING GROUND
�.1
OC
OQ O
-- ----------- 00 t QO QO - EXISTIP O
O6q O OO O ° — '
O 3
SECTION A-A r
NTS
EXISTING GROUND
BIOENGINEERING
GEOTEXTILE WALL
C,
100 YEAR FLOW LINE
_ HEAVY LOOSE RIPRAP
FILTER OO OQ O 000 OQ O
BLANKET O O�O n o O�n C 1 RGE WOODY MATERIAL
o O VV.rQ� c QIY�J olr JlQI�oO Q
nn OOOQ. O
------------------------
SECTION C-C
NTS
FILE NAME GADESIGN TEA ASR-3 Sherwood Creek ScouA05 CADDk05.04 Plots & Tasksll-evel2 CAD Files 1XL3713�PS ENS 04.dgn
FEDAID PROJ.NO.
TIME 4:48:27 PM N0.
DATE 3/7/2011 10 WAS
PLOTTED BY ThomsSt
JOB NUMBER
DESIGNED BY C.Minten
ENTERED BY J.NeU ebauer-Rex
CONTIUCT NO. LOCATION NQ
CHECKED BY S.Thomson
PROJ.ENGR. D.En el XL 3713
REGIONAL ADM. K.Dayton REVISION DATEI BY PEST"""
QED
AU 2 6 20;1
BRIDGE PIER 426 V4.,GEDQF S i.
HEAVY LOOSE RIPRAP
OFILTER
BLANKET
J
OLD PILE -REMOVE
ND AT MUD LINE O
7' 0
EXISTING GROUND I - --
--------�--- 3' --'--
1
SECTION B-B
NTS
TEMPORARY EXISTING GROUND
ACCESS ROAD
15'
AL `�" _
ORDINARY HIGH \
WATER LINE
------------------------
SECTION D-D
NTS
.dW SR 3
VAP
SHERWOOD CREEK ENV4
Washington State BRIDGE SCOUR SHEET
Department of Transportation 4
SECTIONS 5
DATE DATE SMEEf3
PE.STAMP BOX PM STAMP BOX
RECEIVED
j I AUG 2 6 2011
I i i i
426 W. CEDAR ST.
SR-3 LINE j 0.30% !---------------------:.
I
III f III '
III I11 � 111
I!1� I!I III i' III
' I!I III III III
1!I 1!I 111 III
I!I III III I11
1!I III III 111
1!I -
1!I III III III
' 1!I ill A ill i/ 100 YR.M.R.I.
14.65
I!I �,` 1!I I11 i I11
1!I III �— �'/T•i OHWI
10.10
I!1 %�
I!104
1 1!I 'Ill 111 1
Iilk Il'. �•-- ------------- II;• I
I.J.J I.J.J I. I..{.J
PIER 4 PIER 7 PIER 2 PIER 1
BRIDGE PROFILE
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
NTS(2VAH)
1
m 4 m
jW jW
0.00
1b W> W>
-16�67e/ R 0� E� n 0.00'h
ti Nq 4NE >W >w .
•'•� •2.DS% H
'' w> SP`
NORTH ACCESS ROAD PROFILE SOUTH ACCESS ROAD PROFILE
NTS (2V:1H) NTS (2VAH)
E NAME G:WESIGN TEAMISR 3 Sh—od Creek ScoudDS CADOWS.05 Lere12 CAD Fill Ne1XL7717 PS ENV 03.d n _
IE 1:29:55 PM �� u.ces
rE 7R5/2010 �`OqM �` r FED.AID PROJ,NO. � SR 3
7rreD er MnHERWOOD CREEK ENV=
9WNED SY C.Mlnte s •
UP
1ERED BY J.Neu ebauer-Rax Washington State BRIDGE SCOUR
ECKED BY s.Thomson ... .o�..A..o. Department of Transportation r 3
DJ.ENOR. D.Engel XL 3713 .� an PROFILES 5
71ONAL ADM. K.Dayton REVISION DATE BY '�
RECEIVED
LARGE WOODY MATERIAL
TTjJ1f AM 2 6 20!!
V DIAM.AUGERED HOLE(TYP)
Lam"%J1 425 W. CEDAR'ST.
