HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2005-00018 Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 1/27/2006 7. 2U06; .
1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUN 41EANNING
Phil 01brechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Linda Paladin and Jeff Brady ORDER ON REQUEST FOR
4 RECONSIDERATION
5 Shoreline Substantial Development
(SHR2005-00018)
6
7
8 INTRODUCTION
Mason County has requested reconsideration of the Examiner's justification for
to allowing Paladin/Brady to attach a PRF to a nonconforming deck without bringing
the deck into conformity. The Examiner replaces his discussion of the
11 nonconforming issue with the analysis below,but otherwise sustains the decision.
12 ANALYSIS
13 By a brief dated December 8, 2005 Mason County has requested reconsideration on
the issue of whether the attachment of a pier/ramp/float to a nonconforming deck
14 constitutes a prohibited expansion of the deck. The applicants submitted a response
dated December 15, 2005. The Examiner issued a briefing order on the
15 reconsideration request dated December 15, 2005. Mason County submitted a
rebuttal brief dated January 11, 2006.
16
The addition of a PRF that conforms to County regulations does not serve as a
17 prohibited expansion of a nonconforming use. The PRF does not expand the size of
is the deck, it merely serves as an accessory structure for another use. The PRF
probably does alter the deck as asserted by Mason County, but not in a manner that
19 increases the degree of nonconformity of the deck. Every part of the added PRF
conforms to applicable regulations. MCC 15.09.055(b) allows alterations to
20 nonconforming development so long as those alterations do not increase
nonconformity.
21
Mason County asserts that the record does not support a finding that PRF's have been
22 attached to nonconforming bulkheads. As noted in the Examiner's briefing order, in
the hearing the.applicant's counsel did refer to 28 PRF's attached to nonconforming
23 builkheads. This was not refuted by Mason County during the hearing even though
the assertion was specifically addressed during the County's rebuttal testimony.
24 Regardless, whether or not PRF's have been attached to nonconforming bulkheads is
unnecessary to arrive at the conclusion that the applicants do not need to bring the
25 deck into conformity in this case.
Reconsideration Order
P. 1 Decision
(PA0552144.DOC;3/13009.900000/)
t DECISION
2 All text in the Paragraph 1 of the Decision section of the Paladin/Brady final decision
(dated 11/29/05) is stricken, except the first sentence. The "conclusion of law" in
support of Paragraph 1 is the rational presented in the third paragraph of this order.
4
5 DATED this S day of January, 2006.
6
7
8 Nil Olbrechts
y
Mason County Hearing Examiner
to
It
t2
t3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Reconsideration Order
p. 2 Decision
I PA0552144.DOC;3/13009.900000/}
1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR MASON COUNTY
2 C(DIPY
3 RE: LINDA PALADIN AND JEFF BRADY
4 No. SHR 2005-00018
5 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL MASON COUNTY'S REBUTTAL TO
6 DEVELOPMENT (SHR 2005-00018) APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
8
9 REBUTTAL
10 Mason County urges the Hearing Examiner to reconsider the decision granting
11 Linda Paladin's and Jeff Brady's application for a shoreline substantial development
12 permit for a pier, ramp and float (PRF) structure. The County stresses it does not
13 disagree with the decision rendered in this matter, only certain portions of the 'Findings
14 of Fact' and 'Conclusions of Law' used to arrive at such a determination.
15 A. No Increase in Non-Conforming-Uses:
16 1 . Mason County is not requesting the applicants in the present matte
17 to bring into conformity the over-water deck structure. The
18 applicants testified at their hearing the structure existed prior to the
19 adoption of the Shoreline Master Program in 1975. Assuming such
20 a fact to be true, the applicants thereby achieved vested,
21 conforming rights to keep the structure (even though considered
22 'non-conforming' by current regulations).
23 2. If the applicants are not increasing the use of the non-conformity of
24 the over-water deck structure then compliance with the current
25
MASON COUNTY'S REBUTTAL TO T.J. MARTIN
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
FOR RECONSIDERATION ATTORNEY FOR MASON COUNTY
1
COPP/\",/
1 regulations is not required. If the use of the structure is expanded
2 or increased then the use becomes non-conforming therefore
3 requiring removal or discontinuation of such use since such
4 expansion is prohibited under M.C.C. 15.09.055(b).
5
6 B. Distinction between Non-Conforming Over-Water Deck Structures
7 And Non-Conforming Bulkheads:
8 1 . Any analogy of the attachment of PRF to non-conforming over-water
9 structure versus attachment to a non-conforming bulkhead is
10 misplaced since there is no such entity as a non-conforming
11 bulkhead. (If such bulkheads are non-conforming, they would have
12 been constructed after 1975 and created land by placing fill in behind
13 the bulkhead without the approval by Mason County. Such
14 structures violate S.M.P. 7.16.100 Use Regulation No. 1).
15 2. Any bulkheads created prior to the enactment of the Shoreline
16 Master Program in 1975 are deemed to be vested, conforming
17 structures. Existing bulkheads, at that time, determined the location
18 of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) when the County's
19 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was adopted in 1975. Therefore,
20 they are conforming structures, located landward of the OHWM as
21 determined by the SMP. There is no instance in which the County
22 allowed the attachment of a PRF to a nonconforming bulkhead.
23
24 111
25 111
MASON COUNTY'S REBUTTAL TO T.J. MARTIN
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
FOR RECONSIDERATION ATTORNEY FOR MASON COUNTY
2
- D
0
1 The County supports the decision rendered in the present matter. However,
2 based upon the above-cited arguments and references to applicable regulations, the
3 County urges the Hearings Examiner to reconsider his reasoning for arriving at his
4 decision in the matter.
5
6 Dated this 11th day of Janua 2006.
7
8 Respectfully submitted,
9
10
11 T.J. Martin, WSBA No.31152
Deputy Prosecuting Prosecutor
12 Attorney for Mason County
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MASON COUNTY'S REBUTTAL TO T.J. MARTIN
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
FOR RECONSIDERATION ATTORNEY FOR MASON COUNTY
3
r
1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR MASON COUNTY
2
3 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
4 RE: LINDA PALADING AND JEFF BRADY
5 Shorelines Substantial Development Case No.: SHR2005-00018
6 (SHR2005-00018)
APPLICANTS'
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR
8
RECONSIDERATION
9
10 RESPONSE
11
Mason County argues that attaching a pier, ramp and float (PRF) constitutes an expansion of
12
an existing vested non-conforming development or, in the alternative, that such construction is not
13
14 analogous to attaching a PRF to a non-conforming bulkhead.
15 1• No Increase in Non-conformity:
16 Attaching a PRF to an existing non-conforming deck does not "increase its nonconformity."
17 The County seems to argue that altering the deck to allow access to a PRF "alters" the deck'd use so
18 as to increase its non-conformity. The county argues the deck would provide the sole means of
19 ingress and egress for the PRF, thereby enlarging its use. (County's Motion for Reconsideration page
20 3 lines 11-14) This is contrary to the clear language of MCC 15.09.055(b) and its prior interpretation
21 by the county and the Shorelines Hearings board. While it is true that an alteration to the deck will
22 occur there will be absolutely no increase in the non-conformity of the structure. Under the facts of
23 this case, the project will actually decrease the non-conformity of the existing deck.
24 Shorelines Hearings Board in Gambriell v. Mason County, SHB No. 91-26 (1992) settled this
25 issue. In Gambriell, the applicant sought to add a dining room addition onto his Hood Canal
waterfront house. The home was been built on a bulkhead and fill construction with a portion of the
RESPONSE TO COUNTY 1 SETTLE&JOHNSONP.L�.
ATTORNEYS AT LA W
ANGLE BLDG.•P.O.BOX 1400
SHELTON,WASH NGTON 98584
(360)426-9728•FAX(360)426-1902
I home extending over the water. The applicant sought to add the dining room onto the side of the
2 property where an existing deck was located.
3 The Board examined the two sentences in the Mason County Master Program that deal with
4 non-conforming structures. The first sentence states: "Expansion of nonconforming development is
5
prohibited." MCC 15.09.055(b). The other sentence states: "Nonconforming development may be
6
continued provided that it is not enlarged, intensified or increased or altered in any way which
7
8 increases its nonconformity." The Board found that the second sentence modified the first sentence
9 concluding that a nonconforming structure could be expanded if the expansion did not increase the
10 nonconformity. The Board held:
11
We note first that if, under the "second" paragraph, any enlargment to a nonconforming
12 structure would per se increase its nonconformity, both cited paragraphs would have the
same effect: any increase in the size of a nonconforming development would require a
13 variance permit. This would make the second paragraph superfluous. We must apply
14 the rules of statutory construction and read these two requirements together so that a
regulatory scheme evolves which maintains the integrity of both requirements. . . In
15 doing so we find that the first paragraph is a general requirement which is modified by
the more specific second paragraph and that the second more specific requirement must
16 prevail in this matter. . .
17 In interpreting the provision in the second paragraph that an enlargement to a
nonconforming structure may not increase its nonconformity, we must first define the
18 word "nonconformity". Since no definition of nonconformity appears in any of the
19 controlling documents, 90.58 RCW, 173.14 WAC, or the MCSMP, we will give the
word its plain and ordinary meaning. . . We find that a noncomformity is an action or
20 act of not conforming to the law. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary.
We conclude that the nonconformity under consideration is the act of building a
21 structure over the water of the Canal. In building his proposed dining room landward
behind the bulkhead, we conclude the appellant will not enlarge that act. We note
22 further that, if the County intended the second paragraph to control any enlargement of
23 the structure itself, it very well could have used words such as "in any way which
increases the size of the structure." The fact that it did not do so is a further indication
24 that such a meaning was not intended since the second paragraph would then, in effect,
be duplicative of the first, which prohibits any expansion.
25
RESPONSE TO COUNTY 2 SETTLE&JOHNSON.���.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ANGLE BLDG.•P.O.BOX 1400
SHELTON,WASHNGTON 98584
(360)426-9729•FAX(360)426-1902
a '
I In its written Closing Argument on page 4, the County argues that "because appellant
has located his residence over the water," making it a nonconforming use, the addition
2 of a dining room increases the nonconformity of the use "because it facilitates increased
3 use of the residence by extended family . . . The word "use" is not defined in 90.58
RCW, 173 WAC, and the MCMMP, but in those documents it consistently designates
4 the type of construction, development, or manner of use of the land which is to be
permitted or denied, not the amount of usage nor the number of people who may
5 subsequently enjoy the "use". . . More particularly, the nonconformance in
appellant's residence is the violation of MCSMP USE REGULATIONS, par. 1. on
6 page 48: "Residential development over the water is prohibited". Any increased use by
7 appellant of the overhanging portion of his residence will not increase the size or
extent of the original "development over the water" which occurred in 1956.
8 (Emphasis added)
9 The nonconformity of the existing deck is like that of the Gambriell home. The deck is
10 nonconforming because the code does not allow over water decks. The extent of the nonconformity is
11 the portion of the 195 square foot deck extending over the water. Applicants' proposes using a
12 portion of the deck to access the PRF. The use of a portion of the deck does not increase the size of
13
over water structure and therefore does not increase the nonconformity under Mason County Code an
14
15 Gambriell. In fact, using a portion of the deck as a legal pier actually reduces the nonconformity by
16 reducing the portion of the existing structure that is available for deck use.
17 The illogic of the county's argument is highlighted by the absurd result that would occur. The
18 applicants have sufficient waterfront to install the PRF without attaching the structure to the deck.
19 There is nothing in the current regulations that would allow Mason County to require the removal of
20 the current deck if the applicants relocated the pier. Mason County considered the deck as part of the
21
pier when it required the applicants shorten the new pier because it considered the deck as part of the
22
23 overall pier length. Following the County's argument would only encourage the applicants locate the
24 pier away from the deck. Constructing the pier next to the deck would allow the float to be the same
25 location. Not only would there be the existing 195 square foot deck be build over the water but and
additional authorized pier. Under the County's interpretation, 78 square feet of additional
RESPONSE TO COUNTY 3 SETTLE&JOHNSON euc.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ANGLE BLDG.•P.O.BOX 1400
SHELTON,WASHWGTON 98584
(360)426-9728•FAX(360)426-1902
I construction would be allowed over the water. In using the existing deck as part of the pier access, 78
2 square feet of the deck becomes a legal conforming pier. The nonconformity of the deck is therefore
3
reduced under applicants' proposal.
4
2. No Distinction Between a Nonconforming Deck and Bulkhead
5
6 Mason County argues that there is nothing in the record that would allow the Examiner to find
7 that it has permitted PRFs on nonconforming bulkheads. It is difficult to understand why the county
8 would take this position when its representative at the hearing acknowledged the practice. In fact, two
9 of the Examiner's prior decisions upon which applicants relied were PRFs attached to nonconforming
10 bulkheads using fill.
11 In both Tyrian case and the Cacciari case the applicants were seeking to attach a PRF to a non-
12
conforming bulkhead. Attached hereto are exhibits from decisions in the Tyrian case, photo 1, and
13
14 the Cacciari case, photo 2. As these exhibits show, the bulkhead in question are located significantly
15 waterward of ordinary high tide. It should also be noted that in the Gambriell decision, the board
16 makes reference to Mason County issuing a permit for a PRF attached to the bulkhead in that case.
17 Bulkheads on saltwater can be located only as far seaward as is necessary to excavate for
18 footings and shall in no case be located more than six feet beyond OHWM. Any distance further than
19 this shall be considered landfill. 7.16.110. Landfill is prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water
20
mark. MCC 7.16.130. Like the applicants' deck, each of these bulkheads is a vested non-conforming
21
structure. Following the county's current logic, each of the applicants in the prior cases should have
22
23 been required to remove their bulkheads and homes in order to get a PRF permit. This was clearly
24 not the case.
25
RESPONSE TO COUNTY 4 SETTLE&JOHNSON PLLc
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ANGLE BLDG.•P.O.BOX 1400
SHELTON,WASHNGTON 98584
(360)426.9728•FAX(360)426-1902
f
I There is no distinction between adding a PRF to an existing non-conforming bulkhead or an
2 existing non-conforming deck. The county's argument that bulkheads and decks are evaluated under
3 different rules is disingenuous. Each structure must be evaluated under MCC 15.09.055(b) as a non-
4
conforming structure. As non-conforming structures, the same criteria apply, "nonconforming
5
6 development may be continued provided that it is not enlarged, intensified or increased or altered in
7 any way which increases its nonconformity."
g Conclusion
9 Adapting a bulkhead to serve as a means of ingress and egress for parties onto the PRF would
10 also "enlarge its use" which the county now argues is illegal. This is simply not the standard. A
11 nonconforming structure may be enlarged, intensified or increased as long as that action does not
12
"increase the non-conformity." Adding a PRF to a bulkhead does not increase the nonconformity
13
14 which is how far water-ward the bulkhead is located from ordinary high water. The county has failed
15 to explain how using the deck as a means of access increases its nonconformity. To show an increase
16 the nonconformity, the over water footprint of the deck must be increased. The footprint of the deck
17 is not increasing under this application. The "deck" is actually shrinking because part of it will be a
18 pier. The applicants respectfully request the Hearings Examiner to deny the county's motion for
19 reconsideration.
20
21 DATED this day of December, 2005
22 SETTLE & JOHNSON P.L.L.C.
23
24 KRO ERT W. JOURSON WSBA 4#15486
25 Attorneys for Pl tiff
RESPONSE TO COUNTY 5 SETTLE&JOHNSONPuc.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ANGLE BLDG.•P.O.BOX 1400
SHELTON,WASH NGTON 98584
(360)426-9728•FAX(360)426-1902
1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR MASON COUNTY
2
3 RE: Linda Paladin/Jeff Brady No. [SHR2005-00018]
4
MCC 7.28.010
5 Shoreline Master Program DECLARATION OF MAILING
Substantial Development Permit
6
7
8
9
10 I, Kell McAboy, declare and state as follows:
11 On December 6, 2005, 1 deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage properly prepaid, the
12 documents related to the above cited Hearing Examiner Decision and to which this
13 declaration is attached to: [See Attached List]
14 Linda Paladin
15 10230 E. S.R. 106
Union, WA 98592
16
17
1 declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington the
18
foregoing information is true and correct.
19
20
Dated this 06 Day of December, 2005 at Shelton, Washington.
21
22
23
Kell McAboy
24
25
DECLARATION OF MAILING MASON COUNTY
MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5T" AVE. P.O. BOX 279
SHELTON, WA
360-427-9670 TEL.
360-427-8425 FAX
-SOL-)
SO� -A-9"t� 6.9 --7, t-,s-?�i,
_A<j-F_T5Q�j '-ta P-a s aJ 151oN aA�A o - j LI
d?�1 �� 9 Ob1o1 ZL) Xo� od
--10-7005 a• bCq Cl `i'l '1-�1— s-VW0N 1 '7 'aQ
-,,,-+W 1 M�`1 O1i&Z S 1� �A a�n P-.��c� _5OLl
O) ,l,L�x�t Qd a101 g 1 b 1
-z�,s sib -�v� �'^,°;"�►Gl �� s�b -'d r� ' b��l�
a)a 35 d 00-1 �►� L pa)b
Shoreline Management Act
Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter
From: mason. County 'fir To: wash . �+ atP n„nt �f 01 F0
P.O. Box �9 ATTN: Shoreline Permit Reviewer
mower
Shelton, PEA 98584 Southwest Regional Office
Date of Transmittal: 1 =/0 &/0S Date of Receipt ympia, PIA 98'504
Type of Permit' (Indicate all that apply) (Dept of Ecology)
Substantial Development V Conditional Use Variance Revision
Other
Local Government Decision' Approval Conditional Approval Denial
Applicant Information: Applicant's Representative: (If primary contact)
Name: i Vy.Aa L[AA41 Name: A- -V,4 U [ +-K t V.
Address: J D Z?� P� S iL 1 b 6o Address: Z( S v.cu g -c•a�l 1.v c�Y
U iayi . to .4 �'14sS9 Z. OY4�-�a�.?v�S�
Phone(s): 3,4o . 2R zy Phone(s): -2v Ce y
.Is the applicant the property owner: `;- Yes No
'Location of Property, Township and Range to the nearest 1/4, 114 Section or latitude and
longitude, and a street address where available)
Sew. !Z2 ry Z23to-S I.
Qe-6,1e.0 I o 2-3o l0 232. E S cz 10l.p
Water Body Name: l-�66 CG*�
Shoreline of Statewide Significance: 'X Yes No
Environment Designation' Q r 1 �L,v\_
_Description of Project (Summary of the intended use or project purpose) .
use. • 0 Floa-i lb be a ultj ct-4
.Notice of Application Date., S1 S 0 S Final Decision Date. l2(p 2j o 5
BY: lie tl ^A 1, Phone #: BCD C42-.9to '7b x �l03
t-2-/ 0S
December 5, 2005
Notice of Decision
Case: SHR2005-00018
Applicant: Linda Paladin
Notice is hereby given that Linda Paladin,who is the applicant for the above-
referenced Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, has been granted the
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The request was approved pursuant to
the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, specifically for the construction of a
joint-use pier, ramp and float. A SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non-significance
was issued on August 3, 2005.
This County decision is final. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeals
may be made to the Shoreline Hearings Board or the appropriate administrative
agency as regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal
requirements of any appeal process.
If you have questions or require clarification on these issues please contact Kell
McAboy, Land-Use Planner with Mason County at 360-427-9670 x363.
oN_STA MASON COUNTY
o P� A a N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
s U Planning Division
o Y P O Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584
of �oY (360)427-9670
1864
Case No.: SHR2005-00018 SHORELINE PERMIT
STATUS: ISSUED
Received: 6/14/2005
Issued: 12/5/2005
Expires: 12/5/2008
Type of Permit: Sub. Dev.
Applicant: LINDA PALADIN
10230 E HWY 106
UNION, WA 98592
Location of Project: Waterward of S.R. 106 between mile mark 10230 and 10232
Within HOOD CANAL and/or its associated wetlands. The projectwill be within shorelines
of statewide significance.
Shoreline Designation: Urban
Parcel Number. 322365100001
Address: 10230 E STATE ROUTE 106 UNION
Legal Description: PEBBLE BEACH PARK TR 1 & T.L. EX TR 1-A
Project Description: PIER, RAMP, FLOAT
This permit has been granted by Mason County persuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the
applicant from compliance with any other federal,state or local statutes,ordinances or regulations applicable to this project but not inconsistent
with the Shoreline Management Act. (Chapter90.58 RCW).
This may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(7)in the event the permittee fails to comply with the terms and conditions hereof.
P Y
CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT WILL NOT BEGIN OR IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL THIRTY(30)DAYS FROM THE DATE
OF FILING THE FINAL ORDER OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN THI RTY(30)DAYS FROM THE DATE OF
SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED.
1 M
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY M
2 Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner co m
3 RE: Linda Paladin and Jeff Brady FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS S
4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION. M
5 Shoreline Substantial Development
(SHR2005-00018)
6
7 INTRODUCTION
8
The applicants have requested a shoreline substantial development permit to construct
9 a pier, ramp and float structure on Hood Canal. The Examiner approves the requested
10 permit subject to the conditions under"Decision".
1 1 ORAL TESTIMONY
12 See transcript.
13 EXHIBITS
14 See "Case Index" attached to Staff Report for Exhibits I through 28. The following
15 exhibits were added at the Hearing on the application:
16 Exhibit 29: October 5, 2005 letter from Marilyn Hager
17 Exhibit 30: October 5, 2005 letter from Susie McKay
18 Exhibit 31: October 10, 2005 letter from Ken McKay
19
Exhibit 32: Notebook submitted by counsel for Paladin entitled "Paladin/Brady
20 Pier and Dock SHR 2005-00013"
21 Exhibit 33: BA Excerpt
22 Exhibit 34: Photographs submitted by Thea Hopper(four-color photographs)
23
Exhibit 35: 1111105 E-mail from Bill Mathews on reorienting outer float of PRE
24
FINDINGS OF FACT
25
Procedural:
{PAo620446.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
Paladin/Brady P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 1. Applicant. The applicants are Linda Paladin and Jeff Brady. The
applicants' agent and representative is Amy Leitman of Marine Surveys and
Assessments.
3
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
4 application on October 25, 2005, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of
5Commissioners Meeting Chambers.
6 Substantive:
7 3. Site Description/Proposal. The site consists of two properties owned by
Paladin and Brady. Both the Paladin and Brady residences are located on the
8 landward (south) side of SR 106 on the crest of a sloped hillside. On the waterward
(north) side of SR 106, the combined properties' beachfront is 84 feet wide. There is
9 an existing 13-foot by 15-foot deck with a set of stairs leading to the beach. The
10 existing deck starts at and extends beyond the OHWM and is therefore considered a
nonconforming use per the Mason County Shoreline Master Program 7.16.080 that
11 prohibits over-water structures. The applicants propose to extend their proposed
pier/ramp/float("PRF")from the nonconforming deck.
12
The design of the PRF includes a 6-foot by 60-foot fixed pier, a 4-foot by 40-foot
13 ramp, and an 8-foot by 20-foot float. The applicants originally proposed to have the
14 PRF extend 128 feet from the OHWM, but has agreed to reduce that length to 115
feet in order to comply with Mason County PRF shoreline regulations.
15
4. Characteristics of the Area. The general area is characterized by low-
16 density single-family residential development along the south shore of Hood Canal
17 and SR 106. Residential use appears to be a mix of permanent and vacation homes.
Waterfront residences on bulk-headed fill are immediately east and west of the
18 project site. Between the two adjacent bulk-headed waterfront residences, the
unarmored beach extends for approximately 175 feet. There is an existing PRF
19 approximately 200 feet to the west of the proposal and one existing PRF
approximately 220 feet to the east of the proposal. There are also a couple small (less
20 than 200 square feet) unattached floats and buoys in the immediate vicinity.
21 5. Adverse Impacts.
22
A. Environmental Impacts. The Biological Evaluation (Exhibit 4) established that
23 the proposed structure is not likely to adversely affect aquatic habitat or wildlife. As
noted in the Evaluation, the PRF does not extend over eelgrass or macroalgae beds
24 and it does not interfere with any fish spawning activities. One issue of concern
5 raised during oral testimony was the leaching of piling chemicals (most notably
arsenic compounds) into adjoining oyster beds. Ken McKay_ presented some
{PA0620446.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
Paladin/Brady p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
compelling and credible testimony that the piles proposed by the applicant could
1 leach toxic arsenic compounds into the oyster beds that are harvested by the McKays.
2 Although Mr. McKay is not an expert on the subject, he has studied the issue at the
University of Washington College of Forestry. The applicants were given an
3 opportunity and agreed to provide contrary evidence, but none was provided. Given
these circumstances, the best evidence in the record shows that the pilings proposed
4 by the applicants do create a contamination threat to the adjoining oyster beds. The
5project will be conditioned upon the use of steel pilings to avoid this problem.
6 B. Water Acces and Use. The McKays raised several concerns over the impact of
the PRF on their adjoining water access and use. The McKays use beach launched
7 water craft to access Hood Canal. Mr. McKay testified that these vessels are difficult
to steer and the PRF will present a navigation hazard. The attorney for the applicant,
8 Robert Johnson, provided personal testimony that he owns the same type of beach
launched watercraft (Hobie Cat) and that he can paddle his craft out into the canal (it
9 is unclear whether this would be possible for a catamaran, another beach craft used by
10 the McKays). He also pointed out that the McKays already have to contend with
floats that interfere with navigation.
11
The use issues raised by the McKays include the PRF slicing into an unobstructed
12 area traditionally used to launch water skiers. The McKays are also concerned that
the PRF will introduce more boat traffic into an area that is used for swimming,
13 although given that the Bradys and Paladins (and their successors) can use beach
14 launched water craft or floats already, it is unclear whether the PRF will create a
significant increase in boat traffic. It could also be argued that PRF's actually make
15 near shore swimming safer by preventing boats from operating at high speeds near
the shoreline.
16
There is little question that the PRF will adversely affect McKay water access and
17 use. The same would be true of any PRF that divides a residential shoreline that is
18 unobstructed for more than a couple hundred feet. However, the interference to
shoreline use and access is not prohibitive. The McKays and others may have to
19 launch water skiers further from the shore. They may have to paddle or use different
or modified beach-launched water craft to safely access Hood Canal.
20
21 It is also equally clear that the applicants have designed their pier to minimize these
use and access impacts. A significant factor is that the applicants propose joint use
�,? and are placing the PRF in the middle of their two properties, thereby providing
significant separation from the adjoining McKay properties.
23
One potentially significant design feature discussed at the hearing was the location of
24 the outer float. As currently proposed, this outer float points in the direction of the
5 McKay home. This cuts down on the angle the McKay's can use for ingress and
egress of their beach launched water craft. The applicants agreed to provide an
g PP g
{PA0620446.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Paladin/Brady p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
i�
alternate design with the outer float pointing in the opposite direction. The Examiner
1 requested the alternate design so that staff would have an opportunity to evaluate the
1� design while the record was still open and the McKays would have an opportunity for
comment as well. The input of the McKay's was especially significant on this issue
3 since they own the own the property that adjoins both sides of the combined
Brady/Paladin properties. After the close of the verbal portion of the hearing, the
4 applicants chose to not provide the alternate design, thereby preventing public
comment or staff evaluation to be made part of the record. This does create a
5 problem given that Mason County's shoreline regulations require that the applicants
6 propose a design that minimizes conflicts with recreational boaters and obstructions
of views. Given that the applicants have failed to provide information as promised,
7 the equitable solution is to make the orientation of the outer float dependant upon the
wishes of the McKays, the only party impacted by the orientation. As a condition of
8 approval staff shall consult with the McKays to determine if reorienting the float will
materially improve shoreline use and/or access for the McKays. If staff finds that
9 there is material improvement by reorientation and that the reorientation will be
10 consistent with Mason County regulations, the applicants will reorient the float to the
direction opposite of that proposed. Amy Lietman did testify that reorientation would
I 1 not create any adverse environmental impacts, so it appears that reorientation would
be a viable improvement to the project.
12
C. Aesthetics. As always, view impacts are the most difficult to asses. The PRF will
13 intrude into the views of both the Bauer and McKay properties. However, the PRF
14 will certainly not be the only PRF in view. There is already a PRF 200 feet to the
west and another PRF 220 feet to the east of the proposal. Also, the majority of the
15 views of both the McKays and the Bauers will remain intact. As proposed by the
applicant's representative, Amy Lietman, the dock will be conditioned to have wire
16 hand rails to minimize view obstruction. Given these factors, the dock is marginally
17 compatible with the area.
18 The finding that the applicants' PRF is "marginally compatible" is, as the
terminology suggests, a very close call. No doubt comparisons will be made to the
19 Examiner's Robert Evans decision, SHR 2004-0006. Evans was distinguishable for
several reasons. The Evans PRF was proposed for a secluded cove on the north shore
20 of Hood Canal, which has significantly less piers than the south shore. Two PRF's in
21 Evans were visible but they were on only one side of the property, several hundred
feet away. As noted in the Evans decision, the pier portion of the PRF was
1?? exceptionally intrusive and jutted straight off of a bulkhead for 100 feet at six feet
J� above ground level. The Paladin/Brady pier, by contrast, starts from a deck at four
23 feet above ground and tapers up over a distance of 60 feet to a maximum height of
eight feet. A major distinguishing factor is that the proposed PRF includes joint use
24 and the Evans PRF did not. In providing for joint use and placing the PRF on the
25 property separating the two participating properties, the applicants have created
(PAo620446.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Paladin/Brady p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
significant separation between adjoining uses while at the same time assuring that an
1 additional PRF will not be constructed for the two properties.
2 D. Cumulative Impacts. As noted by the Amy Lietman, zero times zero is zero. The
3 most compelling and credible evidence in the record, supplied by Ms. Lietman, is that
the PRF will have no adverse impacts on aquatic life or habitat, wildlife or water
4 quality. Staff have expressly declined to provide any opinion on biological impacts.
The tribal report (Exhibit 27) contains important information about bulkheads, but
5 nothing very illuminating on the cumulative impact of PRF's. If the tribe or any party
6 provides credible scientific evidence on the cumulative impacts of PRF's, that
information could make a difference in PRF shoreline permit review.
7
The cumulative impacts on access and shoreline use are equally marginal. This
8 decision sets a precedent for facilitating the placement of joint use piers in minor
pockets of undeveloped area on the south shore of Hood Canal. Given the
proliferation of docks on the south shore and the minor impacts of well designed joint
10 use PRF's, the Examiner doesn't find any significant cumulative impacts.
11
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
12
Procedural:
13
14 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(J) provides the
Examiner with the authority to review and issue a final decision upon Shoreline
1.5 Substantial Development Permits.
16 Substantive:
17 2. Shoreline Designation. The shoreline designation of the site is Urban per
18 the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. This area is considered a Shoreline of
Statewide Significance.
19
3. Permit Review Criteria: MCC 15.09.055(a) requires a substantial
20 development permit for any substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction.
MCC 15.09.055(f) requires that applications for substantial development permits be
1 subject to review by the Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.09.055(f)(2)(C) provides that
the Examiner shall base a decision on a substantial development permit application on
the Shoreline Master Program for Mason County ("MCSMP") and the policies and
23 procedures of chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act ("SMA").
Chapter 7.08 MCC defines a substantial development as any development of which
24 total cost for market value exceeds $5,000 or any development that materially
25 interferes with any normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. The staff
report indicates that the proposal will exceed $5,000 in cost and, therefore, requires a
shoreline substantial development permit. The MCSMP is codified as Title 7 of the
{PA0620446.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Paladin/Brady p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Mason County Code. The applicable shoreline policies are quoted and addressed
1 below. Since the Hood Canal is a shoreline of state wide significance, the SMA
2 policies listed in RCW 90.58.020 apply and are also addressed below.
3 There was some debate during the hearing on whether MCC 7.24.010 is consistent
with the SMA policies expressed in RCW 90.58.020, because RCW 90.58.020 lists
4 appurtenant structures to single family homes as a preferred use while MCC 7.24.010
does not. To the extent that the SMP language conflicts with RCW 90.58.020, the
5 Examiner will use the language of RCW 90.58.020. As noted previously, MCC
6 15.09.055(f)(2)(C) requires consistency with RCW 90.58.020. Since MCC
15.09.055(f)(2) essentially incorporates RCW 90.58.020 by reference, there is a
7 conflict in the MCC between MCC 7.24.010 and RCW 90.58.010. Conflicting code
provisions should be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with state law,
8 consequently the language of RCW 90.58.010 (and its preference for single-family
appurtenant structures) should prevail. The Shoreline Hearings Board has ruled that
9 local shoreline regulations can be more strict than the SMA. However, the omission
10 of single-family appurtenant structures in MCC 7.24.010 is not a stricter shoreline
regulation, it is a reordering of state mandate priorities. By lessening the priority of
1 1 residential appurtenances, the County is increasing the preference of other uses and
thereby adopting less stringent standards for those other uses.
12
MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 1): Piers and docks should be designed and located to
13 minimize obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boats and fisherman.
14
4. As noted in the findings of fact, the applicants have gone to substantial
15 lengths to minimize obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boaters and
fisherman. The PRF is designed for joint use and placed on the property line between
16 the joint users. As discussed in the findings of fact, the outer float will be oriented at
a direction to minimize interference with adjoining water access. Wire handrails will
1 be used instead of wood to minimize view interference. Lights are prohibited except
is to the extent necessary for safety.
19 MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 2): Cooperative uses of piers and docks are favored,
especially in tidal waters.
20
21 5. The applicants have submitted a request for a joint PRF.
�1� MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 3): The type, design and location of docks and piers
JJ should be compatible with the shoreline area where they are located. Consideration
23 should be given to shoreline characteristics, tidal action, aesthetics, adjacent land
and water uses, water quality and the habitat offish and wildlife.
24
25 6. As discussed in the Findings of Fact, the PRF is compatible with the
shoreline area in which it is located. One significant legal issue raised by the
(PA0620446.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Paladin/Brady p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
applicants is what constitutes the "area" for purposes of Policy No. 3. The applicant
1 essentially argued that the entire south shore should constitute the "area". The
Examiner concludes that the characteristics of the south shore as a whole is a
moderate factor, but that the impact on adjacent uses takes precedence. The Wriston
3 case cited by the applicants (Wriston v. DOE, SHB No. 05-005) did contain the ruling
that the entire north shore of the Columbia River in Wahkiakum County constituted
4 the "area" for purposes of assessing compatibility. However, proponents in the
Wriston case attempted to argue that all shorelines in Wahkiakum County were part
5 of the "area" so that comparisons could be made to an island that contained heavily
6 developed shorelines. The Wriston Board disagreed and held that the compatibility
analysis should be limited to the north shore of the Columbia River. The Wriston
7 Board was not faced with the argument that the north shore itself should be divided
into "areas" for purposes of compatibility analysis. The north shore in Wriston may
8 well have been entirely homogenous and there was no benefit in trying to segment out
separate areas. Of note is that the Wriston holding was based upon Jefferson County
9 v. Seattle Yacht Club, 73 Wn. App. 576 (1994). The Jefferson County court
10 emphasized that the area should be"immediately adjacent to"the project in question:
11 While consideration of a project's compatibility with more distant uses
might be useful in certain instances, consideration of such information
12 must be in addition to, not in lieu of, an evaluation of a project's
compatibility with land and water uses in the area immediately adjacent to
13 the project site. This is essential because if too broad a view is taken when
14 a permit is evaluated for compatibility with the SMA and the applicable
shoreline master program, almost any project can be justified.
15
Jefferson County, 73 Wn. App. at 594.
16
Indeed, if the entire south shore of Hood Canal should serve as the "area" for purposes
1 of compatibility analysis, then so to should the north shore of Hood Canal for
18 development on the north shore. Since the north shore is relatively undeveloped, the
conclusion would have to be that no PRF should ever be allowed because no PRF is
19 compatible with the undeveloped character of the north shore. These types of results
lead to policy type decisions that, as argued by the applicants, should be addressed in
20 legislation, not Hearing Examiner decisions. The north or south shore as a whole, as
21 noted in the Jefferson County decision, should be considered in addition to, not in lieu
of, the impacts in the area immediately adjacent to a project site. This is an
22 imminently reasonable approach, since the aesthetic and other impacts are far more
intense on adjoining uses than those further away.
23
The Jefferson County model does provide some useful guidance in assessing
.�
24 compatibility along the Hood Canal. What has made this case so difficult is that
25 compatibility for a pocket of undeveloped shoreline must be assessed. In close
circumstances such as the subject case, the scales of the balance are tipped by "the
1 PA0620446.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Paladin/Brady p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
it
more distant uses" referenced in the Jefferson case, which in this case means the
1 character of the south shore as a whole. If the pocket were located upon the north
2 shore, the result would likely be different (as in Evans). It should be noted, however,
that another significant factor in this case was joint use. The precedent to be taken
3 from this case on compatibility is that on the south shore, PRF's should be generally
allowed in undeveloped pockets if the view and access/use impacts are moderate,joint
4 use is involved, and the design accommodates compatibility to the extent reasonably
feasible.
5
6 Although the emphasis in the analysis above is upon aesthetics, it should be clarified
that it equally applies to the other factors listed Policy No. 3. As discussed in the
7 Findings of Fact, environmental adverse impacts are minimal and impacts on
adjoining use are moderate and consistent with other PRF's in the area. Given these
8 factors, the proposed PRF, as conditioned, is compatible with the shoreline area in
which it is located.
9
10 MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 5): Mooring buoys and floats are preferred over piers
and docks.
11
7. Mooring buoys and floats are used by other property owners in the area
12 and would be less intrusive. However, PRF's are relatively common on the south
shore of Hood Canal. The applicants simply wish to have the same privileges as
13 many other owners in the area. Policy No. 5 is a preference,not a requirement.
14
15 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 1): The location and design of docks and piers,
as well as the subsequent use, shall minimize adverse effects on fish, shellfish, wildlife
16 and water quality.
17 9. As detailed in the Biological Evaluation (Exhibit 4) and Findings of Fact,
18 the PRF will not have any adverse impacts on fish, shellfish, wildlife and water
quality. The project is conditioned to have steel pilings in order to avoid any toxic
19 leaching that could affect adjoining oyster beds.
20 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 2): Docks and piers shall be located, designed
21 and operated to not significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of
adjacent property owners, or adjacent uses. Structures shall be located at a
22 minimum of five feet from side property lines. Community use or joint use facilities
may be located on the property line.
23
10. As noted in the Findings of Fact, the PRF is designed and located to not
24 significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent property
25 owners. As discussed in the Findings of Fact, the PRF will moderately impact
adjoining water access and use, but the Examiner does not find these impacts to be
{PA0620446.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
Paladin/Brady p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
significant within the context of typical PRF impacts. The PRF is proposed for joint
1 use and is more than five feet from side property lines.
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 4): No pier, dock, or float or similar device
3 shall have a residential structure constructed upon it.
4 11. No residential structure is proposed upon the structure.
5 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 7): Maximum overall length of a recreational
6 pier dock facility including floats shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of three
feet of water as measured at mean low lower low water on a saltwater or a depth of
7 five feet as measured from ordinary low water on lakes. The length of any pier or
dock facility shall not extend the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 100 feet from
8 ordinary high water mark on saltwater and 50 feet on fresh water shorelines. Joint
or community use facilities may be an additional fifteen feet in length, and shall not
exceed a depth of minus five (-5)feet.
10 12. As modified, the PRF is proposed at a total length of 115 feet, which is the
1 1 maximum allowed length of the pier.
12 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 9): The width of recreational piers and docks
13 shall not exceed eight feet.
14 13. The maximum proposed width of the two attached floats is eight feet.
15 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 10): At the end of a dock or pier, afloat may be
attached. These floats may either be parallel to the dock or pier, or form a "T" or
16 "L." In tidal water, the float shall not exceed 600 gross square feet with the boat
17 slip.
18 14. The float surface is 320 square feet.
19 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 13): The recreational pier shall be no higher
than eleven feet above mean higher high water. Piers and docks shall have at least
20 an eight foot span between pilings.
21 15. The proposed pier height is approximately eight feet above the ground at
the water end and tapers down to four feet at its joinder to the existing deck. The
✓r span between pilings exceeds 8 feet and may exceed that proposed due to the
23 substitution of steel pilings for the proposed wooden pilings in the conditions of
approval.
24
25 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 14): The surface of floating structures shall be
a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the water.
PA0620446.DOC•1/13009.900000/{ )
Paladin/Brady P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 16. This is included in the project description of the Biological Evaluation.
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 15): All floating structures shall include
3 intermittent supports to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide.
4 17. This is included in the project description of the Biological Evaluation.
5 RCW 90.58.020: The department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide
6 significance, and local government, in developing master programs for shorelines of
state-wide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of
7 preference which:
8 (1): Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest.
9 (2): Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
10
(3): Result in long-term over short-term benefit.
11
(4): Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.
12
13 (5): Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines.
14 (6): Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline.
15 (7): Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate
or necessary.
16
17 ...Alterations of the natural conditions of shorelines of the state, in those limited
18 instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single-family residences and
their appurtenant structures, ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not
19 limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to
shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial development s which are
20 particularly dependant upon their location o or use of the shorelines of the state and
21 other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people
to enjoy shorelines of the state.
22
18. Applying the policies above, a private, jointly-owned dock would rank
23 relatively high in the hierarchy of uses proposed for a shoreline. Projects that would
provide for broader public access, as well as projects that don't alter the shoreline,
24 would usually rank much higher, but the PRF of this application as proposed and
25 mitigated will create only moderately adverse access and use impacts on adjoining
{PA0620446.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Paladin/Brady P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
uses and little or no adverse impacts on the shoreline (including environmental,
1 aesthetic and recreational) as a whole and the general public.
DECISION
3
The Examiner approves the requested PRF as depicted in the Biological Evaluation
4 (Exhibit 4), subject to the conditions recommended by staff with the following
additions and modifications:
5
6 1. The deck platform referenced in staff recommended Condition 13 does not have
to be brought into compliance with current regulations. In oral testimony staff took
7 the position that the PRF constitutes an expansion of the existing deck. The
applicants contested this position, arguing that if attachment of a pier to a
8 nonconforming deck constitutes a prohibited expansion of a nonconforming use, then
the same rationale should apply to the attachment of a deck to a nonconforming
9 bulkhead, which is apparently routinely allowed by Mason County. Staff
10 distinguished the deck "expansion" on the basis that the deck is nonconforming
because it is an over water structure prohibited by MMC 7.16.080. However, MCC
11 15.09.055(b) prohibits expansion of all nonconforming uses, whether or not they are
over water. Nothing in the language of MCC 15.09.055(b) suggests that the County
12 can allow expansion of land based nonconforming structures but not over water
structures. Consequently, the County's characterization of the proposed PRF as a
13 deck expansion would equally apply to attachments to nonconforming bulkheads.
14 This interpretation arguably leads to absurd consequences, or at least a significant
departure from past practice, and should therefore be subject to close scrutiny.
15
It is difficult to construe the PRF as an "expansion" of the deck when it is an entirely
16 different structure that serves a different function. There doesn't appear to be any
case law that addresses what constitutes an "expansion" of a nonconforming use. The
17 closest appears to be the principle that adding an accessory use to a nonconforming
18 use is not considered an extension of that use. Am Jur.2d, Zoning and Planning, §
596, Expansion of accessory or incidental use. Given the plain meaning of
19 "expansion" and the case law, the Examiner does not find that the PRF constitutes an
expansion of the deck. However, it is recognized that due to the incidental nature of
20 this issue it was not fully argued by either party and probably could benefit from
21 further analysis. The County is invited to request reconsideration on this issue so that
the parties have a full opportunity to brief the legal issues.
22
2. The pilings shall be made of steel. The span between pilings may be increased to
23 account for the change in material. Any changes in span shall be subject to staff
approval based upon consistency with applicable regulations.
24
25 3. Staff shall consult with the McKays to determine whether the McKays access and
use of the shoreline will be improved by orienting the outer float in the opposite
{PA0620446.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Paladin/Brady P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
direction. If staff concludes that reorientation will improve McKay access and use,
1 and that this reorientation is consistent with applicable regulations, the outer float
2 shall be reoriented in the opposite direction.
3 4. The PRF shall not be lighted except to the extent necessary for safety (as
determined by staff) or compliance with applicable regulations (e.g. navigation
4 warning). If lighting is found necessary for night time access, the lights shall only be
used when access occurs and in no event shall access occur (to the extent lights are
5 necessary)between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
6 5. To the extent consistent with applicable regulations (as determined by staff), the
7 handrails of the PRF shall be composed of wire to minimize view obstruction.
8 Dated this day November, 2005.
9
10
1 1 Phil Olbrechts
Mason County Hearing Examiner
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
{PA0620446.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Paladin/Brady p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
t ,
RECEIiED
DEC 19 20
l MCCD - PLAN14ING
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON C
2
Phi 1 Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Linda Paladin and Jeff Brady BRIEFING ORDER ON REQUEST FOR
4 RECONSIDERATION
5 Shoreline Substantial Development
(SHR2005-00018)
6
7
8 Mason County has requested reconsideration on the issue of whether the attachment
of a pier/ramp/float to a nonconforming deck constitutes a prohibited expansion of the
li 9 deck. In the Paladin/Brady case Mason County had recommended as a condition of
10 approval that the existing deck should be brought into conformance with current
development regulations since the attachment of the pier/ramp/float constitutes an
11 expansion of that deck in violation of nonconforming use regulations. The Examiner
declined to impose that condition on the basis that he did not find the pier/ramp/float
12 to constitute an expansion of a nonconforming structure(the deck).
13 The parties are granted an opportunity to brief this issue. Mason County has already
submitted a brief on the subject. All other persons who testified at the hearing may
14 submit a written response to Mason County's request for reconsideration. The
written responses are due no later than 5:00 pm, December 30, 2005 and should be
15 submitted to Kell McAboy, Mason County Department of Community Development,
P O Box 279, Shelton WA 98584. Mason County shall have until 5:00 pm, January
16 11, 2006 to file a reply. The written responses and reply should be limited to the
issue of whether attaching a pier/ramp/float to an existing, nonconforming deck
17 constitutes a prohibited expansion of a nonconforming structure. No new evidence is
18 allowed.
19 In its reply, Mason County is also asked for some clarification. In its request for
reconsideration Mason County states that it is not asking that the Examiner change
20 his decision but rather acknowledge that his legal analysis was in error. The decision
to approve the pier/ramp/float was not based in any part upon whether the
21 pier/ramp/float constitutes an expansion of the existing deck. The expansion issue
was strictly limited to whether or not the applicants should bring the deck into
22 conformance with current regulations if the Examiner approved the application, as
recommended by Mason County. In stating that the County does not wish the
23 Examiner to change his decision, is the County stating that it is not requesting that
the Examiner require the applicants to bring the deck into conformance with current
24 regulations?
25 In its request for reconsideration Mason County also claims that there is no evidence
i
in the record that Mason County allows property owners to attach pier/ramp/floats to
i
Reconsideration Request
P. 1 Decision
{PA0552144.DOC;2/13009.900000/}
nonconforming bulkheads. The applicant's attorney did in fact assert that this had
1 been allowed on several occasions and the County did not appear to refute this. The
parties may wish to address this evidentiary issue in their briefing. Relevant excerpts
2 of the transcript are pasted below. A more extensive transcript is available upon
request by e-mail (polbrechts@omwlaw.com) or phone call to Kay Richards at 206-
3 447-7000.