RIPRAP LIMITS
1
/ 1t � EARTH ANCHORS 6'MAX EXPOSURE BARB OR SCALLOP
(7000 LB.PULLOUT CAPACITY)
T MAX
GROUNDLINE
LARGE WOODY MATERIAL
E9 CTION
i
-------
STAINLESS STEEL
CABLE OR CHAIN
I
�c
i� EARTH ANCHORS
��f' 'SO 0000 LB.PULLOUT CAPACITY)
h
P'4 CABLE LOOP DETAIL LWM ANCHOR DETAILS
NTS
ISOMETRIC VIEW
CABLE LOOP DETAILS
NTS
FILE NAME G:WESIDN TEAMISR-7 Blwmeoe Creak 5eoe605 CADDW5.04 Plnb i Taskml l2 CAD FBmUlL3713 PS ENV 05.d n
TIME 2:35:37 PM
DATE Yr12011 PEDALO PROJ.NO. SR 3
PLOTTED BY Th—St 10 AS SHERWOOD CREEK ENV5
DESIGNED BY C.Minton ma arm
ENTERED BY J.Neu ebau@rvRex Washington State BRIDGE SCOUR µ5T
CHECKED BY S.Thonw1 n mmuer mi o Department of Transportation
PROJ.ENGB. D.En al XL 3713 --- SECTIONS AND DETAILS 5
REGIOIUL ADM. K.Da On HlVMION DATE BY �n °"� n
JERRY & JANICE CHEEK RICHARD & BONNIE KNIGHT
8320 E GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD P.O. BOX 84
ALLYN WA 98524 ALLYN WA 98524
SHIRLEY MC ALLISTER LINDA BARTLING ET. AL.
101 E SHERWOOD CRREK RD. 791 E STRETCH ISLAND RD. SO.
ALLYN WA 98524 GRAPEVIEW WA 98546
ROBERT COLSON JOHANNES ARIENS
10789 WOODCHUCK LN. P.O. BOX 287
PORT ORCHARD WA 98367 ALLYN WA 98524
Attn. JEFF SAWYER
WA. ST. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 47417
OLYMPIA WA 98504-7417
IN1 I'�NNINI
io1 -- 3
W
LL _W
Z.
uke.Ande F�
3
LU
LL
V
T 2NR1
kr
j
SE RI Pu t Soured
Puget ound
D
S�
GHTOJAN — — -- - —
N
Q'
O
W E
1 inch = 500 feet j�r � � �-
1 inch = 0.09 miles
S
122203400130
122203490152
�201�j
12220349013,_ t.22203400180 a' _�..1222 '`1050;
�` �►ti • � �'����� �(
ti s�• a A� P t122203490 —-
122203490361
122203490363 a .
122203300190 jt.
,,,� *122202,349036
22203'39122 D34001�0122203400160 ta
wn Y;_ .. 1 -= 122200060000 v 4-
-�122200060010
122203490260- 122203490340
k� 122203390232)�y
122295002001
122203400250 122203490330. f ti�J3
` 1�
12 f t122203400080
•- 122203400240• - .
122203390231
122203390233 3 -
aa•
k a, 122208888888 22200060010
=T22NR1 �� a >
' 122292100300 �—t " " � V
� 122203400090 '�
122203390232
122292100210
-
Ir
ON
.7^� ow
�'9�22 90 06001 0 > �-
, 122292200310 s
.j � •. .- ';`� 12�295001003'
�122292290344
Cyr �1"ti+
2-?92100371r ..a'- ""'f"f-;f'' •
' 1 222 9229 0341 + �
�...
.,ems� !� '°: .'�" fir- � r - ' r•.• � Pa.- "` t�' r �-'"'
,�a3 '�' � -' � �' t'4 •�+o -• Y.� E� - �': �- -' a„�. � w`7_,c. dc- ,.t
,. 4t
{' * v r 1�x � •� f, rif .. � j�y�, � s ,y� 1,s� ��✓JC�'A
J
i-
In
122292100370 . ..,
�#+� 343
�1_2 92290 ,., �/� ;� - • ;. � c,:-x f5 n �e�`• � tm p s � _ .�
` s -. : �f-• {�*. r r' � _ '-'mow � -i`i..s� ', ->;"R'r ���;
Ap
122 290365
1 inch =200 feet �`Vv� v� � rgad
w E 1 inch = 0.04 miles
S ��
4 v �.*y �.— its '�7wr +► 12220340U13U
%122�03490152
i►,+ F A.?� �',+ } " . 122203490153
c !�T 4300050:
1''220349C1�4 I
s
`!°'„��r. „a ` �.•I� 4 "s�,A•-�!1�T"s*a � ;iv •�,�. '� �iR � 1`�`�,l/�,�
� Tn'
122203400060`.