4 APPLICANT STATEMENT ON NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
5 EXPANSION(Opening statement, 10/25/05 Hearing)
6 Johnson: By clients might, but the Staff is saying that the existing platform must
be brought into compliance with current regulations in order for the
7 County to be able to review the expansion. This may require removal of
8 the deck. This is a non-conforming, existing structure is vested. That
non-conforming structures cannot be expanded, but that doesn't mean
9 that they can't be used. The deck itself is not being expanded. What
we're simply doing is putting a pier up to it. Now, the County has never
10 required planned bulkhead and fill properties to be brought into
compliance when adding a PRF. There are numerous examples, over 30
11 projects reviewed by Amy Leitman, 28 have been on vested, non-
1 2 conforming bulkhead and fill. Tiereon and Kachari, both are projects
that were built on existing bulkhead and fill. Like the Paladin/Brady
13 dock, this is just a picture I happen to have that's next door to the Bower
property, bulkhead and fill properties are vested non-conforming uses.
14 Following the County's argument to put this structure on this non-
conforming structure require the property owner to remove the house,
1.5 bulkhead and fill to bring it into compliance. This has been done at least
16 in 28 cases we know where the County has approved the adding of a pier
onto an existing non-conforming structure, and Brady/Paladin dock is no
17 different from its vested right standpoint than these non-conforming
bulkhead and fill construction. It's being used, except exactly the same
18 thing could be said for the bulkhead. You're using the bulkhead to
access the pier. I don't see how it's actually different except that the
1 Brady/Paladin deck is not a bulkhead and doesn't have the
20 environmental impacts as these structures have.
21
22
23
74 COUNTY RESPONSE ON NONCONFORMING ISSUE (County Rebuttal
25 Period, 10/25/05 Hearing).
Reconsideration Request
p. 2 Decision
{PA0552144.DOC;2/13009.900000/1
1 KM Also concerning non-conforming structures, the difference between the
deck that we have, and I believe Linda Paladin, the applicant, has stated
that she's got pictures, so it's a use that was there, it's grandfathered, so
3 it is a legally non-conforming use because it is an overwater structure.
The difference between allowing pier, ramp and float to be extended on
4 top of say a legally established non-conforming bulkhead is that
bulkheads in the Shoreline Master Program we define as the ordinary
5 high water mark. And so it is not an overwater structure and is therefore
6 not, it's the overwater structures that are non-conforming and the County
could not expand non-conforming overwater structures.
7
So with that overwater . . .
8
9 PAO: But aren't bulkheads non-conforming due to the ?
10 KM: But it's not an overwater structure so it doesn't pertain to the section that
talks about not expanding overwater structures.
11
12 DATED this �� day of December, 2005.
13
14
15 C4i101brechts
16 Mason County Hearing Examiner
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Reconsideration Request
p. 3 Decision
{PA0552144.DOC;2/13009.900000/}
1
2 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR MASON COUNTY
3
4 RE: Linda Paladin and Jeff Brady MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
5 Shoreline Substantial Development
6 (SHR 2005-00018)
7
8 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
9 Mason County urges the Hearing Examiner to reconsider the decision granting
10 Linda Paladin's and Jeff Brady's application for a shoreline substantial development
11 permit for a pier, ramp and float (PRF) structure. While the County does not disagree
12 with the decision to grant the permit, it does dispute the legal reasoning behind reaching
13 such a conclusion. The Planning Department for Mason County contends the Hearing
14 Examiner erred in two ways; First, the Hearing Examiner erred in interpreting the law by
15 declaring the attachment of a pier, ramp and float (PRF) to the existing, nonconforming
16 over-water structure does not constitute an `expansion' of a non-conforming (deck)
17 structure. Second, the Hearing Examiner erred in application of law to the facts by
concluding the attachment of the pier, ram float to the existing, nonconforming over-
18 9 p P 9, g
19 water structure is analogous to the attachment of pier, ramp floats to existing, non-
20 conforming bulkheads. Based upon these two errors, the County requests the Hearing
21 Examiner to reconsider the legal basis for the determination rendered in the matter.
22
23 LEGAL ARGUMENT FOR RECONSIDERATION
i
24 The County alleges the Hearing Examiner committed two errors in reaching the
25 decision to allow the Applicants to construct a pier, ramp float (PRF). First, the Hearing
Mason County's Motion to Reconsider T.J. MARTIN
On the Matter of Paladin's and Brady's Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 1 Attorney for Mason County
1 Examiner erred in interpreting the law by reasoning the construction and attachment of
2 a pier, ramp float to the existing, nonconforming over-water structure (deck) does not
3 constitute an 'expansion' of a nonconforming development under M.C.0 15.09.055(b).
4 Second, the Hearing Examiner erred by finding and concluding the attachment of the
5 pier, ramp float to the existing, nonconforming over-water structure is analogous to the
6 attachment of a pier, ramp floats to an existing, nonconforming bulkhead:
7 A. The Applicant's Construction of a Pier, Ramp Float attached to an
8 existing, nonconforming Over-Water Structure Constitutes an
9 `Expansion' of a Nonconforming Development.
The Residential Development section of the Mason County Shoreline Master
10
Program (M.C.S.M.P.) Title 7.16.080(b)(1) prohibits over-water structures. As a result,
11
all over-water structures existing at the time of implementation of such legislation deems
12
these over-water structures to be 'nonconforming developments.' Based upon the
13
record, the County does not contest the Applicant's over-water (deck) structure existed
14
prior to enactment of the Shoreline Master Program on August 12, 1975.
15
The Mason County Development Code (M.C.C.) 15.09.055(b) establishes a
16
17 review process for the analysis of the development of nonconforming use or structures
within the master program.
18
"Nonconforming development" means a shoreline use or structure which
19 was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the ac
or the master program, or amendments thereto, but which does not
20 conform to present regulations or standards of the program or policies of
21 the act. Nonconforming developments may continue to be utilized for the
same purpose established on the date of the statute. If a change in use is
22 proposed for such development, any new use must obtain a permit by
applicable regulations; provided, that a proposed new use for such
23 development that does not conform to master program policies may be
considered as a conditional use. MCC15.09.055(b)
24
25 As a result of this code provision, nonconforming development may be
Mason County's Motion to Reconsider T.J. MARTIN
On the Matter of Paladin's and Brady's Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 2 Attorney for Mason County
L - -
r
1 continued provided it is not enlarged, intensified or increased or altered in any way
2 which increases its nonconformity; provided significant environmental damage does
3 not result. Expansion of nonconforming development is prohibited. (Emphasis
4 Added). MCC 15.09.055(b)
5 The Applicants intend to construct a pier, ramp float attached to the existing,
6 nonconforming over-water deck structure on the property. (See `Hearing Examiner
7 Decision of Paladin and Brady'Page 2, Line 9-11). In order for the PRF to be attached
8 to the shoreline, the deck will undergo alterations to allow for ingress and egress onto
9 the PRF. These alterations include adjustment to the waterside of the deck, including
10 the removal of the safety railing and reconfiguring to allow passage across the deck
11 onto the pier, ramp and float structure by two parties (Paladin and Brady). The deck will
12 now serve the use as originally conceived. In addition, the deck will provide now
13 provide use as the sole means of ingress and egress for parties onto the PRF, thereby
14 enlarging its use .
15 Under M.C.C. 15.09.055(b) the alteration of the seaside portion of the deck to
16 allow the over-water structure to additionally serve as the conduit to the pier, ramp and
17 float structure should be viewed by the Hearing Examiner as an 'enlargement,
18 intensification, or increase in the use' of the deck. In the least, the removal of a portion
19 of the deck and its redesign, including adjustment of the deck safety railing, constitutes
20 an 'alteration' of the existing, nonconforming structure in violation of the 'Nonconforming
21 Development' provision of the Shoreline Master Program (M.C.C. 15.09.055(b)). The
22 County thereby contends the Hearing Examiner erred in application of law by failing to
23 consider the increased use and modification of the deck as an 'expansion.' Further, the
24 Hearing Examiner failed to interpret the alteration of the Applicant's deck as
25 nonconforming development under the strict definition of M.C.C. 15.09.055(b).
Mason County's Motion to Reconsider T.J. MARTIN
On the Matter of Paladin's and Brady's Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 3 Attorney for Mason County
1 B. The Decision referring to Nonconforming Bulkheads as analogous
2 to the Present Matter is Misplaced.
3 The County contends the Hearing Examiner erred by finding and
4 concluding the construction and attachment of the pier, ramp and float structure to the
5 existing, nonconforming over-water deck structure is factually analogous to the
6 construction and attachment of a pier, ramp floats to an existing, nonconforming
7 bulkhead. The County argues the parallel reference is inapplicable as a valid
8 consideration for two reasons:
9 1) The County disagrees with the premise in the decision proclaiming, "[T]hen
10 the same rationale should apply to the attachment of a deck to a
11 nonconforming bulkhead, which is apparently routinely allowed in Mason
12 County." (`Hearing Examiner Decision on Paladin/Brady'Page 11, Line 8-9).
13 This blanket allegation of County's practices lacks a factual basis and fails to
14 be supported in the record by sufficient evidence. No such evidence exists or
15 was presented into the record demonstrating the County has ever allowed a
16 pier, ramp float structure to extend from a nonconforming bulkhead. Further,
17 nothing in the record shows the Hearing Examiner took judicial notice of such
18 an occurrence; and
19 2) The nonconforming over-water (deck) structure is an accessory to residential
20 development regulated under the Residential Development chapter of the
21 Shoreline Master Program. Whereas, a nonconforming bulkhead is not an
22 accessory structure to residential development and is regulated under the
23 `Shoreline Modifications Activities: Bulkheads Chapter' of the Shoreline
24 Master Program. Therefore, the rules applicable to each are different in
25 scope and nature.
Based upon the distinction made between over-water structures and pier, ramp
Mason County's Motion to Reconsider T.J. MARTIN
On the Matter of Paladin's and Brady's Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 4 Attorney for Mason County
1 floats, the County alleges the Hearing Examiner erred in application of law to the facts
2 by concluding the attachment of the pier, ramp float to the existing, nonconforming over-
3 water structure is analogous to the attachment of pier, ramp and float structures to
4 existing, non-conforming bulkheads.
5
s CONCLUSION
7 The Mason County Planning Staff argues the Hearing Examiner erred in
8 interpreting the law by reasoning the attachment of the proposed PRF to the existing,
9 nonconforming over-water structure was not an expansion or alteration of an existing
10 use under strict interpretation of M.C.C. 15.09.055(b). Further, the Hearing Examiner
11 erred in the application of the law to facts by pronouncing the County allows pier, ramp
12 and float structures to be attached to existing, non-conforming bulkheads. The County
13 argues no factual evidence has been presented demonstrating Mason County has ever
14 allowed a pier, ramp and float structure to extend from an existing, non-conforming
15 bulkhead.
16 The County does not dispute the decision granting the shoreline substantial
17 development permit granted to the Applicants. However, the County does ask the
18 Hearing Examiner to reconsider the legal reasoning at arriving at such a conclusion.
I
19 Dated this 8th day of December 2005.
20
21 Respectfully submitted,
22 y
23 G' /
T,rl arti , WSBA No. 1152
24
"IVlason ounty Deputy Prosecutor
25 On Be alf of the Mason County Community
Devel pment and Planning Department
Mason County's Motion to Reconsider T.J. MARTIN
On the Matter of Paladin's and Brady's Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 5 Attorney for Mason County
CASE INDEX
Paladin-Brady
SHR2005-00018
Exhibit# Date Description
1 October 13, 2005 Staff Report
2 August 3, 2005 Completed Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
A lication
3 May 20, 2005 Site plans
4 May 20, 2005 Biological Evaluation
5 August 10, 2005 Notice of SDP Application
6 August 10, 2005 Affidavit of Posting Notice
7 August 18, 2005 Affidavit of Publication
8 August 3, 2005 SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
9 June 5, 2005 JARPA Application
10 August 4, 2005 Photographs of site by County Staff
11 August 19, 2005 Hydraulic Project Approval
12 September 6, 2005 Letter of opposition from Dennis Corbett
13 September 9, 2005 Letter of opposition from Tom and Wendy Bauer
14 September 26, 2005 Letter of support from Raymond Cox
15 September 26, 2005 Letter of support from Dr. C. Thomas-Miksa,Ph.D
16 September 26, 2005 Letter of support from Dave and Diane Krogh
17 September 26, 2005 Letter of support from Mike and Danielle Lasil
18 September 27, 2005 Letter of support from Jerry Olson
19 September 28, 2005 Letter of support from William and Annette Simmons
20 September 30, 2005 Letter of concern from WA State Dept. of Transportation
21 October 1, 2005 Letter of opposition from Cathryn McKay Click
22 October 2, 2005 Letter of opposition from John McKay
23 October 6, 2005 Letter of support from Victor and Cathie Cummings
24 October 8, 2005 Letter of support from Wayne and Jeanette Souza
25 October 8, 2005 Letter of support from Paul and Nancy Mitchell
26 October 14, 2005 Email from Marty Ereth,Fish Biologist, Skokomish Tribe
27 March 2003 Technical Document: "Shoreline Alterations in Hood
Canal and the Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca
28 October 13, 2005 1 More Staff photos
SHR2005-00018 - 1 - (I
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 51h Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton,Washington 98584 * (360)427-9670
October 13, 2005
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Kell McAboy; 360.427.9670 X363;kellmoco.mason.wa.us
RE: Mason County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
(SHR2005-00018).
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction.This report evaluates an application for a Shoreline Substantial
Development permit under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program Chapter
7.16.170 Piers and Docks, for the construction of a joint use pier-ramp-float. It is
proposed to extend from the waterward edge of an existing nonconforming 13' by
15' deck with stairs(see Characteristic of the site). Design includes a 6' by 60'
fixed pier a 4' X 40' ramp leading to an 8' by 20' float. Another 8' by 20' float
will be attached at a right angle to the 20' long float.Total length of the structure
as currently designed is 128' from the Ordinary High Water Mark. Applicant's
agent has agreed to reduce the length to reflect the maximum 115' as allowed
under Use Regulation#7.
Staff is recommending denial of this proposal.
II. Applicant: Linda Paladin and Jeff Brady
III. Agent: Amy Leitman
IV. Date of Complete Application: August 3, 2005.
V. Site address and Project Location: 10230 S.R. 106. Parcel#32236-5 1-00001
VI. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the area. The general area is characterized by low-density
single-family residential development along the south shore of Hood Canal
and S.R. 106. Residential use appears to be a mix of permanent and vacation
homes. Waterfront residences on bulkheaded fill are immediately east and
west of the project site. Between the two adjacent bulkheaded waterfront
residences, the unarmored beach extends for approximately 175'. There is an
existing pier-ramp-float approximately 200' to the west of the proposal and
one existing pier-ramp-float approximately 220'to the east of the proposal.
SHR2005-00018 -2 -
There are also a couple small (less than 200 square feet) unattached floats and
buoys in the immediate vicinity.
B. Characteristic of the site. The site consists of two properties owned by
Paladin and Brady. Both the Paladin and Brady residences are located on the
landward(south) side of S.R. 106 on the crest of a sloped hillside. On the
waterward(north) side of S.R. 106 the combined property's beach frontage is
84' wide. There is an existing 13' by 15' deck with a set of stairs leading to
the beach. The existing deck starts at and extends beyond the OHWM* and is
therefore considered a nonconforming use per the Mason County Shoreline
Master Program 7.16.080 that prohibits over water structures. Per the Mason
County Development Code 15.09.055 B., expansion of a nonconforming
development is prohibited. Whether or not this deck is a legal- or illegal-
nonconforming structure, it must be brought under compliance with the
Shoreline Master Program in order for the County to review attachment of any
pier proposal. There is also a small boat shed (approximately 6' by 8') east of
and adjacent to the deck.
*Per the Mason County Shoreline Master Program 7.08 Ordinary High Water
Mark (OHWM) is defined as: On all lakes, streams, and tidal water is that
mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining
where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so
long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character
distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation as that
condition exists on June 1, 1971, or as it may naturally change thereafter or as
it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by local
government or the Department...
In this instance, the OHWM is specifically where the beach meets the bank,
and literally about 1.5' upwards on the bank. Staff member Grace Miller,
Lead Planner who has over 19 years of experience working with the County's
Shoreline Master Program has confirmed this during a site visit with Staff
Kell McAboy on October 13, 2005 (see more staff photos, Exhibit 28).
C. Comprehensive Plan Desi ngnation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site is Rural.
D. Shoreline Master Program Designation. The Shoreline Master Program
environmental designation for the site is Urban.
E. Zonin . The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 (RR-5).
VII. SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements. The proposal was
reviewed under SEPA, SEP2005-00079. A MDNS was issued on 08/03/2005
(Exhibit 8). A Notice of Shoreline Management Permit for a Substantial
SHR2005-00018 -3 -
Development Permit, SHR2005-00018 (Exhibit 5) was issued and posted on
08/10/2005 (Exhibit 6).
VIII. Other Permits. The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit,
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife(WDF&W), Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality
Protection Concurrence, and US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)RGP 6
approval. A copy of the HPA was received by the County from the WDF&W on
08/25/05 (Exhibit 11).
IX. Analysis. The proposal is for a joint use pier ramp and float within the shoreline
of Hood Canal. Shoreline Environmental Designation is Urban. Hood Canal is a
Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Per the Mason County Development Code
15.09.055 A. 1., this proposal requires a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit due to the cost exceeding $5,000. This proposal is reviewed under the
Mason County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Chapter 7.16.170 Piers and
Docks and 7.24.010 Shorelines of Statewide Significance.
Applicable Pier and Dock Policies are:
1. Piers and docks should be designed and located to minimize obstruction of
views and conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen.
The proposed pier-ramp-float has not been designed to minimize obstruction
of views or conflicts with recreational water users. The County received four
separate letters from adjacent and nearby property owners stating opposition
to the proposed pier-ramp float. Reasons stated for opposition include the
obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boaters and anglers
(Exhibits 12, 13, 21 &22). In contrast, the County has also received several
letters from nearby and adjacent property owners in support of the proposal
indicating that there will not be view obstructions or conflicts with
recreational boaters caused by the proposal(Exhibits 14-19 & 23-25).
2. Cooperative uses of piers and docks are favored, especially in tidal waters.
The proposal is for a joint use pier.
3. The type, design and location of docks and piers should be compatible with
the shoreline characteristics,tidal actions, aesthetics, adjacent land and water
uses.
The design and location of the pier-ramp-float is compatible with shoreline
characteristics and tidal actions as proposed in the Biological Evaluation
(Exhibit 4). The floats will have stops that will prevent the floats from
grounding out and disturbing the beach. The pier-ramp-float will have grating
to minimize shading of the aquatic environment. Two adjacent landowners
have sent the County written statements indicating that the pier-ramp-float
will not be compatible with adjacent land and water uses either aesthetically
or recreationally (Exhibit 13, 21 & 22). Another adjacent landowner that has
SHR2005-00018 -4-
100'of beachfront (but no waterfront residence)directly west of the proposal
indicates that there will be no negative impacts to views or use of the beach
(Exhibit 24). The County received a letter of concern from the Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) who is the adjacent landowner
directly to the south indicating that they believe the existing 12'by 12'
structure and part of the proposed fixed pier would be an encroachment on
S.R. 106(Exhibit 20). WSDOT does not approve the building of the pier-
ramp float for the proposed location without a valid airspace lease.
5. Mooring buoys and floats are preferred over piers and docks.
The proposal is for a pier, ramp and float.
7. Boat houses and covered moorages shall be discouraged.
None proposed.
Applicable Pier and Dock Use Regulations are:
1. The location and design of docks and piers, as well as the subsequent use shall
minimize adverse effects on fish, shellfish,wildlife and water quality.
As detailed in the Biological Evaluation, this structure is designed to have
minimal impacts to the shoreline environment. The pier-ramp-float has been
configured to pose minimal threat to natural resources. Staff cites the
Biological Evaluation as informative in this aspect and identifies no
significant environmental threat from this individual proposal. However,
letters received by the County from neighboring properties address possible
environmental impacts. For instance, a letter from the neighboring adjacent
property to the east states, "It concerns the McKays though to see a proposed
PRF fall directly on the fine gravel beds where they have annually observed
smelt spawning. At a time when we hear how important it is to protect
spawning beds for other species we should be more careful to protect known
smelt spawning beds too. " The letter goes on to say, "It is also a concern as
to what impact the treated piling and lumber will have on adjacent clams and
oysters. If the treatment keeps barnacles off, will the treatment leach and be
absorbed by the adjacent oysters and clams?" (Exhibit 22). Another letter
from the adjacent neighbor to the west asks, "When we eat our oysters and
clams in the future how much arsenic and other heavy metals from the new
pilings will be showing up in our oysters?"(Exhibit 13). Staff does not have
answers to these questions. The County received an email from Marty Ereth,
Fish Biologist, Skokomish Tribe submitting "Shoreline Alterations in Hood
Canal and the Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca"as official comments in
opposition to the proposal based on the negative biological impacts (Exhibits
26& 27).
It is likely that the subsequent use of the proposal would be more intensive
than the subsequent use of an unattached float used to moor motorized
watercraft due to scale.
SHR2005-00018 -5-
2. Docks and piers shall be located,designed and operated to not significantly
impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent property owners,
or adjacent water uses. Joint use facilities maybe located on the property line.
According to written statements from two adjacent landowners, the proposal's
design and location will significantly impact and interfere with their property.
This impact and interference includes views, noise, recreational use and
impacts to angling(Exhibits 13, 21 &22). According to the letter received
from the WSDOT, the proposal encroaches on the S.R. 106 right-of-way
(Exhibit 20).
The proposed pier-ramp-float will be located on the Paladin's western
property line.
4. No pier, dock, or float or similar device shall have a residential structure
constructed upon it.
None proposed.
j 7. Maximum overall length of a recreational pier or dock facility including float
shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of three feet of water as measured at
mean lower low water on salt water. The length of any pier or dock shall not
exceed the lesser of 15%of the fetch or 100 feet from Ordinary High Water
Mark(OHWM)on salt water.
The pier-ramp-float is proposed at a total length of 115'from the waterward
edge of the existing nonconforming deckplatform, which extends 13'beyond
the OHWMfor a total of 128'. Staff has informed the agent of this
discrepancy and has included a condition that the pier-ramp float needs to be
reduced in length to reflect the maximum 115'length from the OHWM. The
existing deck platform also must be brought into compliance with current
regulations in order for the County to be able to review the expansion. This
may require removal of the deck.
8. Only one dock is allowed per lot.
One proposed.
9. The width of recreational piers and docks shall not exceed eight feet.
The proposed width of the pier is 6 , the width of the ramp is 4 feet and the
float 8 feet.
10. At the end of a dock or pier, a float may be attached. These floats may either
be parallel to the dock or pier, or form a"T"or"U. In tidal water, the float
shall not exceed 400 gross square feet without a boat slip or 600 gross square
feet with a boat slip.
The float surface area is 320 square feet.
SHR2005-00018 -6-
13. Recreational piers shall be no higher than 11 feet above mean higher high
water. Piers and docks shall have at least an eight-foot span between pilings.
Per the drawings in the Biological Evaluation, the height of the proposed pier
is approximately S'above mean higher high water. Piling span is
approximately 18'wide.
14. The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of eight inches above
the surface of the water.
As configured, intermittent supports are greater than eight inches.
15. All floating structures shall include intermittent supports to keep structures off
the tidelands at low tide.
Included in proposal. See conditions of approval.
16. All facilities shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound
condition. Abandoned or unsafe docks and piers shall be removed or repaired
promptly by the owner. Where any such structure constitutes a hazard to the
public, the County may, following notice to the owner, abate the structure if
the owner fails to do so within a reasonable time, and may impose a lien on
the related shoreline property in an amount equal to the cost of the abatement.
See conditions of approval.
)l/ 7.24.010 Shorelines of Statewide Significance.
C (a) The Shorelines Management Act of 1971 has designated the following
shoreline areas of Mason County as shorelines of statewide significance:
(1) Hood Canal
(2) Lake Cushman
(3) Skokomish River
(b) The Act further states, concerning shorelines of statewide significance: "The
Legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in
the management of shorelines of statewide significance."The department, in
adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give
preference to uses in the following order of preference which:
(1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
(2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
(3) Result in long term over short-term benefit;
(4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
(5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shoreline;
(6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
(7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed
appropriate or necessary.
The proposed use is contrary to the above criteria and therefore does not receive
preference as a use.
SHR2005-00018 -7-
X. Conclusions. The project does not appear to be consistent with the Shoreline
Master Program Chapter 17.16.170 Piers and Docks policies and use regulations,
specifically Use Regulation#1, 2 & 7. Although the applicant's biologist states
the project is configured to have minimal impacts to fish and wildlife, it does
appear to be located and designed to significantly interfere with the rights of
adjacent property owners.
Staff recommends denial of the permit.
If the Hearing Examiner approves this permit, staff recommends the
following conditions:
1. Floatation for the structure shall be entirely enclosed and contained to
permanently prevent the breakup or loss of the floatation material into the
water.
2. Debris or deleterious material resulting from construction shall be removed
from the beach area and project site and shall not be allowed to enter waters of
the State.
3. Install stub pilings and float stops to suspend the float at least 12" above the
seabed.
4. Orient flotation so that it does not obstruct the grating.
5. Install plastic wear-strips between the float and the pilings to reduce treated
wood chafe.
6. Pressure treated wood must be completely dry prior to placement in water.
Use of creosote or pentachlorophenol is prohibited.
7. Pile driving shall take place as allowed by the Agencies to minimize direct
impacts on migrating salmon,bull trout,wintering bald eagles and forage fish
spawning activities.
8. Pile driving must be suspended if there is whale activity in the vicinity and
resume in their absence.
9. All facilities shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound
condition. Abandoned or unsafe docks and piers shall be removed or repaired
promptly by the owner. Where any such structure constitutes a hazard to the
public, the County may, following notice to the owner, abate the structure if
the owner fails to do so within a reasonable time, and may impose a lien on
the related shoreline property in an amount equal to the cost of the abatement.
10. All other necessary permits from Mason County, Washington State and/or
Federal Agencies that are required for this proposed development and
construction must be obtained PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION and all
conditions must be adhered to until completion of the project.
11. Use 100% grating on the ramp
12. Install 50% grating on 8-foot wide floats.
13. Reduce the overall length of the pier-ramp-float to reflect a maximum of 115'
from the OHWM and bring the existing deck platform into compliance with
current regulations,which may require the deck to be removed.
SHR2005-00018 -8-
14. Building Permit Application must include a site plan indicating the landward
edge of the pier at the edge of or waterward of the S.R. 106 right-of-way.
Encroachment of a structure into a right-of-way is prohibited, unless an
applicant can show an agreement with the landowner(WSDOT).
15. Joint users Paladin and Brady are required to record and provide a joint-use
agreement prior to issuance of a building permit.
16. Consider participation in a countywide evaluation of the impacts of dock
structures if a comprehensive study is undertaken in the future.
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.
MASON COUNTY p
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F
Courthouse Annex
P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 Y
(360)427-9670
SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION
PERMIT NO. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SHORELINE VARIANCE
DATE RECEIVED SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE
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: L/NOA f A LPrbld
ADDRESS: (Oa 3 O C 5TP- E ROuT-2— ID(o
LAr4[0 l`a i LVA(street) $5901
(city) (state) (zip) I
TELEPHONE: 3(o 0)
(home) (business)
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: A AY LEITMLJ (MA-Ftr/E SORVeys T A-s5e-zmi. )
r
ADDRESS:
(s et) f
R 83(01
(city (state) 1 (zip)
TELEPHONE: 3(4c)) 3S5 - �f 02-3 Mo�31 LE- (3&6J 3 01
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
General location(include property address,water body and associated wetlands—identify the name of the
shoreline): e
10a3o CPA.lft-DlrJ.l / 0a32- MCP , (AH(O1'-
yt�l Tt-1 SOIAI—W SH-ORE OF [::�-b CA NA-L .
'a
Legal description (include section, township, and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and
longitude to the nearest minute. Projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude
location)—include all parcel numbers:
Nw'��, SEC- 3(0 , aanl , 03 W
C'
OWNERSHIP: Contract
Applicant X Owner K Lessee _ Purchaser (Identify) Other
Owner:
P. O. Bo)( T54-
S 4t✓L�� WA (street) 5$
(city). (state) (zip)
•1
I
I:\PLANNINGICHARELL&RENEPJSHORELINEPERMIT.APP REVISED: 06-25-03
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTONp
Development(identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction; '
methods,principle dimensions,and other pertinent information):
\LOrNf LISE- t-)iar� RftAAP e FLnA-T- S'T C TLtRE : (P X 60� F/Ve) PIE12 ;
Cc)N51 Rtti D OF CXkACLfYS FrR , WM4 a`-WIDE GRAnMG ; g' X 16 ' ,?
Pt-UkA M I N u M (tkmP, r--',(L L)' GRR-i titb i TO T` SC a d` FL,6 A-i 5 !N A T
Ca>`(Si ST OF FWA:`( ErICLCTED /14 tccX► f2U r)F_D 201-�E1}fY(E1-IE� ? '
A-;WT(61J rt) -?--� PtW5Sil r PrLES
a
5EV— g.E) F)RADDI770104t D0-ntt.
Use(identify current use of property with exist improvements: r
s
S�nrGc E �Pr ��Y (2ESr�E�-1r.05
5 t
bb�
?4
�F
qr.
Reason for requesting development:
1 ('c 1 trUN� I
=rF
I 01''PoR i kA Ll i i i r�S.
ACKOWLEDGEMENT rh
I hereby declare,to the best of my knowledge and belief,the forgoing information and all attached information is
true and correct. gt
(applicant or authorized representative) (date) r
f
...............................................................................
TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL.OFFICIAL i
Identify and describe existing features of the site and surrounding area: s
5
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 sectio '
qn m the Master Program:
I:\PLANNINGICHARELL&RENMSHORELiNEPERMIT.APP REVISED:06-25-03
c
III
.�,,f�,//� 1,.-- --�J�jj•-lam:j� r_ � � � ,
r �ter`: Nt•�5� ,~r� ��',f f �--_ r} � ,��r
CE
,p�"Y•-._ � .',�"�� c"X��r�� ;+.�"'. -
r
ga
1 •; � � ,-\ � 1 .x{ ('+ -- „^`` �`�`'�a,�a- �� -- � �.- � `�'�.4-:v�+'�' �' `� ,.-,fib, `,�''� 'r .
�'� 'l Fi'r,' r r`�r.•s .r- Ke '.'�"' u-- v^3 c- fi"'. , s x y
"� � l ��� -- ��x.+s..� •�. �� .,3���;.it 9 �a ^+s���e �� ��'.���� � t�,•��`yn�:.�.___
�� x ,� t �� -_ � -fig grg� �- 'tw.� „�� �-�� yam,a kY. �'+��z,`,¢��-'�°$'�� x""Y,�`�a• ��' i��`,,� �-;� ! � � f �t +• "r : e''x �-��is.�� ,�`'r't.���g��51�� �.".w��a�» g'°�ie.3�-e'���.�'4���.s���'� 'F",�.. ..-y'�.`:�..i�°r`p''�x.�,''"T���,;�,�q�•-�,
.,�a
p r// '.�//•'rS i)3 .. 1 �4yv- 'cis
�G J.. r+f !f, �� '\v �/ max• 24
.�a��z?S�
Zv�"x e ..�
! 1.F����/J�/f� � r` � �' .� s`�'��'1""� '"'�-rF'�. .ur-na �-:'x'£�.��'"�t�"'� <�r'�•z'zF�a? - � ry��$.".�<ts�'�W..a��,•��"��.f�'�.�,�-._..
,~SIC
J r
NM
r •�.�)/l.' - ��. fife '�"� .�S r��'..� .w�t,� u � M�� ,�,�- _
11 S
-�, .
Project Site
� ! �aA-y �fir• + �� � �r ,-' l
I r r/f
+ ,
Paladin/Brady Project Location Reference Paladin/Brady
i App:Marine Surveys&Assessments
Section 36,Township 22N,Range 03W J� t In:Hood Canal near Union
10230 E State Route 106 Union,WA / Purpose:New pier,ramp&float 00
Lat:47'21.68'Lon 123° '
i $� 00.55 A" f�� Datum:MLLW
r % Adjacent Property Owners:
1)Kenneth McKay
2)Norman&Maylene Kyburz
f\,��./�' � ';��� �G;�ji �'•���-� ti,���i Sheet 2 of 4 Date:April 27,2005
18'E ��
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
it
HOOD CANAL
220
200'
!
S.f1!1 t
r: ti-
r Proposed TN
+�^ PRF
50 34'
HIGHWAY 106
0' 50' 100'
Reference:Paladin/Brady
App:Marine Surveys&Assessments
In:Hood Canal near Union
Purpose:New pier,ramp&float
Datum:MLLW
Materials Adjacent Property Owners:
Piles: 14,ACZA treated,class B Douglas I)Kenneth McKay
2)Norman&Maylene Kyburz
fir
Floats:2,ACZA framing lumber,
floatation is polystyrene foam enclosed in Sheet 3 of 4 Date:April 27,2005
polyethylene resin shells.
pier:ACZA framing lumber,galvanized
fastenings.
Ramp:pre-fabricated aluminum. BRADY PALADIN
Cpnstruction and site details are contained
in the project Biologigal Evaluation.
4' X 40' RAMP Existing deck
r
MHHW
FIXED PIER MHWfl
1t.e'
10.8'
8
IL
FLOATS
MLLW
—77 Stub piling Float stops on
one of three all float pilings
-0.5' � ) P 9
115' from
existing deck
Reference:Paladin/Brady Site Plan
App:Marine Surveys&Assessments
In:Hood Canal near Union
Purpose:New pier,ramp&float
Datum:MLLW
Adjacent Property Owners:
1)Kenneth McKay
8' 10' 2)Norman&Maylene Kyburz
MN
5' Sheet 4 of 4 Date:April 27,2005
TN a
4'
Fes. MHHW�-
12' x 12'
existing deck
4 0 g' 4' x 40' fully grated ramp 2 wide grating 6
20--- �' — 35' IE— 60'
115'
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project
Amy Corps of Engineers Reference #
Biologicat Evatuation
May 20, 2005
w.
3
For:
Linda Paladin
10230 East SR 106
Union, WA 98592
ft
Jeff Brady
Box 754
Shelton, WA 98584
Prepared by:
Marine Surveys Ei Assessments
521 Snagstead Way
t Port Townsend, WA 98368
Phone: (360)385 4073, Fax: (360) 385-1724
t _ �. E-mail sea@cablespeed.com
List of Figures and Attachments
Figure Number Page
1. Project location................................................................................. 20
2. Site plan..............................................................................................21
3. Plan and elevation views.................................................................22
4. Marbled murrelet summer aerial survey map ..............................23
5. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map..................................24
6. Surf smelt spawning beaches.........................................................25
7. Pacific herring spawning and holding areas................................26
Attachment Number Page
1 . SCUBA survey transect map............................................................ 27
2. Photographs of the site...............................................................28-30
3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list ...................................31-32
4. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment...............................................33-36
5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound
Chinook and Hood Canal Summer-run Chum........................37-38
6. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Coastal - Puget Sound Bull Trout...................................
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 2
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project
Biological Evaluation
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Location:
Section 25,Township 22N, Range 03W
10230 and 10232 East SR 106
Union, WA 98592
Latitude: N 47°21.68'Longitude: W 123°00.55'
The project location is seen in Figure 1.
B. Project Description:
The proposed project involves the construction of a new,joint-use pier,ramp and float(PRF) structure in
Hood Canal(Figures 1, 2 and 3). The proposed structure will consist of a 6'by 60' fixed pier, a 4'by 40'
ramp leading to an 8'wide by 20'long float. An 8'by 20' float will be attached at a right angle to the 20'
long float. Two stub pilings and float stops will suspend the floats at least 12" above the substrate at low
tides(Figure 3). The pier will have two-foot wide grating installed. The floats will have four-foot wide
grating installed. The ramp will be 100%grated. The pier and ramp and one float will be located within
approximately 42'of true north. The waterward end of the pier will be approximately 8' above the seabed.
Plastic strips will be installed between the pilings and the floats to prevent chafmg.
The Douglas fir pilings, treated with ACZA(Chemonite) 1.5#retention, will be towed to the site. The 10"
diameter pilings will be driven with a barge-mounted 2,000 lb drop hammer. Set-up time for each piling is
approximately 20 to 30 minutes, while actual driving time is about the same, depending on the conditions.
This work is always done during daylight hours at high tide, with the barge floating,not resting on the
substrate. The most landward pilings will be driven first, those farther out will be driven as the tide goes
out.
After the pilings are driven, the fixed pier will be built using conventional construction methods. The floats
will be built offsite,placed in the water at the Port of Allyn boat ramp on North Shore Road, towed to the
site, positioned over the stub pilings, and attached to the full length pilings. The ramp will be pre-
assembled offsite, loaded on the float at the same site,towed to the project area and set in place.
All framing materials for the pier and floats will be ACZA treated. All fastenings and hardware will be hot
dipped galvanized. The flotation will consist of polystyrene fully enclosed in extruded polyethylene resin
tubes. Floatation will be placed so that it does not obstruct the float grating.
All treated lumber used for this project will meet or exceed the standards established in"Best Management
Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments"developed by the Western Wood
Preservers Institute, revised July 1996 and amended April 17, 2002.
The following Best Management Practices(BMP)guidelines as enumerated by Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife()vVDFW)will be followed during this project:
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project - 3
All sawdust, trimmings or drillings from the treated wood used in this project will be contained in such
manner to prevent them from entering the beach,bed or waters of the state.
All cut-offs, excess materials and other wastes will be retrieved and disposed of at an approved disposal
site.
No heavy equipment ui ment will be used on the beach.
Additional BMP guidelines may be required in the Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA).
C. Action Area:
The action area should include the area within a one-mile radius of the proposed PRF location. This action
area includes the area(25' surrounding each piling)in which potential turbidity plumes generated by pile
driving may impact the listed fish species. The actior.area��,;dl also i.*rclude*he area in•r'l'.ich pile-d..vu,g
noise may affect nesting and wintering eagles, marbled murrelets and the listed fish species.
The action area should include the area in which the listed species may be impacted by boat use. However,
defining the extent of this area is somewhat arbitrary,because no one can anticipate where the boat owner
will operate the boat. For the purpose of this BE the action area potentially impacted by boat use will be
defined as one mile in all waterward directions from the PRF, even though boat use may extend beyond
that area.
II. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION
A. Species Information:
In the project area, there are two salmon species, Hood Canal summer-run chum(Oncorhynchus keta) and
Puget Sound chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawyacha), listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened
species according to the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)(Federal Register, Vol. 64,Nos. 56 and
57). NMFS also listed the Steller sea lion(Eumetopias jubatus) as threatened and both the humpback whale
(Megaptera novaeangliae) and the Pacific leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea) as endangered species
that may occur in Puget Sound. Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus)were listed as threatened by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)in October of 1999. Bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and
marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since
1978 and 1992,respectively.
NMFS has proposed to designate critical habitat for 13 Evolutionarily Significant Units(ESUs)including
the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU (Federal Register,
Vol. 69,No. 239, December 14, 2004). The project site is in the proposed area.
NMFS has also proposed listing the Southern Resident killer whale as threatened(Federal Register, Vol.
69, No. 245, December 22, 2004).
According to the USFWS,no special management protection for critical habitat has been designated for the
bald eagle at this time. There is no marbled murrelet designated critical habitat near the project site(Federal
Register, Vol. 61, No. 102, 1996). USFWS is proposing critical habitat designations for Coastal-Puget
Sound bull trout- a final decision will be made in June 2005. The project site is on the shoreline proposed
to be designated as critical habitat in Hood Canal(Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 122, 2004). There is no
designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions or leatherback sea turtles in Washington and no designated
critical habitat for humpback whales at this time.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 4
Hood Canal Summer-run Chum: Chum salmon have the widest natural geographic and spawning
distribution of any Pacific salmon(Groot and Margolis 1991),and historically may have been the most
abundant of all the salmon species(Heave 1961). In the Puget Sound area the spawning grounds are
situated near coastal rivers and lowland streams. Summer, fall and winter runs are present. Fall-run
chum are most prevalent,but summer runs are found in the Hood Canal,the Strait of Juan de Fuca and
in southern Puget Sound(WDFW 1994). In the Hood Canal,the summer-run stocks spawn from early-
September to mid-October,while spawning of the fall-run stocks begins about the third week in
October and may continue into January(WDFW 1994).
Juvenile chum in Washington begin migration downstream in late January and continue through May,
although there is considerable variability in the onset of migration due to the large number of cues
influencing migration(Simenstad et al. 1982 and Salo 1991).The migration to the estuarine
environment usually happens immediately after emergence(Simenstad 1998),but juveniles have been
reported to remain in freshwater streams for up to a month(Salo and Noble 1953;Bostick 1955;and
Beall 1972).
Chum and ocean-type chmook spend more time in the estuarine environment than other species of
salmon(Dorcey et al. 1978 and Healey 1982).Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32
days with an average residence of 24 days(Simenstad 1998).Juvenile chum consume benthic
organisms found in and around eelgrass beds(harpacticoid copepods, gammarid amphipods and
isopods),but change their diet to drift insects and plankton such as calanoid copepods, larvaceans, and
hyperiid amphipods as their size increases to 50-60 mm. (Simenstad et al. 1982). Eelgrass beds are
probably the main migration corridors for juveniles,providing both forage opportunities and refuge
from predation(Simenstad et al. 1982).
As the spring and early summer season progress and plankton blooms and forage opportunities
increase,the migration rate slows(Bax 1983). Simenstad and Salo(1982)found that as the food
resources started to decrease in mid to late summer,juvenile chum tended to move offshore, suggesting
a relationship between out migration and prey availability.
Summer chum escapements in Hood Canal have generally experienced a continuous decline for the
past 30 years. However,in 1995 - 1996 there was a dramatic increase in escapement, especially in
some rivers on the western arm of Hood Canal such as the Big Quilcene,the Duckabush and the
Dosewallips. Streams on the eastern side of the canal continued either to have no retuning adults(Big
Beef Creek, Anderson Creek, and the Dewatto River)or no increases in escapement(Tahuya River)
(Johnson et al. 1997). The dramatic escapement increases of 1995 - 1996 were not seen in 1997.For
example, in the Dosewallips,the 1996 escapement rose to almost 7000 fish,but declined to under 100
in 1997(Bernthal et al. 1999). In 1999, summer chum escapement in the Dosewallips was 351
(Johnson,pers. comm.). However, chum returns in the fall of 2001 increased to 700 to 800 in the
Dosewallips,Duckabush and the Hamma Hamma rivers. The return to Big Beef Creek increased to 600
fish from 20 in 1999.
The situation is more critical for the Hood Canal summer-run chum populations in southern Hood
Canal(Skokomish River northeast to the Union River). Summer-run chum have existed in the past in
the Tahuya River,which enters Hood Canal approximately 2.5 miles west of the site,but that run may
be extinct at this time(Bernthal et al. 1999). The same situation exists in the Skokomish River,which
enters Hood Canal approximately 6.3 miles west and south of the project area. The Union River enters
the Hood Canal approximately 9.3 miles northeast of the project area at Belfair, and supports a
summer-run chum population. In contrast to other summer-run chum populations in southern Hood
Canal,this stock has shown a general increase during the last 15 years(Bernthal et al. 1999),but is still
thought to be below historic levels.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project - 5
Puget Sound Chinook: Puget Sound chinook, also called the king salmon,are distinguished from all other
Pacific salmon by their large size. Most chinook in the Puget Sound are"ocean-type"and migrate to
the marine environment during their first year(Myers et al. 1998).They may enter estuaries
immediately after emergence as fry from March to May at a length of 40 mm.,or they may enter the
estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June of their first year at a length of 60-80 mm. (Healey
1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries feed on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans
(gammarid amphipods,mysids, and cumaceans). As they grow and move into neritic habitats,they feed
on decapod larvae,larval and juvenile fish, drift insects, and euphausiids(Simenstad et al. 1982).These
ocean-type chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the most dependent of all salmon species on
estuaries for survival.
Summer/fall-run chinook have spawned in the Skokomish,Union, Tahuya,Duckabush,Dosewallips
and Hamma Hamma Rivers in the past-all of these rivers empty into the Hood Canal. Escapement is
currently strong in the Skokomish River,but much weaker in the other rivers given the available
productive habitat. For example,in the Tahuya there were no returning chinook in 1999 according to
the Salmon Spawning Ground Survey Data from WDFW(Egan,pers. comm.). In the Duckabush River
in 1999,the spawner escapement was just 92 chinook(Johnson, pers. comm.). A large number of the
naturally spawning chmook in the Skokomish are derived from hatchery strays from Hoodsport and
George Adams hatcheries(WDFW 1994). Chinook of hatchery origin have been released in the
Tahuya and Union rivers, and the genetic impacts are unknown. These fish are considered a stock of
mixed origin(a stock whose individuals originated from commingled native and non-native parents)
with composite production(a stock sustained by both wild and artificial production)(Myers et al. 1998
and WDFW 1994).
Bull Trout: Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California(at
present they are extinct in California)to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska, and northwest along the
Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea. Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon
family. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea
(for anadromous populations)takes place in the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water
for survival.Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993).They live both in fresh and marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers
(fluvial), lakes(adfluvial), or saltwater(anadromous)before returning to smaller streams to spawn.
Others(resident bull trout)complete all of their life in the streams where they were reared. Habitat
degradation, dams and diversions, and predation by non-native fish threaten the Coastal-Puget Sound
population. The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only anadromous
forms of bull trout in the contiguous United States(Federal Register,Vol. 64,No. 210, 1999).
There are three bull trout subpopulations in the Skokomish River Basin. There is an isolated population
in Lake Cushman(due to the construction of a dam on the North Fork Skokomish River),a second
subpopulation occurs in the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River, and a third subpopulation
occurs in the upper North Fork Skokomish River above Staircase Falls(Staircase Falls is assumed to be
a barrier to migration of the Lake Cushman stock into the upper North Fork Skokomish). The first two
populations are considered"depressed"(with fewer than 500 spawners in each population), and the
third population is considered"unknown"because of insufficient information(Federal Register, Vol.
64,No. 210, 1999).
Marty Ereth, a Habitat Biologist for the Skokomish Tribe,has reported fisherman catching bull trout in
the lower Skokomish from fall to spring(pers comm.). According to Ereth, "it is not known whether
these bull trout are fluvial Skokomish bull trout dropping down in to the floodplain to overwinter,if
they are a local anadromous form or if they are an anadromous population from another area foraging
and over wintering in the lower Skokomish River."
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 6
Bald Eagle: In 1973,the Endangered Species Act passed and the bald eagle was listed as threatened in
Washington State. Currently,there are about six hundred nesting pairs of bald eagles in Washington.
Each winter several hundred additional eagles take up temporary residence on rivers and streams to
feed on the spawned out carcasses of salmon. Eagles are generally riparian, associated with coasts,
rivers and lakes.Nest selection includes three key elements:(1)proximity to water, and a clear flight
path to the water, (2)they usually prefer to find the largest tree in the area, and(3)an open view of the
surrounding area An otherwise suitable site may not be used if there is excessive human activity in the
area.Birds are their primary food source,but eagles are opportunistic and will take a variety of fish,
small mammals, sea urchins, clams, crabs and carrion. In Washington State,most nest-building activity
occurs in January and February.Egg laying occurs in March or early April and eaglets hatch after a 35-
day incubation period(Stalmaster 1987).They remain in the nest for 10-12 weeks before attempting
their first flights in mid-July. They may remain in the area for another month before dispersal
(Anderson et al. 1986).
There are no active nests within a mile of the site and there are no eagle winter concentration areas near
the site(Nordstrom,pers. comm.).
Marbled Murrelets:Marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They spend most of
their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation
and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species
(WDW 1993). Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for
sand lance, sea perch,Pacific herring, surf smelt, other small schooling fish and invertebrates. There is
no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the project site.
Annual aerial surveys for marbled murrelets(Marine Bird and Mammal Component of the Puget Sound
Ambient Monitoring Program, WDFW)indicate that marbled murrelets do make use of nearshore
foraging habitat in this part of the Hood Canal in the winter(Figure 5),but they are rarely seen in this
area in the summer(Figure 4).