_ �� s k- 11�� 2203490362
�.•G/' ' �' 122203490361 '#s: FTTT
�1222033001 0 + - d _
r ,�,
2t2 3-.900r0
` * .
122'03 90_21
- - - 12 0340d1 r0
1�2203400100 �-,�n31s0�Mi1��^s`
i 1 Ir N
12220006
,w rfi �
1 L`'2�OOo0010 r R •'� �6 �
-gym ���REEK"RD -�' - %�•'
�2 122203490340
1: 203390232 , ` c
AA
e.
r.
122295002001
122 'CO 30 122 03490330 r,
f 1E 1���0� 02 0 122203400080
122 03390231
elk
�i� 122200069010
WW
T22t�R1
•h .,� s �
12220340' r
,122203390-32 xr� " 4
a \.fiF- -
? 1222921CO2_;0 �" '" _•.ti a" #
-_122290060010
122292200310 f ,
' # - -
12" 95001003
122292290344 s %• �rt �! r
1222022903 .
oz
90000000 .. , r +lri �` �► �. �^ .!!.i `MF3r
- 03 s,.
,y yf •
'I ' wit j �C' i �� f •-' • �.�:Y. t'. 6.y ��J RSA. �)
122295001005.1
122292100370
�,�f= ., +� �� � ,fir i?'' 3. � ;,t �, �•' 1" ;
122292290365
N ow pho"
1 inch =200 feet I '
W E 1 inch = 0.04 miles 5� w ' ��""�e
S
• tilt
Adftk State Environmental Po/icyAct
MPWashington State
Department of Transportation DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal: SR 3/Sherwood Creek Bridge—Bridge Scour
The purpose of the project is to repair and prevent additional scour at the base of the
bridge piers of Bridge 003/015. The original bridge protection (heavy loose rip rap) is no
longer present. There is also related erosion under the bridge. The work will prevent
further erosion and maintain the structural integrity of the bridge. All work for this
project will be within 200' of Sherwood Creek. The major repair activities will consist of:
1. Constructing temporary access roads (approximately 200' long X 15'
wide each) on the west side of SR 3 at both ends of the bridge.
2. Excavation for heavy loose riprap (HLR) placement.
3. Placement of HLR and soil lift construction with large woody material
(LWM) installation to restore the stream bank near the bridge.
4. Removing 8 creosote-treated wood piles at the south abutment.
5. Remove access roads.
6. Revegetate project site.
Proponent: Washington State Department of Transportation
Location of proposal: The project is located on SR 3 MP 20.36 to MP 20.39 in Section 20,
Township 22 North, Range 1 West, W.M. in Mason County.
Lead Agency: Washington State Department of Transportation
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 43.21C.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 on request.
X This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead
agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days
from the date of signature below. Comments must be
Submitted by: March 31, 2011
----- -------
Position/Title: Environmental & Hydraulics Manager
Olympic Region
Phone: 360-570-6701
Address: PO Box 47417
Olympia, WA 98504-7417
Date: � Signature: 14�'e
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
P.O.Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584
(360)427-9670
SBR2011-00012 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT.
Notice is hereby given that WA. State Dept. of Transportation who are owners of the
described property below,have filed an application for a Substantial Development and
Conditional Use Permit for the development of:
Repair and prevention of additional scour along the piers of the Sherwood Creek
Bridge by removing old riprap and placement of new heavy loose riprap,
locating a large woody debris and soil lift installation along east bank,and the
removal of eight creosote piling; locating temporary access roads and revegetate
site at project completion.
Parcel Numbers: 12220-00-60000.
Site Address: State Route 3 at Mileposts 20.36 to 20.39; Allyn WA.
Location of Project: Along Sherwood Creek and State Route 3 and Sherwood Creek Rd.;within
the southwest'/4 of Section 20,Township 22 N.,Range 1 W. in Mason County Washington.
Said proposed development is subject to shoreline management permit and conditional use review
(M.C.C. 17.50)and associated Mason County Development Regulations standards. Any person
desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify in
writing of their interest to:
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 279
SHELTON,WA 98584
The comment period is at least 30 days from the final date of publication given pursuant to WAC 173-
14-020. The final date of publication,posting or mailing of notice is September 22,2011.
Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the Hearings Examiner public hearing Tuesday
October 25, 2011; 1:00 PM. Contact this office at(360)427-9670, ext. 365 for further information.
A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by WA. State Dept. of Transportation on March 8,
2011 under WAC 197-11-340. Written comments regarding this project must be received by October
25, 2011 at the time of the public hearing.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
7 Zvi coo (7
r �
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ,� 1�,��� f- ,
ss. "�
COUNTY OF MASON )
do
hereby certify that I posted copies of
the attached .. �'T 5! Li� ��1.e �i�nf
in public places as follows:
one at. ��
one at
j�
one at
In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this 1 7�day
Of D � , 20 l .
By:
v �.
Address: 2�'ej �,�,t W1 qQ �.
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF MASON )
t!i (/*
Subscribed and sworn to me this �U day of 20 / 1
-- Notary SUSAN M. ELLINGSON- Not Public for the State of Washington
; „
NOTARY PUBLIC J,
STATE OF WASH INGTON Residing at
i MY Commission Expires Apr.3G.2015 ���r✓ //
`--------..........
-........ Commission Expires
RECEIVED
AUG 2 6 2011
�_ Washington State Olympic Region 426 W. CEDAR ST.
VI/ Department of Transportation Environmental&Hydraulic Services Office
Paula J. Hammond, P.E. 6639 Capital Blvd.SW Suite 302,Tumwater
Secretary of Transportation PO Box 47417
Olympia,WA 98504-7417
August 23, 2011 360-570-6700/Fax 360-570-6697
TTY: 1-800-833-6388
www.wsdot.wa.gov
Mason County Department of Community Development
Attn: Allan Borden, Senior Planner
Planning Department
P.O. Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: SR 3 —Sherwood Creek Bridge —Bridge Scour
MP 20.36 to MP 20.39
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Mason Environmental Permit
Dear Mr. Borden:
Enclosed please find a Joint Aquatics Resources Permit Application(DARPA) for a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the above referenced project proposed
by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The project is
located on State Route 3 from Mile Post (MP) 20.36 to MP 20.39 in Mason County.
The purpose of the project is to repair and prevent additional scour at the base of the
bridge piers of Bridge 003/015. The original bridge protection (heavy loose rip rap)
is no longer present. There is also related erosion under the bridge. The work will
prevent further erosion and maintain the structural integrity of the bridge.
Design steps taken to avoid or minimize impacts to the environment include the
following:
• Placement of temporary fills, for a short duration in the wetland buffers will
include placement of a barrier lining placed next to the ground, so that at
removal these layers will be lifted with the least impact to vegetation.
• A track-hoe with opposing thumb could be used in the operation to minimize
ground disturbance.
• A stream diversion structure will be installed to help maintain water quality
before any in-water work occurs. Work includes removing 8 creosote treated
wood piles at the south abutment.
• Bank restoration on the northwest side of the bridge will include installation
of large woody material. These actions are designed to enhance fish habitat.
RECEIVED
Mason County AUG 2 6 2011
Department of Community Development
August 23, 2011 426 W. CEDAR ST,
Page 2 of 2
• Proper use of BMPs will ensure that no related pollutants, sediment or debris
enter waters of the state.
• Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Services and United States
Fish and Wildlife Service will ensure that project activities do not jeopardize
listed species, or destroy, or adversely affect, designated critical habitat.
Conservation measures outlined in the Biological Assessments will be
included in the construction contract.
• Fish exclusion and removal will be completed before any in-water work
starts.
• All in-water work will be done during the appropriate fish window.
WSDOT under WAC 197-11-340(2) issued a SEPA Determination of Non-
Significance on March 31,2011.
Bid advertisement for this project is scheduled for January 9, 2012.
Should you have any questions, please contact Ben Rampp at(360) 570-6695 or
Dave Evans at(360) 570-6738.
Sincerely,
':�g L411_�
eff Sawyer
Environmental & Hydraulics Manager
Olympic Region
jbs:br:pr
Enclosure: Master Application
JARPA
Vicinity Map and Plan Sheets (5 sheets)
SEPA dated March 31, 2011
Warrant#297006T for$5,335.00 dated 08/05/11
cc: Bill Elliott,w/enclosure, MS: 47440
Project File,w/enclosures
SF08232011(6113)