Forage Fish: Migrating salmon utilize baitfish such as Pacific herring(Clupea harengus pallasi), sand
lance(Ammodytes hexapterus)and surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus)as prey resources. These forage
fish form a very important trophic link between plankton resources and a wide variety of predatory
marine organisms as well as providing food for marbled murrelets and bald eagles.
There are documented surf smelt spawning beaches at the site(Figure 6-Penttila, 1999). They require
sand/gravel substrates in the upper intertidal zone(tidal elevation of T up to 1'above the MI*IWL) on
which to deposit their eggs. Egg deposition occurs between September 15 and March 1 in the Hood
Canal area.
The nearest documented sand lance spawning beaches are approximately 1.8 miles southwest of the
project site(Penttila, 1999). According to Penttila, spawning takes place primarily on fine-grained sand
substrates, although spawning can occur on sand-gravel substrates as well as gravel up to 3 cm in
diameter. Spawning can take place on sheltered beaches, current-swept beaches on tidal passages and
on exposed wave-swept beaches. They deposit their adhesive eggs in the upper intertidal zone(the area
between+5'above MLLW and M HW). Sand lance spawn from October 15 to March 1.
The nearest documented Pacific herring spawning areas are approximately 2000'northeast of the
project site(Figure 7-WDFW,2000). There is also a large Pacific herring holding area adjacent to the
site. This is the area where ripening adult herring congregate and hold for 2 to 3 weeks prior to
spawning(herring usually spawn from January 15 to March 30 in this area).
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 7
Steller Sea Lions: Steller sea lions are found on the west coast from California to Alaska Breeding
colonies do not exist on the Washington coast but may be found in British Columbia and Oregon
(Osborne et al. 1988). There are no documented haulouts or rookeries in the Hood Canal area(Jeffries
et al. 2000), although sea lions are seen in the Puget Sound in the winter(October-May)where their
visits are transitory.
Humpback Whales: Due to excessive whaling practices in the past,humpback whales are rarely seen in
Puget Sound, even though in the past they were much more prevalent(Angell and Balcomb 1982).
According to Osborne et al. (1988),there were only three sightings of humpback whales in Puget
Sound from 1976 to 1988. It is highly unlikely they would be present near the Hood Canal project area
(Jeffries,pers. comm.).
Leatherback Sea Turtle: There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington,even though
they are occasionally seen along the coast(Bowlby et al. 1994). They are rarely seen in Puget Sound
(McAllister,pers. comm.). Again,it seems highly unlikely that these turtles would be found in the
Hood Canal near the project site.
Southern Resident Killer Whales: The southern resident population consists of three pods:J,K and L.
According to Wiles(2004), "While in inland waters during warmer months, all of the pods concentrate
their activity in Haro Strait, Boundary Passage,the Southern Gulf Islands,the eastern end of the Strait
of Juan de Fuca and several localities in the southern Georgia Strait."During early autumn,these pods,
especially J pod, extend their movements into Puget Sound to take advantage of the chum and chinook
salmon runs. Resident killer whales spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter water
less than 5 meters deep(Baird 2001).
According to Osborne(2003),there have been no sightings of any southern resident pods in the project
area during the period from 1990 to 2003.Due to the rare occurrence of the southern resident pods in
this area of Hood Canal, it seems unlikely that the proposed project will have significant impacts on
this species.
B. Survey Results:
A SCUBA survey was done October 1,2004,a sunny,warm day,from approximately 11:30 AM to 1:00
PM at the site of the Brady and Paladin joint-use pier,ramp and float project on the south shore of Hood
Canal near Union. Lynn Goodwin and Pemma Kitaeff used SCUBA to run five transects to identify flora,
fauna, substrate types and other qualitative information relative to the Biological Evaluation. Waxer
visibility was good, about 20 feet. The shoreline of Hood Canal is oriented in a northeast-southwest
direction along the adjoining Brady and Paladin properties;the Brady property lying just southwest of the
Paladin property. The proposed joint use pier would be located on the common property line with access to
the pier from a 12'by 12'deck sitting 4%'above the beach on the seaward edge. A 2 P long bulkhead
constructed of large rock slants up from the beach beginning at the Brady southwest property line and
running northeast along the shoreline. Continuing northeast along the Brady and Paladin properties from
the end of the rock bulkhead,the shoreline has a natural bank with no bulkhead. The toe of the rock
bulkhead extends 5'to 6'seaward from the natural bank. The MHHW line is about one foot seaward of the
interface of the natural bank and the beach(the"bank/beach interface").
The five parallel transects(Tl—T5)ran generally southeast to northwest,perpendicular to the bank/beach
interface. All transects were 25'apart and 200'long. T1 started at the interface of the rock bulkhead and the
beach(the"bulkhead/beach interface");T2 T5 began at the bank/beach interface. The end of T1 was
approximately 6'seaward of the ends of transects T2—T5,the distance the toe of the bulkhead sits seaward
of the natural bank. T3 was located on the common property line, T1 was 50'southwest, and T5 was 50'
northeast for a total distance measured along the shoreline of 100'.The habitat survey map(Attachment 1)
shows the location of each transect. Following are the collected data for each transect.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 8
Surface Substrate: Beginning at the bulkhead/beach interface and continuing for approximately 110', the
substrate along T1 was primarily cobble and gravel with a few Crassostrea gigas(Pacific oysters) and
Balanus glandula(bamacles). Broken oyster shell was added to the substrate mix by about 110'-by the
end of T1,the substrate was primarily sand with some cobble.The substrate of T2 was mainly small
cobble on sand for the length of the transect, with some oyster coverage between about 90' and 120'
from the bank/beach interface. The substrate along T3 was gravel and broken shell, gravel with cobble
and a few oyster shells, and cobble with Lirularia sp. (periwinkles)through about 50' from the
bank/beach interface. Approximately 50'along the transect, the substrate gradually changed to cobble
on gravel and mud with oysters,barnacles and periwinkles. Between 60'and 120', the substrate had
almost 100%oyster and barnacle coverage; from 120'through the end of the transect, the substrate was
sand and small cobble. Oyster coverage ended about 150' from the bank/beach interface. Along T4 and
T5 the substrates were primarily sand with cobble; some oyster coverage was noted on T4 about 140'
from the bank/beach interface.
Substrate Slope: The transects were parallel, all extending seaward 200', Tl from the bulkhead/beach
interface and T2—T5 from the bank/beach interface. The tidal elevation showing the slope contour was
measured at 11:50 AM on T3;the other transects had similar contours. The water's edge along T3 was
60'from the bank/beach interface at 11:50 AM. Measurements were taken 60' from the bank/beach
interface and at 10-foot intervals thereafter. The corrected tidal elevations on T3 were as follows:
Distance Tidal
Along Elevation
Transect MLL
60' +6.3
70' +5.8
80' +4.3'
90' +3.2'
100' +2.2'
110' +0.2'
120' -1.9'
130' -2.9'
140' -3.9'
150' -5.0'
160' -6.0'
170' -7.0'
180' -8.1'
190' -9.1'
200' -11.1'
Macroalgae:
Chondracanthus exasperata: This red alga(Chondracanthus exasperata)was noted along T1 covering
about 1%of the area 170' from the bulkhead/beach interface, and increasing to 5%coverage by
180'. Chondracanthus exasperata was also observed covering approximately 5%of the area 190'
along T2; covering about 1%of the area at 150'and 2%of the area between 180'through 200' along
T4; and covering approximately 10%of the area 200' along T5, all measured from the bank/beach
interface.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project - 9
Cladophora columbiana: This epiphyte(Cladophora columbiana)was noted about 110' along T1 from
the bulkhead/beach interface; and 110' along T4, 120'along T2, and 100'to 120'along T3, all
measured from the bank/beach interface.
Enteromorpha intestinalis: One piece of Sea Hair(Enteromorpha intestinalis)was observed 110'
along Tl from the bulkheadfbeach interface. It was also found along T5 covering about 1%of the
area 120' from the bank/beach interface.
Gracilaria sp.: This red alga(Gracilaria sp.)was noted along T 1 covering about 5%of the area at 13 5',
20%of the area between 150' and 170', and 25%of the area at 180', all measured from the
bulkhead/beach interface. Along T3, Gracilaria sp. was found covering approximately 2%of the
area 140' along the transect, with coverage increasing to 5%by 150'and to 20%between 180'and
200'. Along T4,this alga was noted covering about 1%of the area 120' along the transect, with
coverage increasing to 10%by 140', and 20%between 150' and 200'. Gracilaria sp. was also noted
co-vering about 5%of the area 150'along T5, in-easing to 10%by 200'. Pul meas ret ^ along
T2—T5 are from the bank/beach interface.
Mazzaella splendens: This red alga(Mazzaella splendens)was found along T1 covering approximately
1%of the area between 170' and 180'from the bulkhead/beach interface.
Palmaria mollis: Dulse(Palmaria mollis)was noted along T1 covering approximately 1%of the area
120'through 135'from the bulkhead/beach interface, and increasing to 5%coverage by 170'. Along
T2, dulse was noted covering 1%of the area at 120'and also at 190'; along T3, it covered about 1%
of the area between 180'and 200'; and along T4, it covered approximately 1%of the area between
130' and 150' and 2%of the area between 180' and 200', all measured from the bank/beach
interface.
Plocamium cartilagineum: One piece of this epiphyte(Plocamium cartilagineum)was observed 110'
along T 1 from the bulkhead/beach interface. It covered about 1%of the area 120'along both T4 and
T5,measured from the bank/beach interface.
Sargassum sp.:This brown alga(Sargassum sp.)was noted covering approximately 1%of the area
from 120'through 190'along T2; covering 2% of the area at 150'along T3; covering approximately
1%of the area between 130'and 150', and 2%of the area between 180'and 200' along T4; and
covering about 1%of the area 150' along T5, all measured from the bank/beach interface.
Ulva fenestrata: Sea Lettuce(Ova fenestrata)was noted along TI covering about 1%of the area 110'
and 135'along the transect, increasing to 5%by 170', and to 10%by 180', all measured from the
bulkhead/beach interface. Sea lettuce covered approximately 1%of the area at 120', and 5%of the
area by 190' along T2; it covered about I%of the area 180' along T3, increasing to 2%coverage by
200'; sea lettuce covered about 1%of the area from 120'through 140' along T4, then increased to
5%coverage between 150' and 200; and covered about 1%of the area at 120'along T5, increasing
to 5%by 200', all measured from the bank/beach interface.
Microalgae: A diatom mat was observed covering the sand at the end of transects TI, T3,T4 and T5.
Eelgrass: No eelgrass(Zostera sp.)was noted in the survey area.
Invertebrate Species: Several species of invertebrates were noted in the survey area, including: Balanus
glandula(barnacles), Cancer gracilis (graceful crab), Cancer magister(Dungeness crab), Cancer
productus(red rock crab), Crassostrea gigas(Pacific oyster),Dermasterias imbricata(leather star),
Lirularia sp. (periwinkles),Pagurus sp. (hermit crab),Pandalus danae(coon-striped shrimp), Pisaster
brevispinus(short-spined star),Pycnopodia helianthoides(sunflower star), and Stichopus californicus
(sea cucumber).
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 10
Vertebrate Species: No vertebrates were noted in the survey area.
Drift Cells: According to Schwartz, et al. (1991),the project site is located approximately 3.2 mile
northeast of the beginning of a drift cell that ends approximately 2.0 mile northeast of the site a Twanoh
State Park.
III. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided. The proposed project has been
described and the action area defined. A habitat survey has been provided. When reviewing all the data,the
potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the listed species and their critical habitat
should be considered.
A. Direct Effects:
When considering the direct effects of the proposed project, one must determine if the proposed project will
immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential, direct impacts caused
by the construction process include increased noise and turbidity due to pile driving.
Pile driving noise: Feist et al. (1992)reported that salmonids could be expected to hear pile driving noise
approximately 2,000' from the source. Based on the studies at the Everett Homeport, these researchers
concluded that pile driving did alter the distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and chum salmon.
Noise from pile driving may mask the approach of predators. The impacts of pile driving noise depend
upon the number of fish present in the area,the distance of the fish from the site and the duration of the
pile driving process. Pile driving noise at this site will probably have short-term impacts on the listed
fish species. The pile driver will be in operation for approximately six hours and pile driving will take
place during an approved work window(discussed below), which will minimize contact with the listed
fish.
Because there are no active eagle nests within a mile of the site, pile-driving noise will not impact
nesting eagles.
Marbled murrelets spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the
critical nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the
survival and conservation of the species(WDW 1993). There are no critical nesting habitats or nests
within close range of the project. Annual aerial surveys for marbled murrelets(Figures 4 and 5)
indicate that no murrelets have been seen in the marine environment near the Hood Canal project area
during the summer months. Therefore, construction during the work window mentioned below would
cause no significant impacts on murrelet foraging. In the marine environment, forage fish abundance
could affect survival of the murrelets(Ralph et al. 1997). Construction will be limited to periods
outside the forage fish spawning periods,thereby eliminating any significant impact to the murrelets'
food supply.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 1 1
Turbidity: Increased turbidity caused by pile driving could have adverse effects on salmon and bull trout.
The impact level depends on duration of exposure, concentration of turbidity,the life stage during the
increased exposure and the options available for the fish to avoid the plumes. The effects can be
discussed in terms of lethal, sublethal or behavioral(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 a and Simenstad,
editor, 1988). For this project,turbidity effects are expected to be localized and brief.The area where
turbidity impacts may affect the listed fish has been defined by the Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE)
as a 25'radius around each piling. To minimize the adverse effects of increased turbidity and noise on
migrating salmonids,bull trout and possible forage fish spawning activities,pile driving should take
place during the work window from July 16 to September 14.Work during this period will reduce the
possibility of contact with these species.
Due to the scarcity of Steller sea lions,humpback whales,leatherback sea turtles and the Southern
Resident killer whale pods in the action area,it is concluded that the proposed project construction and
its presence will have no effect on these three species.
B. Indirect Effects:
Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. For this project, indirect effects might
include alteration of nearshore juvenile salmon migratory pathways, increase in salmonid predation,
reduction in prey resources and refugia due to shading of the epibenthic substrate by the structure and
increased boat use.
Migratory pathway alteration: It is generally accepted that overwater structures can alter migration
behavior of juvenile salmon(though the effects may vary depending on the design and orientation of
the structure, degree of shading, and the presence of artificial light), and reduce salmon prey resources
and refugia by shading aquatic plant life(Simenstad et al. 1999;Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b).
However,the significance of these effects is not clear. As Simenstad et al. state,"We found no studies
that described empirical evidence supporting or refuting that modification of juvenile salmon behavior
in shoreline habitats was reflected in changes in survival."Nightingale and Simenstad state, "Presently,
although we know that under some conditions small juvenile salmon will delay or otherwise alter their
shoreline movements when encountering an overwater structure,the conditions under which this
behavioral modification is significant to the fishes' fitness and survival is relatively unknown."
A new study by Williams et al. (2003)found that,"Salmon fry were observed in all nearshore habitats
during each transect sampling period(day and night).The fry were observed under a wide range of
PAR values(0.0 µmol m-2 s-1 to 2370 µmol m-2 s-1). Fry were observed both outside the terminal
(Mukilteo ferry terminal)and underneath the terminal at all times, and shadows produced by the 10-m-
wide terminal structure did not appear to act as barriers to fry movement at this location."
There is no question that underwater structures may alter migration patterns—that is not in dispute. As
seen in the new study by Williams and in many other studies(see the recent literature review by
Weitkamp-2003),there are studies that indicate that salmon migration is not affected by the presence
of overwater structures. Of course,there are other studies indicating migration patterns are altered by
overwater structures.
The issue is that no one has shown that these migration changes lead to increased mortality or
decreased fitness. None of the studies that report changes in salmomd migration patterns caused by
overwater structures have reported that these changes have a negative impact on salmonids- see the
quotes above from Simenstad et al. 1999 and Nightingale and Simenstad 200lb.
Nevertheless,the Services(NMFS and USFWS)have chosen to accept the hypothesis that overwater
structures will have negative impacts on salmonids, even though there is no current scientific research
proving that this hypothesis is true. Their impact minimization recommendations are based on this
assumption.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project - 12
Increased predation: At.this time,there is no evidence of docks aggregating salmonid predators in the
Puget Sound(Ratte&Salo 1985;Cardwell et al. 1980;Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b).Dock
associated structures, such as breakwaters,may serve as marine mammal haulout areas,but there is no
scientific literature that states that these mammals are particularly targeting small outmigrating
juveniles.It might be assumed that birds would be interested in small migrating juveniles,but there is
no evidence that docks provide an aggregation site for predatory birds(Taylor and Willey 1997).
Therefore,it cannot be stated, based on existing research,that the predation rates of juvenile salmonids
will be altered due to the presence of the structure.
Shading and crushing impacts: Shading caused by overwater structures and float grounding can reduce or
eliminate eelgrass,macroalgae and other epibenthic organisms. It should be noted that no macroalgae
was found in the area that will be shaded by the proposed structure.
The following design parameters will lessen shading impacts on the benthic environment:
•Both floats will have 4-wide grating installed.
•The pier will have 2-foot wide grating installed.
•The ramp will be 100%grated.
•The pier will be approximately 8'above the seabed at its waterward end.
• Stub pilings and float stops will suspend both floats at least 12" above the seabed during extreme low
tides.
Boating impacts: Boating activity can cause damage to the aquatic habitat due to prop scour and increased
turbidity. In several studies, aquatic vegetation and benthic organisms were found to be absent or
greatly reduced in areas where boat traffic was high and the propellers were within one foot of the
bottom(Chumra and Ross 1978;Ogilvie 1981).Langler(1950)found that propellers within
approximately 14" of the bottom removed all plants and silt within a swath approximately 5'wide.
Conversely,boat use over deeper water can actually stimulate aquatic plant growth by increasing the
dissolved carbon dioxide and increasing water circulation(Warrington 1999).
Pollution from exhaust can have indirect adverse effects on the listed fish. Warrington(1999)
concluded from his study of the literature that, "There is no significant effect of outboard exhaust on
zooplankton,phytoplankton, penphyton or other aquatic invertebrates in the bulk water."However,he
also concluded that there are no acceptable works on exhaust effects on salmonids.
It is assumed that most boating activity adjacent to the floats will be at slow speeds. It is possible that at
low tides, boat traffic to and from the floats will cause some scouring impacts on the macroalgae
present at the site. The magnitude of these impacts depends on such factors as boat speed, frequency of
boat use at low tides,time of year of boat use, etc. As mentioned above,boat use over deeper water can
actually stimulate aquatic plant growth by increasing the dissolved carbon dioxide and increasing water
circulation(Warrington 1999). Given the number of unknown variables,the overall impact on the listed
fish species caused by boating impacts to macroalgae is difficult to predict.
Fuel spills are another potential source of pollution. Crude oil and petroleum produce behavioral
changes in fish at low concentrations,with physiological impacts occurring at higher concentrations
(Warrington 1999).Warrington concludes that salmonids may face toxic conditions in areas with low
flushing rates and heavy marina concentrations due to petroleum pollution. The project site is not
located near a marina. If refueling takes place at a marine fueling station, and not at the proposed dock
structure,the possibility of fuel spills at the site is remote. If refueling takes place at the proposed
structure,the possibility of fuel spills is also remote. Hand carried fuel tanks are usually filled at a
service station, sealed with their cap and taken to the boat. Once in the boat,the fuel line from the
engine is connected to the fuel tank.The fuel tank cap remains secured;hence,there is little chance for
a fuel spill.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 13
Concerns have been expressed about impacts on Pacific herring in their holding areas caused by
boating activity. Herring tend to congregate in holding areas 3-4 weeks prior to spawning which takes
place beginning in late January. Dan Penttila(pens. comm.)has stated that herring remain near the
seabed during daylight hours and only move close to the surface at night(within 10 fathoms).Based on
these observations, it seems highly unlikely that boating activity would have any significant impact on
Pacific herring in the holding area.
C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects:
Completion of this project will not promote future construction or other activities that would not otherwise
occur without its completion. Therefore,no additional interrelated or interdependent actions that could
affect species regulated under ESA will occur because of this project.
D. Take Analysis:
The ESA(Section 3)defines"take"as to"harass,harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound,trap,capture,collect
or attempt to engage in any such conduct."The USFWS further defines"harm"as"significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing
behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering."It is likely that no"take"will result from this
project.
E. Conservation Measures:
In order to minimise any direct effects on the listed species,pile driving should take place between July 16
and September 14 of any year. Pile driving during this time will minimize direct impacts on migrating
salmon,bull trout,wintering bald eagles and forage fish spawning activities.
Over-water work may have to be undertaken outside of the work window. This over-water work may
consist of installing precut pier decking and the installation of floats and ramp that have been constructed
off-site. Pier stringers are typically attached to the pilings from a barge during the pile-driving phase.
Typically,pier decking is cut to length on shore and screwed or nailed to the pier stringers beginning at the
landward end of the pier.There is no possibility of debris falling into the water.The ramp and floats are
towed to the site by a small workboat and secured to the pilings and pier using hand tools.This process
usually takes one to two days. The construction process will be brief and will produce no more noise or
turbidity than normal boat activity on Hood Canal.
Additional conservation measures will minimize adverse effects of the project. They include:
1. The 8'-wide floats will have 4-wide grating installed.
2. The pier will have 2-foot wide grating installed.
3. The ramp will be 100%grated.
4. The pier will be approximately 8'above the seabed at its waterward end.
5. Stub pilings and float stops will suspend both floats at least 12" above the seabed during extreme low
tides.
6. Floatation will be oriented so that it does not obstruct the grating.
7. Plastic wear strips will be installed between the float and the pilings to reduce treated wood chafe.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 14
8. The proposed project is a joint-use project.
9. As seen in the Photographs, the area between the highway and the beach is occupied by vegetation-
there is no additional room for planting of more vegetation.
F. Determination of Effect:
After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys, the determination of effect is:
1. Puget Sound chinook- "May affect,not likely to adversely affect"Puget Sound chinook.
2. Hood Canal summer-run chum- "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"Hood Canal summer-
run chum.
3. Bull trout-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect"bull trout.
4. Bald eagle-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect"bald eagles.
S. Marbled murrelet- "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"marbled murrelets and their
designated critical habitat.
This is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species and their critical habitat are expected to be
beneficial, discountable or insignificant. Limiting pile-driving work to the approved work window will
reduce direct impacts on the listed species. There are no eagle nests within a mile of the project site. No
forage fish spawning activity will be affected because of work closures during spawning activity. There
will be no grounding impacts on the benthic environment. Shading impacts on the benthic environment will
be minimized by the conservation measures discussed above. The availability of forage fish for bull trout,
salmon, marbled murrelets and eagles will not be impacted.
6. Steller sea lion - "No effect"on Steller sea lions and their designated critical habitat.
7. Humpback whale-"No effect" on humpback whales.
8. Leath erback sea turtle-"No effect"on leatherback sea turtles and their designated critical habitat.
9. Southern Resident killer whale"No effect"on Southern Resident killer whales
These species are not expected to occur in the Action Area.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project - 15
References
In addition to the literature review, several people contributed information to this study. Regional scientific
knowledge aided the understanding of important ecological systems within the project area. The individuals
referenced are listed below.
Egan, Ron. WDFW. Marine Resources Division. Fish Biologist, Olympia, WA.
Jeffries, Steve. WDFW, Senior Research Scientist,Marine Mammal Investigation Division, Olympia, WA.
Johnson, Thom. WDFW,Fish and Wildlife Biologist,Fish Management Division,Port Townsend, WA.
McAllister,Kelly. WDFW,Regional Habitat Biologist,Olympia,WA.
Nordstrom,Noelle. WDFW,Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Olympia,WA.
Nysewander, Dave. WDFW,Project Leader,Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Marine Birds and
Mammal Biologist,Olympia,WA.
Penttila,Daniel. WDFW,Marine Resources Division, Fish Biologist, La Conner, WA.
Literature
Anderson,B.,J. Frost,K.McAllister,D. Pineo and P. Crocker-Davis. 1986.Bald eagles in Washington.
Wash. Wildl. 36(4): 13-20.
Angell,T. and K. C. Balcomb III. 1982.Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, 146 pp.
Baird, R. W.2001. Status of killer whales,Orcinus orca,in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 115:676-
701
Bax,N.J. 1983. The early marine migration of juvenile chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta)through Hood
Canal-its variability and consequences. Ph.D. thesis.UW, Seattle, WA. 196 pp.
Beall,E.P. 1972.The use of predator-prey tests to assess the quality of chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta)
fry. M.S. thesis.UW, Seattle,WA.
Bernthal, C. Coordinator. 1999. Hood Canal/Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Habitat
Recovery Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Olympia,WA.
Bostick,W. E. 1955.Duwamish River seining studies.In: Puget Sound stream studies,pp. 5-6. Wash.Dep.
Fish. Olympia,WA.
Bowlby,D. E., G. A. Green and M. L. Bonnell. 1994. Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of
Washington and Oregon.Northwestern Naturalist 75:33-35.
Cardwell R.D., S.J. Olsen,M.I. Carr and E.W. Sanborn. 1980. Biotic,water quality and hydrologic
characteristics of Skyline Marina in 1978. TechRep. 54,Washington Dept. of Fisheries.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 16
Chumra, G. L. and N. W. Ross. 1978. The environmental impacts of marinas and their boats. A literature
review with management implications, Marine Advisory Service,University of Rhode Island.
Narragansett, RI.
Dorcey, A. H. J., T. G. Northcote and D. V. Ward. 1978. Are the Fraser River marshes essential to salmon?
Westwater Research Center, Lecture 1, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
Federal Register/Vol. 61,No. 102 /May 24, 1996 /Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 56/March 24, 1999/Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 57/March 25, 1999/Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 122/June 25,2004/Proposed Rules
Federal Register/Vol. 69,No. 239/December 14, 2004/Proposed Rules
Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 245,December 22, 2004/Proposed Rules
Feist, Blake E., J.J. Anderson and R. Miyamota. 1992. Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum(O. keta) salmon behavior and distribution. FRI-UW-9603, Fish.
Res. Inst., UW, Seattle, WA.
Groot, C. and L. Margolis(eds.). 1991.Life history of Pacific salmon, UBC Press, Vancouver, British
Columbia.
Healey, M. C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system,pp. 315 -341.In: V.S.
Kennedy(ed.),Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press,New York,NY.
Jeffries, Steven J., Patrick J. Gearin, Harriet R. Huber, Don L. Saul and Darrell A. Pruett. 2000.Atlas of
Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife
Science Division, Olympia, WA, 150 pp.
Johnson, Orlay W., W. Stewart Grant, Robert G. Kope, Kathleen Neely, F. William Waknitz, and Robin S.
Waples. 1997. Status review of chum salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-32, 280 pp.
Langler, K. F., A. S. Hazzard, W. E. Hazen and W. A. Tompkins. 1950. Outboard motors in relation to fish
behavior, fish production and angling success. Transactions of the 15th Annual North American
Wildlife Conference. pp. 280 -303.
Myers, J. M.,R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer,T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grand, F. W.
Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from
Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-
NWFSC-35, 443 pp.
Neave, F. 1961. Pacific salmon: ocean stocks and fishery developments.Pac. Sci. Congr. Proc. 1957(10):
pp. 59-62.
Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001 a. Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington
State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 144 pp.
Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, and Washington
State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 177 pp.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 17
Ogilvie,M. A. 1981. The mute swan in Britain, 1978. Bird Study. 28: 87- 106.
Osborne,R.,J. Calambokidis and E. M.Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound
Island Publishers, Anacortes,WA, 191 pp.
Osborne,R. W. 2003. Southern resident killer whale sighting compilation 1990-2003.The Whale Museum,
Friday Harbor, WA 98250.
Penttila,Daniel E. 1995. Investigations of the spawning habitat of the Pacific sand lance Ammodytes
hexapterus, in Puget Sound. Puget Sound Research '95 Proceedings,Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority, Olympia,WA.
Penttila,Daniel E. 1999.Documented Spawning Beaches of the Surf Smelt(Hypomesus), and the Sand
Lance(Ammodytes)in Hood Canal, WA.Ms Rpt. WDFW,Marine Res. Div., La Conner, WA.
Ralph,C.John, Sheen J. Miller, Linda L. Long,Brian P. O'Donnell,Michelle McKenzie and Kim
Hollinger. 1997.Annual Report.Marbled murrelet and landbird research. Redwood Sciences
Laboratory,U. S. D. A. Forest Service.
Ratte,L. and E. O. Salo. 1985. Under-pier ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon in Commencement Bay.
Report to Port of Tacoma, FRI-UW-8508,Fish.Res. Inst.UW, Seattle,WA.
Rieman,B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993.Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull
Trout. Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station, Ogden,UT. 38 pp.
Salo, E. O. and R. E. Noble. 1953. Chum salmon upstream migration.Minter Creek Biological Station
Prog. Rep. (Sept. -Oct. 1953). Wash. Dept. Fish., Olympia, WA.
Salo,E. O. 1991. Life history of chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta).In: C. Groot and L. Margolis(eds.).
Pacific Salmon life histories. UBC Press,Vancouver,British Colombia.
Schwartz,Maurice L. et al. 1991.Net shore4r f in Washington state: Volume 4, Hood Canal region.
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia,WA.
Simenstad, C.A. and E.O. Salo. 1982. Foraging success as a determinant of estuarine and nearshore
carrying capacity of juvenile chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta)in Hood Canal, Washington,pp.21-
371.In:B. R. Melteff and R. A. Veve(eds.),Proceedings of the North Pacific Aquaculture Symposium,
Alaska Sea Grant Rpt. 82-2.
Simenstad,C. A., K. L. Fresh and E. O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal
estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function. Pp. 343-364.In: V. S.
Kennedy, (ed.),Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press,New York,NY.
Simenstad, C. A., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes,Workshop
proceedings,Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988.
Simenstad, Charles A., Coordinator. 1998. Estuarine landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan
de Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions.University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Simenstad, C.A.,B.J.Nightingale,R.M.Thom and D.K. Shreffler. 1999. Impacts of ferry terminals on
juvenile salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines.Phase 1: Synthesis of state of knowledge.
Report to WSDOT/TJSDOT Research Report T9903, Task A2, 116 pp. +appendices.
Stalmaster, M. V. 1987. The Bald Eagle.Universe Books,New York,NY,227 pp.
Taylor,W. S. and W. S. Willey. 1997. Port of Seattle fish migration study.Pier 64/65 short-stay moorage
facility: qualitative fish and avian predator observations. Prepared for Beck Consultants, Inc. Draft
report to the Port of Seattle.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 18
Warrington, P. D. 1999. Impacts of outboard motors on the aquatic environment.
www.nalms.org/bclss/iinpactsrecreationboat.htm
Washington Department of Wildlife(WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus
marmoratus in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl.,Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and
Steelhead Stock Inventory, Appendix One, Puget Sound Stocks, Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca
Volume, Olympia,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 2000. Critical Spawning Habitat for Herring, Surf
Smelt, Sand Lance, and Rock Sole in Puget Sound Washington. Olympia, WA.
Weitkamp, Don E. September 2003. Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats. Review Draft.
Parametrix, Inc. Kirkland, WA.
Wiles, G. J. 2004. Washington State status report for the killer whale. Washington Department Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia. 106 pp.
Williams, G. D., R. M. Thom, D. K. Shreffler, J. A. Southard, L. K. O'Rourke, S. L. Sergeant, V. I.
Cullinan, R. Moursund, and M. Stamey. Assessing Overwater Structure-Related Predation Risk on
Juvenile Salmon: Field Observations and Recommended Protocols. September 2003. Prepared for the
Washington State Department of Transportation Under a Related Services Agreement With the U.S.
Department of Energy Under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 19
'rig
gi4,
PI
ar
r ..
J• !i
ti
jt\S gyp ' K'i_
X
off --
Figure 2. Site plan
O
tZ
F-I
0 6u-
a 0:
CL.
CL
Q CD
0
0
0
o
C
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 21
4'X 40'RAMP Existing deck
MHHW
FIXED PIER MHw
t0.8'
8
FLOATS
MLLW
Stub piling Float stops on '—!
-0.5' (1 of 2) all float pilings
115' fromC+
existing deck N
W
'V
Q
7
3
8' 10 (.
fD
a
MN 5' Q
n TN 0.. 0
Q 4 <
W 20' MHHW�
Q N
'U
(�
12'x 12'
Q
r. A existing deck
3 4' D 8' 1 4'x 40' fully grated ramp 2'-wide ratin 6
Q
Q-
0 35' — 60'
115'
0
n
tv
N
Figure 4. Marbled murrelet summer aerial survey map
_ Blaine
ellingham
� .
-� Victoria _
i
Mt Vernon
Port An e
Marbled Murrelet Observations
(On and Off Transect) d -�
Everett
Summer 92-99 Aerial Surveys -
PSAMP, WDFW
L
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 36 40
KILOMETERS +� L
I Areas Sampled
0 1 - 2 birds
❑ 3 -4 birds i Seattle
5 - 6 birds
=:rti 7- 8 birds J
Project Site. t
9 -11 birds l q.
SheltonC` `S ,, _'Tacoma
Olympia
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 23
Figure 5. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map
_ Blaine
Bellingham
o O
+ ( 1}
Vicpria
i
`fi b, Mt.Vemon
- Y
- - Y
_ _ I
Port Angeles
Marbled Murrelet Observations
(On Transect)
Everett
Winter 93-99 Aerial Surveys _
PSAMP,WDFW
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
KILOMETERS ty
Areas Sampled
Bra merton,�t
O 1 - 2 birds
❑ 3 -4 birds Seattle
5 - 6 birds
Ik 7 8 birds
r 1
9 -10 birds Project Site. �1
11 - 24 birds
Shelton ,', : -1 1� Tacoma
y
_...Olympia +
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 24
Figure 6. Surf smelt spawning beaches
3
f.
t
'AL
li
fir. :; 'L .a G•.. t,:i�'•..e' -' � :•
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 25
Figure 7. Pacific herring spawning and holding areas
r .. `�..�; :;�r i t�!,. .�7 j ��,�'• 1. �l y7i \`
0.
i7l
� v
'*4iQ gac•= . .%: �\1l'// r��.T�--a•-• _ C;ry.•^•u--�' `� ;�'�' i + S ,n
I•�;-.} .sip � J �v !1\ � /�'/ �� r ,.`�, �, it ( .�•
;. s_, p{'1+p—=fir:�er-r'— —— — 1 i— _. — :—-
Project
Site
t •�:.�',IlTl+ �WAS ' i.�; ��_ zz
ordo
4.
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mop Scale — 1 : 63360 Dote: February 22, 2000
SURF SMELT, SANDLANCE, ROCKSOLE Coordinole System — State Plane South Zone 5626 (HAD2
AND HERRING INFORMATION FOR T22R03W Cartography by WDFW Habitat Program GlS
DISCLAIMER
thlt nap eoI leeludes Inlonnotlen that Washington
11 K RESOI;<2CE DATA DTO SY► XOGY Ueparlasent of rlah and Wlldllle (WDFW) maintains la
e control efmputfr delogetf. hhn I ildmtlilan colt
~" Sirt Smelt Spawmg Area '� Tay#1,1r to
enbs Ibo Ifeal inn of ge.fis and Oil
ruw refs
5e the best el our knowledge. It is not a eo let.
Inventory and It Is Imperlant to note that fish end
... C,,,, Area rildl lie resyarteI not occur to areas net currently
Soriclorice +pa kn.rn le WON blfleglsls, or in areas for high
eompnhentire sunf)'s Aare aol been eendutfed. Slle
ROfmole*wing Area Rivers aid Stream fpeelflc tur»is are Irfquestly nrcu sort to rule ful he
presencf of resouress.
® HuTing Spl,Tq Area Much sI this Information Is based an field surveys by
WOEW blolegltls, here�rer ■ema vortlons cemf lrem ether
�y , orgenlceilent ar Indlvlduals. this intermottea hat befn
® tte(r11g tt01 ng Area 1■aorollxod ter the setoose to the gea'it, public. Te
nfure azed for le use or for men specific Islereal ton,
users are encouraged to osasult rllh World bleloolsit.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 26
Attachment 1. SCUBA survey transect map
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
200 G G C U
-11.1 20 5 20 10 10 5
SUBSTRATE C U
ALONG ,C G U 5 5
T3 .52510
Macoralgae present
SAND 180 G at 5%or greater
SMALL COBBLE _81 20 densities
-
G PU
1055 U G G C= Chondracanthus
5 20 7 exasperta
G= Gracilaria
160 P= Palmaria
-6.0 G U = Ova
- 10 G 5 20 5
5
G
140 G 10
SAND -3.9 — 5
COBBLE
OYSTERS
120 _
-1.9
100
2.2
100%
OYSTERS PROPOSED
PRF
80 _ TN
4.3
AIMN
COBBLE 60 _
GRAVEL 6.3
OYSUTERS
0 10 20
r
40 _
8.0
r
GRAVEL I
SHED. 20
COBBLE 10.0
DISTANCE ALONG ROCK
BULKHEAD
T3 AN M
CORRECTED DEPTH MHHW
_ -.
BRADY ' PALADIN
PL i PL i PL
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 27
Attachment 2. Photographs of the site
y� ,� .• y - �J �� ,F. ��.� ��..•• '� ti``,;y •4 as .'�` aiM
;; Ilk
�. Iva
•P _ �. '(
it.-_ •' ''
�L f �•Yj9�.-�
1. Washington Department of Ecology Oblique Aerial Photos, Mason County, Disk 1,
April-May 2001. Arrow indicates project site.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 28
l
K y
.E�
_ ._. \�a ..:"�j.;_ a. —• d v:,rsd+F?tii�a,�:p:..Y •.c�,r.ir i-�' _ _
-Ir
f
A
TV
M1 A 0.
�r t
4. Looking SW along the project site beach
M ► �
,.may. 4 - • ' • Le
-
I
ti
S
S. Looking NE along the project site beach
Paladin and ier, Ram and Float Project • 30
BradyY P 1
Attachment 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list
October 22, 2003
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL
HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES; AND SPECIES OF CONCERN
IN WESTERN WASHINGTON
AS PREPARED BY
THE U.S.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
WESTERN WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE
(Revised October 8, 2004)
MASON COUNTY
LISTED
Wintering bald eagles(Hahaeetus leucocephalus)occur in the county from about October 31 through
March 31.
There is one bald eagle wintering concentration located in the county along the Lower Hamma River.
There are 30 bald eagle nesting territories located in the county. Nesting activities occur from about
January 1 through August 15.
There are four communal winter night roosts located in the county.
Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) occur in the county.
Marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)occur in the county. Nesting murrelets occur from April
1 through September 15.
Northern spotted owls(Strix occidentahs caurina)occur in the county throughout the year.
Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed species
include:
1. Level of use of the project area by listed species.
2 Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks, prey species and foraging areas in all
areas influenced by the project.
3. Impacts from project activities and implementation(e.g.,increased noise levels,increased human
activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat)that may result in disturbance to listed species
and/or their avoidance of the project area.
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 31
DESIGNATED
Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl has been designated in Mason County.
Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet has been designated in Mason County.
PROPOSED
Critical habitat for the bull trout(Coastal-Puget Sound distinct population segment)has been proposed in
Mason County.
CANDIDATE
Fisher(Martes pennanti)(West Coast distinct population segment)
Mazama pocket gopher(Thomomys mazama)(includes ssp. couchi,glacialis, louiei, melanops,pugetensis,
tacomensis, tumuli,yelmensis)
Streaked horned lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata)
Whulge(Edith's) checkerspot(Euphydryas editha taylori)
SPECIES OF CONCERN
California wolverine(Gulo gulo luteus)
Cascades frog(Rana cascadae)
Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki)
Long-eared myotis(Myotis evotis)
Long-legged myotis(Myotis volans)
Northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis)
Northern sea otter(Enhydra lutris kenyoni)
Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus cooperi)
Olympic torrent salamander(Rhyacotriton olympicus)
Pacific lamprey(Lampetra tridentata)
Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii)
Peregrine falcon(Falco peregrinus)
River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi)
Tailed frog(Ascaphus truei)
Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vandykei)
Western toad(Bufo boreas)
Botrychium ascendens(triangular-lobed moonwort)
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 32
Attachment 4. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
A. Background
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act(MSA), as amended by the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public law 104-267),requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities
that may adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat(EFH)for the relevant species. According to the
MSA, EFH means"those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,breeding, feeding, or growth
to maturity."For the Pacific West Coast,the Pacific Fisheries Management Council(Council)has
designated EFH for federally managed groundfish(PFMC 1998a),coastal pelagic(PFMC 1998b)and
Pacific salmon fisheries(PFMC 1999). Species of fish in the three groups present in the Puget Sound at
various times in their life-history phases are seen in the table at the end of the Assessment.
The purpose of the EFH Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed project on the EFH for the
relevant species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid,minimize of otherwise offset adverse
effects on EFH.
B. Identification of EFH
The designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the mean high
water line, and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths, along the coasts of Washington,
Oregon and California, seaward to the boundary of the U. S. exclusive economic zone(370.4 km)(PFMC
1998a, 1998b). The designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for salmon species extends from the
nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial water out to the full extent of the
exclusive economic zone(370.4 km) offshore of Washington, Oregon and California north of Point
Conception to the Canadian border(PFMC, 1999).
C. Proposed Action
The details of the proposed project are presented in Project Description section of the attached BE. The
project consists of construction of a new pier, ramp and float structure extending into Hood Canal.
D. Effects of the Proposed Action
The effects of this project on designated EFH are likely to be similar to the effects described in detail in the
Effects Analysis section of the attached BE. The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH
designated for groundfish, coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink
salmon) due to noise and turbidity impacts from pile driving.
E. EFH Conservation Measures
i
The conservation measures and BMP's mentioned in the attached BE will be implemented to minimize any
possible adverse effects to EFH.
F. Conclusion
The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagics and Pacific
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 33
salmon, but will not adversely affect EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook,
coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)in the long term.
G. Additional References
PFMC(Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan.
Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts and
Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon(August 1999).
PFMC, 1998a. Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific
Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan(October, 1998).
PFMC, 1998b. The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8 (December, 1998).
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 34
Species of fishes, and life-stages with designated EFH in the waters of Puget
Sound. (? = uncertain)
Species Adult Spawning/ Juvenile Larvae Eggs/
ARatin Paturition
Groundfish
Spiny Dogfish X X
Big Skate X X X ix
California Skate X
Lon nose Skate X X
Ratfish X X
Lin cod X X X X
Cabezon X
Kelp_Greenling X
Pacific Cod X X X X
Pacific Whiting (Hake) X Ix
Sablefish X X X X
Black Rockfish X X
Bocaccio X ? X ?
Brown Rockfish
Canary rockfish ? ? X
China Rockfish X X
Copper Rockfish X X ?
Darkblotched Rockfish X X
Greenstri ed Rockfish X X
Pacific Ocean Perch X X
Quillback Rockfish X X ?
Redbanded Rockfish X
Redstri ed Rockfish ?
Rosethorn Rockfish X X
Rosy Rockfish ?
Rou he a Rockfish X
Sharpchin Rockfish X
Shorts pine Rockfish X X
Stri etail Rockfish X
i i er Rockfish Ix I X
Vermillion Rockfish X ? X
Yellowe a rockfish X
Yellowtail Rockfish X ? X
Arrowtooth Flounder X X
Butter Sole X X
Curifin Sole X
Dover Sole X X X
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 35
English Sole X X X X X
Flathead Sole X X X X
Pacific Sanddab X X
Petrale Sole X X
Rex Sole X X X X
Rock Sole X X X
Sand Sole X X
Starry Flounder X X X
Coastal Pelagic
Species
Northern Anchovy X X X X
Pacific Sardine I X I x x x
Pacific Mackerel Y X X X
Market Squid X ? ?
Pacific Salmon
Coho Salmon X X
Chinook Salmon X X
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 36
Attachment 5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer-run Chum
Puget Sound Critical Habitat - Primary Constituent Elements
from 50 CFR Part 226
Project description: Construction of a new,joint-use pier,ramp and float structure in Hood Canal.
This addendum covers the primary constituent elements(50 CFR Part 226, page 74581-2) determined
essential to the conservation of Puget Sound Chinook salmon_(Oncorhynchus tchowytschal and Hood Can?I
Summer-run chum(Oncorhynchus keta)
Applicant: Linda Paladin and Jeff Brady
COE reference: No number at this time
NMFS reference: No number at this time
The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of salmon and steelhead are:
(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting
spawning, incubation, and larval development.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply-the project is in the marine environment
Effects to PCE: None
(2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical
habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water quality and forage supporting juvenile
development; and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood, logjams and
beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply-the project is in the marine environment
Effects to PCE: None
(3)Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and
natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders,
side channels, and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply-the project is in the marine environment
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project - 37
Effects to PCE: None
(4) Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity conditions supporting
juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater;natural cover such as submerged
and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation,large rocks and boulders, and side channels, and juvenile
and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: As noted in the Habitat Survey in the BE, there is a variety of macroalgae at the site
but no eelgrass(see Habitat Survey and Attachment 1 in the BE). There is no submerged large wood,but
there are at least ten large overhanging fir trees and smaller vegetation adjacent to the shoreline. The site is
in a documented surf smelt spawning area. There are no large rocks, boulders or side channels at the site.
See Habitat Survey and Attachment 1 in the BE for additional information.
Effects to PCE: As previously stated in the BE under Effects of the Action, Direct Impacts,pile driving
will produce brief and localized increased turbidity within 25'of each piling. No existing overhanging
vegetation will be removed from the site. The project will have no impacts on water quantity, salinity
conditions or water temperature. Work windows will prevent impacts to surf smelt and Pacific herring
spawning activity
As noted previously in the BE under Effects of the Action,Indirect Impacts, shading impacts on the
benthic environment will be minimized by installed grating in the structure. Grounding impacts will not
occur because of the use of float stops and stub pilings. Based on the best available science, it is not clear at
this time whether or not the presence of the structure will have negative impacts on migration and overall
mortality of the listed fish species. See the above-mentioned section in the BE for a more detailed
discussion of this issue. As previously noted in the above noted BE section,boating activity may impact the
benthic environment adjacent to the floats at low tides. It is not clear what the overall impact on the
proposed critical habitat will be due to the number of variables involved in the impact analysis.
(5)Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage,
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation; and natural cover such as
submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulder and side channels.
Existing Conditions: See 4 above
Effects to PCE: See 4 above
(6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage,including aquatic invertebrates and
fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply-the site is in a nearshore marine environment
Effects to PCE: None
Determination of Effect: no destruction or adverse modification
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 38
Attachment 6.
Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal - Puget Sound Bull Trout
The proposed project is located on the southern shoreline of Hood Canal,which is in Unit 27: Olympic
Peninsula River Basins, Subunit(vii)Hood Canal(Marine).
"The inshore extent of critical habitat for marine nearshore areas is the mean higher high-water line,
including tidally influenced freshwater heads of estuaries.... Adjacent shoreline riparian areas, bluffs and
uplands are not proposed as critical habitat.... Proposed critical habitat extends offshore to the depth of 33
feet relative to the mean lower low water(MLLW)."(Federal Register/Vol. 69,No. 122,June 25, 2004/
Proposed Rules)
Of the nine primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of bull trout(see Federal
Register/Vol. 69,No. 122,June 25,2004/Proposed Rules), only two might be impacted by the proposed
project. These two are:
L"Migratory corridors with minimal physical,biological or water quality impediments between spawning,
rearing, overwintering and foraging habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high
water temperatures or low flows."
2. Abundant food base in the in the marine nearshore area.
Amphidromous adult and subadult bull trout are largely piscivorous and forage fish are an important part of
their diet. Forage fish spawning activity at the site will not be impacted due to the imposed work windows.
In addition, due to the imposed work window, pile driving will take place when bull trout are least likely to
be migrating or foraging in the area.
The potential, direct impacts on foraging and migratory habitat caused by the construction process include
increased noise and turbidity due to pile driving. As mentioned above, pile driving will take place during a
period when bull trout are least likely to be in the area, thereby minimizing noise and turbidity impacts on
forage and migration habitat.
The indirect effects include reduction in prey resources(primarily forage fish). Again,pile driving will take
place outside of the spawning period for forage fish, thereby removing any short or long-term impacts on
these bull trout prey species.
Construction of this structure will not promote future construction or other activities that would not
otherwise occur without its completion. Therefore, no additional interrelated or interdependent actions that
could affect the primary constituent elements will occur because of this project.
The effect determination for the action is:No destruction or adverse modification
Paladin and Brady Pier, Ramp and Float Project • 39
f��
TA 7- 0;-N MASON COUNTY 0:
Mo DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
O A U V
r o N Z Planning Division
o N Y o~ P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
J
1864 (360)427-9670
SHR2005-00018 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT
Notice is hereby given that LINDA PALADIN, who is the owner of the described property, has filed
an application for a Shoreline Management Permit for the development of:
Sub. Dev.
PIER, RAMP, FLOAT
Site Address: 10230 E STATE ROUTE 106 UNION
Parcel Number: 322365100001
Location of Project: Waterward of S.R. 106 between mile mark 10230 and 10232
Within: (quarter section) of Section: 36 Township: 22 N Range: 03 W, W.M.
in , Mason County Washington.
Said development is proposed within HOOD CANAL and/or its associated wetlands. Any person
desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify:
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
P O BOX 279
SHELTON, WA 98584
in writing of their interest within 30 days of the final date of publication given pursuant to WAC
173-14-020. The final date of publication, posting, or mailing of notice is 8/18/2005.
Written comments must be received by 9/17/2005.
A public hearing will be held on this permit request. Contact this office at (360)427-9670, ext. 363 for
date and time of hearing.
A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on 8/3/2005 under WAC 197-11-340. Written
comments regarding this determination must be received by 8/17/2005.
SHR2005-00018
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF MASON ) ss.
I, e- I�/`C do hereby certify that I posted 3 p co ies of
G
the attached O`�-i�P ('>- o y�o�� �Q�p
on day of _.4-t,�c„-�,,5-�— 20 0a in 3 public places as follows:
one at III e 5�- ( �r�Pe✓-�v�, �i c� 1 env.-�- -`y �� l0(P
one at
Cj
one at U t\.t6v-\' -70��- c�� -i
In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this day
Of—AlA 01 , 5,-- , 20 0 S
By:
Address:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF MASON ) ss.
Subscribed and sworn to me this M day of 2
0
BONNIE L CAP i
0 NOTARY PUBLIC 0 otary Public or he to of Washington
w STA'TE ov vviiSHINGJoN , Residing at
� My Commission Expires June 6,2006
��� , Commission xpires -- -�
CT)
Affidavit of Publication
NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
PERMIT
SHR2005-00018
Notice is hereby given that LINDA PAL- STATE OF WASHINGTON, SS.
ADIN, who is the owner of the described COUNTY OF MASON
property, has filed an application for a
Shoreline Management Permit for the devel-
opment of:
Sub. Dev. Julie G. Orme being first duly sworn
PIER, RAMP, FLOAT
Site Address: 10230 E STATE ROUTE on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk
106 UNION Parcel Number:322365100001 of THE SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,a weekly newspaper.That said news-
Location of Project: W aterward of S.R. paper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the
106 between mile mark 10230 and 10232 date of the publication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continu-
Within: (quarter section) of Section: 36 ously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason County,Washington,and it is now
Township: 22 N Range: 03 W, W.M. in, Ma- and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of
son County Washington. publication of said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL
Said development is proposed within was on the 9th day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court
HOOD CANAL and/or its associated wet- of said Mason County.
lands. Any person desiring to express their
view or to be notified of the action taken on
That the annexed is a true copy of a Notice of Shoreline
the application shou`1d notify`
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF Mgmt Perm i t — T.i ncla Pa 1 a(I i n
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT —�
P O BOX 279
SHELTON,WA 98584
in writing of their interest within 30 days as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said
of the final date of publication given pursu-
ant to WAC 173-14-020, The final date of newspaper once each week for a period of two
publication, posting, or mailing of notice is consecutive weeks.commencing on the
8/18/2005.
Written comments must be received by 11 th day of August 20 05 and ending on the
9/17/2005.
A public hearing will be held on this per- 18th dayof August 20 05 both dates inclusive,
mif request. Contact this office at (360)427-
hearing.
9670,ext. 363 for date and time of hearing. and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said
A Determination of Nonsignificance was Period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the
issued on 8/3/2005 under WAC 197-11-340.
Written comments regarding this determina- foregoing publication is the sum of$ 8 2. 50
tion must be received by 8/17/2005. O
8/11-18 2t
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
AM1d1y A;q 11,1�
1-�GET TE9Au August 20 05 Si ..ON ,
L
otary Public in bb for the State of WashirFou
Residing at Shelton,Washington
,o�- AV
My commission expires OCL �L)
20
�W A8N,������
5�N-STA MASON COUNTY
P �' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
o A° r= Planning Division
y o T P O Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584
ooJ Y ~ (360)427-9670 90
1864
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-350)
SEP2005-00079
Description of Proposal: PIER,RAMP,FLOAT
Proponent: LINDA PALADIN
Site Address (If Assigned): 10230 E STATE ROUTE 106 UNION
Directions to Site: TRAVELING NEON 2 MILES APPROX FROM ALDERBROOK I
NN ACROSS FROM WATER HOOD CANAL AND UP HILL
Parcel Number: 322365100001
Legal Description: PEBBLE BEACH PARK TR 1 & T.L. EX TR 1-A
Lead Agency: Mason County
The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverser 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. MITIGATED MEASURES ARE ATTACHED.
Please contact Kell McAboy at ext. 363 with any questions.
This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2), the Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14
days from the date below. Comments must be submitted to Kell McAboy, C/O Mason County
DCD, Planning Division, PO Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 8/17/2005.
'=2" K) ��/' 9113)n
Authorized Local Government Official Date
DNR SEPA Review Anny Corps Fish& Wildlife
DNR S Puget Sound Applicant Squaxin Tribe
Dept of Ecology Contractor Skokomish Tribe _
Dept of Transportation School District City of Shelton
Mason Comity Transit
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-350)
SEP2005-00079
CONDITIONS OF THIS DETERMINATION
�) Only one dock or pier is permitted in a new subdivision, planned unit development, or short
plat, when lot frontages on the shoreline do not exceed an average of 150 feet. Prior to
short plat approval, a usable area with access shall be set aside for the pier or dock, and
designated on the face of the short plat unless no suitable area
exists.X
2) The pier, ramp, float, and associated moorings shall be located to avoid shading of
eelgrass and other aquatic vegetation.X
3) Floatation for the structure shall be entirely enclosed and contained to permanently prevent
the breakup or loss of the floatation material into the water.
X
4) Debris or deleterious material resulting from construction shall be removed from the beach
area and project site and shall not be allowed to enter waters of the State.
X
5) Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as a result
of this project. X
6) Recreational piers shall be no higher than 11 feet above mean higher high water. Piers
and docks shall have at least an eight foot span between pilings.
X
7) The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of eight inches about the surface of
the water.X
8) All floating structures shall include intermittent supports which run parallel to the shoreline
to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide.X
7 X 3�c
-Date:Received_
rcu Y.
0.
(Iocal:66vt or agehcy
30INT AQUATIC RESOURCES PERMIT APPLICATION FORM (3ARPA
(for use in Washington State)
,A
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK INK 210% 0-
F-1 Application for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Project per requirements of RCW 77.55.290, You must submit a copy
of this completed JARPA application form and the(Fish Habitat Enhancement JARPA Addition) to your local
Government Planning Department and Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife Area Habitat Biologist on the same day,
NOTE: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS-You must submit any comments an these projects to WDFW within 15 working day,
Based on the instructions provided, I am sending copies of this application to the following: (check all that apply)
Local Government for shoreline:C4 Substantial Development El Conditional Use [I Variance 0 Exemption 0 Revision
[I Floodplain Management D Critical Areas Ordinance
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for HPA(Submit 3 copies to WDFW Region)
Washington Department of Ecology for 401 Water Quality Certification(to Regional Office-Federal Permit Unit)
EJ Washington Department of Natural Resources for Aquatic Resources Use Authorization Notification
•9 Corps of Engineers for: F-1 Section 404 JZ Section 10 permit
El Coast Guard for General Bridge Act Permit
EJ For Department of Transportation projects only: This project will be designed to meet conditions of the most current Ecology/Department of
I Transportation'U'Vater Quality Implementing Agreement
SECTION A -Use for all permits covered by this application. Be sure to ALSO complete Section C(Signature Block)for all permit
applil
1.APPLICANT -7ti-I.-
LlMD ?A LADI 7,1
MAILING ADDRESS
ST-AT-E I2oui 11)(o UN totem!4 WA JS5"�cZ
WORK PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS I HOME
FAX#
( C)) 39g-9%aq- I
If an agent is acting for the applicant during the permit process,complete#2. Be sure agent signs Section C(Signature Block)for all permit
applications
2.AUTHORIZED AGENT
AMY" L.EMMAI-J (MARINE, 'WPVE-K5 V AfSPSSMEH-1-5)
MAILING ADDRESS I
N AG 5-rEK� WA K FD P-T To Sp N)1 L4/A &
WORKPHONE E-M%L ADDRESS,,
co��NHONE I 73�0) 3-6 5- [--�aL14-
0)M -
3-RELATIONSHIP OF APPLICANT TO PROPERTY: ET—OWNER 0 PURCHASER [D LESSEE r]OTHER:
4,NAME,I ADDRESS,AND PHONE NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNER(S),IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT:
SE IF-F 13P-N D Y'
F. 0- 130K -"-5 Li'- 5 1fT-7-L:-kW1 WA (icon) V1 S -5 0 10
5.LOCATION(STREET ADDRESS,INCLUDING CITY,COUNTY AND ZIP CODE WH
,?3C) (PA_L_P(*Dl t4) . 7. ERE PROPOSED ACTIVITY EXISTS OR WILL OCCUR)
/0
I �() E tiA�rF- QNto)llt 14/A 47593-(tAft5oT4 CO)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH JURISDICTION(CITY OR COUNTY) MA-5Dt,/ C0LAt,/TJ'
WATER13ODY YOU ARE WORKING IN Hoob CA-NkL I—IBUTARY Jr
-'S THIS WA, —,HE 303(d)Li'577YES Zi NO F F- I ' I
IF YES,-AHAT PARANM7EP(Sr ?LA&E:J- 5t)LAP4D
vAn.htnal wEBs=FOR303d
LIST
Y,TSEc ZnON FSSEC�TI(0 T. L ON TOWNSHIP RANGE GOVERNMENTLCT ISHORELINE DESIGNDESIGNATIONION
-14 3
LATITUDE&LONGITUDE: 1 TONING DESIGNATION
LON&.' 5(230 Cb-5 r i�l�5 7
IAX PARCEL NO: DNWS-�WEAIV TYPE,IF KNOWN
3a93(o- 51 - 0000 / � 0000a HIA
TARPA
'C t7UU-LAOMUZS 1v L`.UL-LUM50t -via Wlk 4�aleL l j dJue;A, Uv-}OuJDe11AJv'd41G;J d`t4 4vu;uv,_J (UIL Pa u'd V'dd71
�S3LloY) Y32dY �SQ2dYA oisno)3wn-1OA'33A dl LS2i31YM IVQLL L!Od 2EIVM HOIH�GHSIH NV314 3H L d0 Q21YM831YM❑
(S32dOV) Y3 W (S(3U d k OISl1O)3Wf1-OA'S3)1 dl LS83IVM HS38d 2JOd 3NI-240 A4Y.N 2GIYM HSIH Q:1VN1O=10 3-L dO O21VM2d31VM❑
(I A3OY-d 38 -Y12d31YW 2+3H1O 2dO'QV3HNIf18'--L'NOGa)TVI2d31YW--td TIIM'O L
S2GIVM IVOLL N13NI-2431VM HSIH 233HSIH Mf_-'W d0(3UVML+3iyAA J
UOXINY'S2131VM IVGLL'60 HS3dd'dOd 3NII 240>18VW 2d31VM HJIH k8VNi3H0 3Hl d0 G2dVM2331VA Q
'O3OV-d 3S I-,IM sminlon',us 1NWM83d HO AZIYUOdW31 ANV dl)103HO'6
=AilAlloVdONoiivanOG31YWils3
S-V 31VGSNUMVISO3SOdO8d
ON-El S3,k❑ LS3SVIS NI O31onz:usN0O 381o3fOild 3HI THM'81
SNOLLOmUSNl QNV SNOIIINId3O If1d3sn 33S) ON❑ SX—H WO VV LOZ'£LL 0VM
A11OI82dn.L 80d SC18VONV1S AinvnO 2i31YM NOISNIHSVM dO 3LVIS 3Hl HlIM 3ONVf1dV4O0 N138 lo3f•O2id anoA-IIM'mom Noucm11SNOO 2:BIVM Ni 24Od 'PL
c� -�-�� -y�'1 � ���v�X► O '�,oQ� a ' � oQNI 'n�a�v1 ¢� 43��yv9hs S3rSS1 �N�21'dY�
J3L-v 1 J311(2 log t w1 S S3"1
- �s �lw -S�w�r ow3v✓ ��3! yoN '����wwo� �o sae s n bZ)
'Q� '�/�'I wow J�OvV'1-�lS�1c�0 Nf-H� �Q/h�r/►�� S����S 8b�1 '`�-� 1� •W"S � S���h W �
�, `Ss��,► �p �Now-�-�S �1��� �o ���tsl�l ��1� 'I�bl (say ) Sna�?J�ry •� 3 •� '�.�P�� '1
'G3O33N SI3OVdS IVNOLLIQOV d1133HS 31Y'dYd3S YHOYIIV'G3Sn 3AYH(-OA SIN3lNnOOO 3oNVOino Hz)n-m mLLN3Q1 '3df1 oLLYl1OV
GNV HSH d0 NOLLO31O8d 243dO2dd 3QIAO2dd ONY'SIOVdWI IVIN3W1L113O 31VOLLM GNV'3ZIWINIW•GIOAV 01 SNOLIOV Q3SOdO2dd UUN3Q1 'SOLL3H1SUV PuB'NOIIV32io3N
'Alddns 2:Biw'A1Fmo 2d31VM'3=r oLLY1OV ONV HSU 3011I3N1 AYW S3sn 3S3H1 'AGOS 2d31VM 3H-L d0 S3Sn OLLSIN3IOVNYHO Ol SIOV JINI WiN31Od 3Hl 38WoS3Q '-'L
S3U1 NYI_L(�10d(10 -TWI/�LI.-4f�?!�-3?� �O� SS3�,7}� ?J3 SUM �31 S'd3
'NSIS3O 3Hl
G3oN3iildNi 3Abi-i 1'v}i.L SG33N OLjio3dS ANY hii'dldX3 3Sb3fd '31(S 3H11Y 11 W21OA:1 d Ol G33N 2fO 1NYM noA AHM QNV NUOM 03SOdOW 3H1 dO 3SOd%nd 3H-L 3ewOS30 1L
'S3ION39V H3Fi1 O.(S Q3211Rb3et 38 AVW SJNIMV2lO 273:7MV7 'S133HS f�N!Ll X Z/1-ff NO SJNlMV21Q 3tl/nby�!Qt/tl/1915YO0 ONY S2133N!'3N3
dO s iaoo 3H1 'SSNIMY2ja 8Od 31RLusenS ION OG 3S3H11119'311S iDWO2ld 3rLL d0 SHdV'dOOlOHd 11W9f1S Ol G3ev2inOON3 324V SINVOIIddV 3-LON "Q3H0Y11V 3S! nAV
S9NlMVLIQ 379lOROO2/d321 AlIIVRi7 000�2lO 7YN192fO dO 13S 3N0 'SSNIMVNO 3Hl SNI131dWOO 21Od 3ONYQinE)ONV SSNIMV2dO 3IdWVS 33S :SSNIAAV2IG d0 N(DIIV&Vd32dd
.5 1�-KL-3C7 ---7-f1'I'la u IQ cvv
?yn1 n-,>-U.S -Aa►odd yS 4L O,ran�-EiQ 3E' 71�/ 1 S�? 15 I S t�� N-J 123t' J
•Q3 j Vj�9 Q/o s -- �y �-ad o��a 1�a��-�Js o� 3 N��� s,�—�a� ''a Nil �c-�- -a k�v I
Q3Q�-_)•3 N1 Q�SO'1�N� �'�'1 J0 f S 1S NPJ --SagH1 ' S- a -A ,0� x ,
oral ' �3�d?J9 ����� 'A-w-vi VW nNj W k1"1-y 12, ! -C)N►�ld��
LA—V"�) !N-a)d► -3 S n yN l( I Q3Q33N SI 3oYdS IYNOIiK3GY di i33HS 3iV2iVd3S V
HOY11V 3L!3H N1:IOM Q3SOdO2dd 3H132wvvgiN s isf1W-ILLS no),'1o3'odd Z4noA 3921oS3G Ol S-VRd31YW G3HOVliY O3QIAO�t!d 3AVH nOA dl 'Ni A'v 12d31VM HSIH A2IVNIQ2dO
3H1 dO 133d OOZ QNOA39 GNV NIHi1MNl IOM-lV 381'630S3G'11WN3d 3NLT3L!OHS V aOd SNIAIddY A 'oasn 39 011N3Wdim3 d0 S3d U SNIGI1IONI'3NI-lJO N&M,I31VM HSIH
MVNIM303Hi d0O21VA I31YM>WOMl-V?!Od O3O1AO2dd 39 O-f1OHS SNOLLVOId1O3dS ONY SNV-1d?13-dWOo =SlIWa3d ouvnoV SO33N lYHi X80MG3SOdO2dd 3H139R4OS3Q 'BL
O-B S3A❑ L1NVdIOLUIV(d Y+IVNSOdd YGsn V no;,aiv Ot S3A❑ iANY-IVNfl1-(toINSV Al?i3dO21d 3H1 SI
S3�rJ�Q/S��J �1 ►Wk�� ���>��s
'NO113-1dWO0 dO 2dY=-AGNV H1NOW 31YOIONI'Ali+3dO id SIHINO 0313-dW00 AQV3?!-V KLWIOV MISOdOL+d 3Hl d0 NOLUJOd ANV LIOd ON-2 S3A❑ L-W:GdOtld
SIHL NO UTAIloY O-SOdO2dd 3H.L d0 NO1121Od ANV Q=13-dWOo noA 3AVH 'kU!2.1O24d 3H1 NO 0NLLS1X3 S3Nn-LcmLLS GNV',1iN3dO2dd 3H1 dO 3St11NM:18 10 31-LI 3SPJ0S3G
11.WILL MATERIAL BE PLACED IN WETLANDS? Q YES Q JO
IF YES:
A. IMPACTED AREA IN ACRES:
B. HAS A DELINEATION BEEN COMPLETED?IF YES,PLEASE SUBMIT WITH APPLICATION. Q YES ❑NO
C. HAS A WETLAND REPORT BEEN PREPARED? IF YES,PLEASE SUBMIT WITH APPLICATION. ❑YES ❑NO
D. TYPE AND COMPOSITION OF FILL MATERIAL(E.G„SAND,ETC.):
E. MATERIAL SOURCE:
F. LISTALL SOIL SERIES(TYPE OF SOIL)LOCATED AT THE PROJECT SITE,&INDICATE IF THEY ARE ON THE COUNTY'S LIST OF HYDRIC SOILS.SOILS INFORMATION CAN BE OBTAINED
FROM THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE(MRCS):
G. WILL PROPOSED ACTIVITY CAUSE FLOODING OR DRAINING OF WETLANDS? ❑YES ❑NO
IF YES,IMPACTED AREA IS_ACRES OFDRAINED WETLANDS.
NOTE: If your project will impact greater than%of an acre of wetland,submit a mitigation plan to the Corps and Ecology for approval along with the DARPA form
NOTE a 401 water qualify ceribscation wfl(be required from Ecology in addbon to an approved mmgafion plan if your project impacts netfands that are: a)greater than K acre in size,or
b)tidal vmtlands or wetlands adjacent to tidal vmter. Please submit the DARPA form and mitigation plan to Ecology for an indiv dual401 certification if a)or b)appies.
12. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS ONLY:
THIS PROJECT IS(OR WILL SE7 DESIGNED TO MEET ECOLOGY S MOST CURRENT STORMWATER MANUAL,OR AN ECOLOGY APPROVED LOCAL STORMWATER MANUAL 0 YES ❑NO
IF YES—WHICH MANUAL MLL YOUR PROJECT BE DESIGNED TO MEET
f NO—FOR CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 401 AND 404 PERMITS ONLY—PLEASE SUBMfTTO ECOLOGY FOR APPROVAL, ALONG MTH THIS JARPA APPLICATION,DOCUMENTATION THAT
DEMONSTRATES THE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM YOUR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY WILL COMPLY WITH THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS,WA 173.201(A)
13.WILL EXCAVATION OR DREDGING BE REQUIRED IN WATER OR WETLANDS? ❑YES 0<05
IF YES:
A, VOLUME: (CUBIC YARDS)/AREA (ACRES)
B. COMPOSITION OF MkTERIAL TO BE REMOVED:
C. DISPOSAL SITE FOR EXCAVATED MATERIAL:
D. METHOD OF DREDGING:
14,HAS THE STATE ENVIRONME L POLI�cY ACT(SEP )BEEN COMPLETED? ❑YES O
SEPA LEAD AGENCY: /�PC �� ( fj l AIJ T SEPA DECISION: DNS,MDNS,EIS,ADOPTION,EXEMPTION DECISION DATE(END OF COMMENT PERIOD):
SUBMIT A COPY OF YOUR SEPA DECISION LETTER TO WDFW AS REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETE APPLICATION
15.LIST OTHER APPLICATIONS,APPROVALS,OR CERTIFICATIONS FROM OTHER FEDERAL,STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES FOR ANY STRUCTURES,CONSTRUCTION,DISCHARGES,OR OTHER
ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION(I.E.,PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL,HEALTH DISTRICT APPROVAL,BUILDING PERMIT,SEPA REVIEW,FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION LICENSE(FERC),FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION,ETC.)ALSO INDICATE WHETHER WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND INDICATE ALL EXISTING WORK ON DRAWINGS.
NOTE:FOR USE WITH CORPS NATIONWIDE PERMITS,IDENTIFY WHETHER YOUR PROJECT HAS OR WILL NEED AN NPDES PERMIT FOR DISCHARGING WASTEWATER AND/OR STORMWATEF
TYPE OF APPROVAL I,/ ISSUING AGENCY IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION DATE APPROVED COMPLETED
C Co k N L W D o 2— NO.
A-fATt DEV 106AM•1l MA5DN OLAPXY
NVjj20N E,,11AL Rr_RnALr �k
u u)( E?M iT f t
1-1 PA W D Fin/
U5AC1_�_ SEcT /D 'kC0E Nmr-5 L. 5;7n/
16.HAS ANY AGENCY DE IED APPROVAL FOR THE ACTIVITY YOU'RE APPLYING FOR OR FOR ANY ACTIVITY DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ACTIVITY DESCRIBED
HEREIN?❑YES ErNO IF YES,EXPLAIN:
TQ RP A RrricPri 7f(17 (nrrtartt fhP Ctatr of W"achmotnn (TfcP of Prrrnit G ecictannfl fnr latPet vrreinn ;�nfan7.7n;7 nr RM/077_fHld^,
SECTION B-Use forShorerne and Corps of Engineers permits onl
7a. TOTAL COST OF PROJECT.THIS MEANS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROJECT,INCLUDING MATERIALS,LABOR MACHINE RENTALS,ETC. 13 0,oco .Q o
7b. IF A PROJECTOR ANY PORTION OF A PROJECT RECEIVES FUNDING FROM A FEDERAL AGENCY,THAT AGENCY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ESA CONSULTATION_PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU
WILL RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDS AND WHAT FEDERAL AGENCY IS PROVIDING THOSE FUNDS. SEE INSTRUCTIONS FOR INFORMATION ON ESA"
'RAL FUNDINIG M YES 240 IF YES,PLEASE LIST THE FEDERAL AGENCY
8.LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH JURISDICTION: A%5or4 CouN
TY
8.FOR CORPS,COAST GUARD,AND DNR PERMITS,PROVIDE NAMES,ADDRESSES,AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS,LESSEES,ETC...
PLEASE NOTE:SHORaJAFE MANAGEALNT COMPLIANCE MAYREQUIRE ADDMONAL NOTICE—CONSULT YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
NAME ' ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER
_KELLVEW MCK Y I cY(,, cr- 5T. A'5egmetL w Sao
zM t�. o (0 cc 79 s
SECTION C-This section MUST be completed for any permit covered by this application
0.APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR A PERMIT OR PERMITS TO AUTHORIZE THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED HEREIN. I CERTIFYTHAT I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION,AND THATTO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF,SUCH INFORMATION IS TRUE,COMPLETE,AND
CCURATE. 1 FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I POSSESS THE AUTHORITY TO UNDERTAKE THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES. I HEREBY GRANT TO THE AGENCIES TO WHICH
HIS APPLICATION IS MADE,THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LOCATION TO INSPECT THE PROPOSED,IN-PROGRESS OR COMPLETED WORK I
AGREE TO START WORK ONLY AFTER ALL NECESSARY PERMITS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
SIGNA OF APPUCA ATE
GNATURd OFALM,,4O DAGENTDATE1
S• 1
S
l� DATE! I
I HEREBY DESj NATE
TO T AS M AG IN MATTERS RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION R PERMIT(S). 1 UNDERSTAND THAT IF A FEDERAL PERMIT IS ISSUED,
I T SIGN P R //
S NATURE OF APPLICANT ' DATE
SIGNATURE OF LANDOWNER(EXCE PUBLIC ENTITY LANDOWNERS,E.G.DNR)
THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE AGENT,IF AN AUTHORIZED AGENT IS DESIGNATED.
18 U.S.0§1001 provides that Whoever,in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies,conceals,or covers up by any trick,scheme,or device a
material factor makes any false,fictitious,or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or docurrent knowing same to contain any false•fictitious,or fraudulent statement or
entry•shall be fined not more than$10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.
J
C na.
%Y3mQ•
- s :o i e-= 'c1= -�„ "ts� :Jake��.,:�,�: :rn d>:=::•:,�:;�>_.=:
tar•>~. :: kre �; :xi�$�1 .>�.�.. �st� �:� _.t�:eliftr.. �� P�---
r rf.
la`'
- �e=.f• -:si?` I � fit^
_ �.:�,. �• -,:�:,-'�-:
...x:-.. :.:..r{. ::•..a.�:\�::...: w -. .f; ?::yr - +•din x",-- .,i-_�
�t T.
'i:n:•.X 3 •T
'.
Cc�::• +Ja
CEP._ '�!:;
x 7 t •;^,:.:r.,> ate:. :a:
+.-r5p:`i?'i:••��,:):..+-..�;.5•rv:r,••:, r.,C'•::fti•:'fit`;:' �` - 55.`'yi'� E:.fL'YL'tFj.+:•N�^'4f •:•S:� :.�.>•
.7j _Sy::.y+:ys:.:s.Rt:.:t•,.tt•_:��•: iy..,_ >• „s.�-:_L.; :.o-r.F•:w' i;:
'.-"r'i7_,'c�.� :a•� -pa ';:3r. s+Y •:<iv ,•K. - a?�.
- :.�.. ":k<r.'._k i. t?.'��i-+ `i�r -+.i•.. :?rt:_ .:r.\:r-,?.,r•=,::rya: •`'•" _
' e• he se buifdln s -structures Wllk.excee a height,of th.:: filve feet abo . "` .,.•,.:,.
:-;:8 ' •Vie. ..n�f'�... . ..,�r... ... ........�_ d: ..9.
-NW.
- e°� v Mn
Ew 9d afraEia : iK. t.
fe'#be, WTI .
z.F -::tit'.•. :,C{ :��;;, "';�
1. •4' 1
•:f.:.: -:'''.i:`<:<%�� ..Sim::.y, .•�'.. :of ... ^... '
..._. ,_:•.,._. tii-r. , .:,:.:..�.....,ate ... .:L•F•'. .,t,.;..:,.,..._,...;j.: ::V:u 1 r-,,,t:_ _
,y :i•
:». \.. "h•- rti'Yr': rib,_:
.1: '•T .Y.,. _ •;::ice:
^K'r`
n5
�. _tie:. �.•
�'iicafiioi��>�i;• "� t�a�t. �`�� �' ids. r� a,,..
...:...... .:. ....c. ,.a. t .v. ._.'k ...._ .,• sr_.. .t •....:,.,.c:.•t•- ::;!.> :'i.: x�l� 2Ht. ..�op�
, - .�? � .t��lD.fa3 r e }•• @. •••.a3 •fCfe,: '•;�ja• "�
''=the: .;. .."sad-,fie'= � . .� .. .. . ...t.� :� �: .� .n�. >_ I.: '��.alae�,ts��e►i�:g:sprr�i't:.
These Agencies are Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employers.
For special accommodation needs,please contact the appropriate agencv in the instructions.
TARP4 4
,. ♦.a et•� �w k� ,'JFx •�, `.'mow ,1 _ f'
y r ,
� LA'S. ♦.. .� x ,
.a�'.'
Yii� R
��t__�� I .w"a)�y�r�$iv�j :u �� �-� � '::w"" "'"` ..�.ai $,},j>'�.+� ,r , � - r. ,,•. •'•'_
. �" � � ��,�, • „,tea...„" �. + r _ „ a i �. .�r ♦ t+..
'ems`w..*4,y _ ,,,!'� -'^ �. 's n� ,�R ♦�, s
'�C •a a,aR ., '*�wny.�t Imo(" II� w, �' 'at w /
r�
;.
.�
a
E
�"
i�'
�w
� �
"`' m �' ��
�� , ,;�.
Y � � k F
��,:'
� ` � :
.� �'y
��,� ,,
s�
���
. � ,�
,.
x� F � �
r2
a � i
� � �� �_�
�. !.'
��i
' �� '� g
'— a'fr�, x....
�5 yyF
� �� .
�;,
�, � � _:'
r���.
4
�J
;'m '�t' ,54:
r-
�� p,
_..n� �.
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Coastal
Department of 48 Devonshire Road
FISH and RCW 77.55,100-Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Montesano,WA 98563
WILDLIFE
(360)249-4628
Issue Date: August 19,2005 Control Number: 102646-1 LL��
Project Expiration Date: March 14, 2007 FPA/Public Notice#: N/A
PERMITTEE AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
Marine Surveys &Assessments
Linda Paladin ATTENTION:Amy Leitman "--- _.. z
10230 East State Route 106 521 Snagstead Way AUG 2 rta
Union, WA 98592 Port Townsend, WA 98368
360-898-2924( ) 360-385-4073 AACCD PLAN
Fax: 360-385-1724
Project Name. Paladin
Project Description: Construct joint use 6x60 foot pier, 8x20 foot ramp and two 8x20 foot floats,
14 ACZA piles with total length 115 feet.
PROVISIONS
1. Work below the ordinary high water line shall not occur from February 15 through July 14 of any
year for the protection of migrating juvenile salmonids.
2. Work below the ordinary high water line shall not occur from September 15 through December 31
and from January 1 through March 1 of any year for the protection of surf smelt spawning beds.
3. Work shall be accomplished per plans application approved by the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife and dated June 1, 2005, except as modified by this Hydraulic Project Approval. A
copy of these plans shall be available on site during construction.
4. All manmade debris on the beach shall be removed and disposed of upland such that it does not
enter waters of the state.
5. The pier, ramp, and float centerline shall be re-established during the construction phase using
the same methodology employed to establish the centerline during the vegetation survey to ensure
protection of the eelgrass/herring spawning habitat.
6. The pier, ramp, and float structure shall not exceed 115 feet in total length.
7. The solid decked portions of the structure shall not exceed the following widths: the 60-foot long
pier, 6 feet; the 20-foot long ramp, 8 feet; and the two 20-foot long rectangular shaped floats, 8 feet.
8. The two 20 foot by 8 foot rectangular shaped floats shall contain 4 foot wide center area of
grating that passes a minimum of 60 percent sunlight, approved by WDFW. Floatation shall be
located under the solid decked area only. The grated area shall not be used for storage purposes.
9. No portion of the dock or float system shall ground. A minimum space of 12 inches shall be
maintained at all times between the bottom of the dock or float and the beach grade.
Page 1 of 5
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Coastal
Department of 48 Devonshire Road
FISH and RCW 77.55.100-Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Montesano,WA 98563
WILDLIFE (360)249-4628
Issue Date: August 19, 2005 Control Number: 102646-1
Project Expiration Date: March 14, 2007 FPA/Public Notice#: N/A
10. Floats, rafts, and associated anchoring systems shall have been designed and shall have been
deployed so that the bed is not damaged.
11. Floatation for the structure shall be fully enclosed and contained to prevent the breakup or loss
of the floatation material into the water.
12. As specified in the application, the 14 pilings shall be ACZA treated pilings.
13. All piling, lumber, and other materials treated with preservatives shall be sufficiently cured to
minimize leaching into the water or bed.
14. All treated wood piling and lumber to be used for the project shall meet or exceed the standards
established in, 'Best Management Practices For the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments'
developed by the Western Wood Preservers Institute, revised July 1996.
15. The pier, ramp, float, and associated moorings shall have been designed and shall have been
located to avoid shading of eelgrass (Zostera spp).
16. Eelgrass and kelp shall not be adversely impacted due to any project activities (e.g., barge shall
not ground, equipment shall not operate, and other project activities shall not occur in eelgrass and
kelp).
17. Removal or destruction of overhanging bankline vegetation shall be limited to that necessary for
the construction of the project.
18. Intertidal wetland vascular plants shall not be adversely impacted due to project activities (e.g.,
barge shall not ground, equipment shall not operate, and other activities shall not occur in intertidal
wetland vascular plants). If such vegetation is adversely impacted, it shall be replaced using
proven methodology.
19. All natural habitat features on the beach larger than 12 inches in diameter, including trees,
stumps, logs, and large rocks, shall be retained on the beach following construction. These habitat
features may be moved during construction if necessary.
20. Project activities shall be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed.
21. If at any time, as a result of project activities, fish are observed in distress, a fish kill occurs, or
water quality problems develop (including equipment leaks or spills), immediate notification shall be
made to the Washington Department of Ecology at 1-800-258-5990, and to the Area Habitat
Biologist listed below.
Page 2 of 5
• Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL coastal
Department of 48 Devonshire Road
FISH and RCW 77.55.100-Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Montesano,WA 98563
WILDLIFE
(360)249-4628
Issue Date:August 19, 2005 Control Number: 102646-1
Project Expiration Date: March 14,2007 FPA/Public Notice#: N/A
22. All debris or deleterious material resulting from construction shall be removed from the beach
area and bed and prevented from entering waters of the state.
.23. No petroleum products or other deleterious materials shall enter surface waters.
24. Wood treated with reservatives trash
,h, waste, or other deleterious materials shall not be
burned below the ordinary high water line. Limited burning of untreated wood or similar material
may be allowed at or above the mean higher high water line.
25. Project activities shall not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life.
PROJECT LOCATIONS
Location #1 Paladin
WORK START: August 22, 2005 WORK END: March 14, 2007
WRIA: Waterbody: Tributary to:
14.9120 �Wria 14 Marine Hood Canal
114 SEC: Section: Township: Range: Latitude: Longitude: County:
NW 1/4 36 22 N 03 W N 47.3613 W 123.0089 Mason
Location#1 Driving Directions
APPLY TO ALL HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVALS
i
This Hydraulic Project Approval pertains only to the provisions of the Washington State Fisheries and Wildlife Code,
specifically RCW 77.55(formerly RCW 75.20). Additional authorization from other public agencies may be necessary
for this project. The person(s)to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued is responsible for applying for and
obtaining any additional authorization from other public agencies(local,state and/or federal)that may be necessary for
this project.
This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions followed by the
person(s)to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s)performing the work.
This Hydraulic Project Approval does not authorize trespass. It is the responsibility of the permit holder to secure any
landowner permissions or use authorizations as needed for the project.
The person(s)to whom this Hydraulic Projegt Approval is issued and operator(s)performing the work may be held liable
for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat that results from failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic
Project Approval.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty of up to one
hundred dollars per day or a gross misdemeanor charge, possibly punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued pursuant to RCW 77.55.100 or 77.55.200 are subject to additional restrictions,
conditions or revocation if the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines that new biological or physical information
indicates the need for such action. The person(s)to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued has the right
pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to appeal such decisions. All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued pursuant to RCW
Page 3 of 5
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Coastal
Department of 48 Devonshire Road
FISH and RCW 77.55.100-Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Montesano,WA 98563
WILDLIFE (360)249-4628
Issue Date:August 19, 2005 Control Number: 102646-1
Project Expiration Date: March 14, 2007 FPA/Public Notice#: N/A
77.55.110 may be modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with the
person(s)to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued: PROVIDED HOWEVER, that such modifications shall be
subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW 77.55.170.
CHAPTER 77.55 RCW RE-CODIFIED:
Chapter 77.55 RCW was re-organized and re-codified by the 2005 Legislature in Second Substitute House Bill 1346,
signed into law by Governor Gregoire as Chapter 146, Laws of 2005. Chapter 146, Laws of 2005 became effective July
24, 2005. The Code Reviser's Office is in the process of completing the re-codification and conversion of the bill into
RCW. The RCW referenced at the top of this HPA has been superseded by Chapter 146, Laws of 2005. Until the re-
codification process has been completed, the following reflects the section(s)of Chapter 146, Laws of 2005 under
which sections of former Chapter 77.55 RCW can now be found:
FORMER CHAPTER 146
TITLE 77.55 RCW LAWS of 2005
RCW 77.55.010 Sec. 406
RCW 77.55.100 Sec. 101, 201, 301, 507, 508, 601, 605
RCW 77.55.110 Sec. 101,201
RCW 77.55.150 Sec. 101, 303,401
RCW 77.55.200 Sec. 501
RCW 77.55.210 Sec. 504
RCW 77.55.220 Sec. 101, 502
RCW 77.55.270 Sec. 101, 402
RCW 77.55.280 Sec.403
RCW 77,55.290 Sec. 505
APPEALS INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL THE ISSUANCE OR DENIAL OF, OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A HYDRAULIC
PROJECT APPROVAL, THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-340) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.100,
77.55.110, 77.55.140, 77.55.190, 77.55.200, and 77.55.290: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the
following Department actions may request an informal review of:
(A)The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic
Project Approval; or
(B)An order imposing civil penalties. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW shall be in WRITING to the Department of
Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia,Washington 98501-1091 and shall be
RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval or receipt of an
order imposing civil penalties. If agreed to by the aggrieved party, and the aggrieved party is the Hydraulic Project
Approval applicant, resolution of the concerns will be facilitated through discussions with the Area Habitat Biologist and
his/her supervisor. If resolution is not reached, or the aggrieved party is not the Hydraulic Project Approval applicant,
the Habitat Environmental Services Division Manager or his/her designee shall conduct a review and recommend a
decision to the Director or his/her designee. If you are not satisfied with the results of this informal appeal, a formal
appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS (WAC 220-110-350) OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.100
OR 77.55.140: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request a
formal review of:
(A)The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic
Project Approval;
(B)An order imposing civil penalties; or
(C)Any other'agency action'for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the Administrative Procedure Act,
Page 4 of 5
Washington Coastal
Department of HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL
48 Devonshire Road
FISH and RCW 77.55.100-Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW Montesano,WA 98563
WILDLIFE
(360)249-4628
Issue Date: August 19, 2005 Control Number: 102646-1
Project Expiration Date: March 14, 2007 FPA/Public Notice#: N/A
Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals
Coordinator, shall be plainly labeled as 'REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL'and shall be RECEIVED DURING OFFICE
HOURS by the Department at 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091, within 30-days of the
Department action that is being challenged. The time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during
consideration of a timely informal appeal. If there has been an informal appeal, the deadline for requesting a formal
appeal shall be within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.110, 77.55.200, 77.55.230,
or 77.55.290: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project
Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project Approval may request a formal appeal. The
request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board per WAC 259-04 at Environmental
Hearings Office, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two-Rowe Six, Lacey, Washington 98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 43.21 L RCW: A person who
is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval, or the conditions or
provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project Approval may request a formal appeal. The FORMAL APPEAL shall be in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 43.21 L RCW and Chapter 199-08 WAC. The request for FORMAL APPEAL
shall be in WRITING to the Environmental and Land Use Hearings Board at Environmental Hearings Office,
Environmental and Land Use Hearings Board, 4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two-Rowe Six, P.O. Box 40903,
Lacey, Washington 98504; telephone 360/459-6327.
E. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE OF ALL APPEAL
RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL
AND UNAPPEALABLE.
ENFORCEMENT: Sergeant Jackson (29) P2
Margie Schirato 360-427-2179r for Director
Habitat Biologist WDFW
CC: Kell McAboy, Mason County DCD, P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
Page 5 of 5
a
Mason County Department of Community Development
PO Box 279
Shelton, WA. 98584
September 6th 2005
DECEIVED
Attn: Kell McAboy 4 2005
F -?L ,ANNIN
Speaking in opposition of the Linda Paladin development of a pier, ramp,
and float located at 10230 E. State Route 106 Union.
I stronely oppose the development of a pier, ramp, and float on this location
for the following reasons:
As a 41 year (second generation) land owner in Mason County, I have
watched the proliferation of piers, ramps and floats that have continued to
clutter the natural pristine shoreline of Hood Canal and have a negative
impact on the environment and wildlife associated with this beautiful
waterway. Since 1964 my family has owned property located at 10291
Highway 106. As a young adult (1975), 1 watched as a neighbor adjacent
to the east of our property was allowed to build a huge pier, ramp, and
float and impact our property. We were no longer able to water ski into
or out of our property. The pristine views looking north were forever
destroyed by creosote laden timbers and a floating eyesore. Additionally,
the two 100 year old Douglas firs adjacent to the ramp became a "hazard
to the dock" and were removed because they may fall down on the newly
constructed dock. Hence, the eagles were forced to another location.
This dock has always been a topic of discussion, mostly negative, due to
increased boat traffic,jet skis love to circle round and round, wake
activity, parties, access by boats for criminal activity, and a general
disruption of privacy while attempting to enjoy our beloved waterfront
property. I might add that my favorite cutthroat fishing area was
disturbed by the construction this dock also.
The Hood Canal is sick. Everything that is being printed and talked
about in Mason County is about the Canal and low oxygenation levels.
Listen to nature; listen to the informed, listen to the experts. The Canal is
sick and everyone needs to do their part to fix the problem. Public and
private sector are concerned about the health of the canal. If PUD is
sending out strainers to put in our sinks, to help the health of the canal,
what do you think is going to be thrown off this proposed dock? Docks
will not improve the health of the Canal.
I'm worried that the only uninterrupted pristine view of the canal that I
have left is going to include another dock! I feel that is proposed dock
will have a definite adverse impact on the neighbors adjacent to the
property whether they speak out against this proposal or recognize it, at
this point in time. What about light and noise issues?
"Past history can predict the future". The Paladin residence has been the
source of many discussions, mostly negative. Complaints include but are
not limited to: loud parties, foul language (all times of the day and night)
fireworks noise, disregard for adjacent property owners ingress and
egress, contractors trespassing, and their personally invited guests
parking on my property. I can only assume that the past performance
from this residence will predict the future for my good neighbors located
waterside.
I contend that enough docks are constructed along this stretch of the
south shore. I counted at least 27 in a 1 mile distance. The construction
of another dock will adversely and negatively impact the rights of the
adjacent property owners immensely. These docks are there FOREVER,
they are not temporary structures. I request that you do the "right thing"
for the Canal and future generations; we must all work together to leave a
better environment for the kids of the future. I respectfully request denial
of this permit and encourage Mason County Community Development to
agree.
Dennis Corbett
9607 Regency Loop SE
Olympia WA 98513
TOM AND WINDY BAUER
10191 E.STATE RT. 106
Union,WA 98592
360-898-3027 RECEIVED
I
September 9, 2005 ISEP 14 2235
Mason County Department of Community Development MCCC - PLAi- NINC
Planning Division
P.O. Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
This letter is in opposition to the proposed pier, ramp, and float located at 10230 E State Route
106 Union by Linda Paladin and Jeff Brady with file number SHR2005-00018.
My wife has spent summers on Hood Canal for over 50 years and her family has owned
property on the Canal since the 1930's. We have owned property on Hood Canal for almost 20
years and our present house since 1995. We bought this piece of property primarily because it was
one of the few locations along the south shore that did not have bulkhead or dock development
immediately adjacent to it. The view from our kitchen window and porch was absolutely stunning.
Shortly after we moved, our neighbors to the south built a pier,ramp, and float about 100ft from
us. While we love the Drugges and we know they enjoy their dock, in retrospect, we wish we had
opposed its construction 9 years ago. We just did not realize the negative impact the dock would
have on our view and enjoyment of the beach There are now 9 large pilings sticking out of the
Canal where there used to be pristine water, and the elevated pier completely blocks our view of
the sweeping shoreline. Additionally several other docks have been built to the south of us since
then.
We gain our access to the water through the use of a dinghy and tender line with our boat
moored on a buoy, which I remove every year. I also have a small float which I use to keep my
Hobie Cat sailboat on.
As an property owner only 50ft from the above pier, ramp and float we oppose it for the
following reasons:
Our view to the north will be even more severely impacted than what happened to the south
because of its location so close to our property and because it is a community dock whose size
will be larger.
We feel the value of our property will be negatively impacted by the above changes. Who wants
to squish into the beach between two big docks?
Our ability to launch and land my Hobie Cat sailboat from the beach will be negatively impacted
as will our ability to water ski from the beach
The pier, ramp, and float is not consistent with the present use of the beach by neighbors who use
tender lines, dinghies, and mooring buoys for water access.
TOM AND WENDY BAUER
10191 E.STATE RT. 106
Union,WA 98592
360-898-3027
Additionally our neighbor to the north, Kenneth McKay, also has a Hobie Cat which he
launches from his beach The proposed dock will be only 30 ft from his bulkhead. This will make
it extremely difficult for his family to gain access to their beach
We have included a picture of our house and the beach between the McKays' and the
Drugges' taken from the Drugges' deck this summer. We have roughly sketched in what the
proposed pier ramp and float will look like. It is not a scale drawing,but we feel the location of
the float is close to the Oft tidal range, because we have a float which is located at about a Oft tide,
but is not shown in the photo. Also shown in the photo are the distances of the undeveloped
beach between houses located along the water.
We are also concerned about the potential negative impact of docks on the water quality
of Hood Canal. I have not been able to go sole fishing with my daughter for the last two summers
because of the low oxygen levels in the canal. Maybe no one can prove docks have a negative
impact on water quality,but they can't improve it. Look at the rest of Puget Sound. Are the
Seattle/Tacoma waterfronts teeming with clams, oysters, and fish that are safe to eat?Every little
bit hurts. To our family the Canal is food. It is part of what makes the Canal so special. When we
eat our oysters and clams in the future how much arsenic and other heavy metals from the new
pilings will be showing up in our oysters?
We respectfully request denial of this permit and encourage Mason County Community
Development to agree.
Sincerely,
o
f►n' . .
=rit
,J
env.
•
ire
Approximate Location ; t
of Dock
17 '175 ft s
OWAP
120 ft . f'1fi • r ;.
7MCCD
CE � � EC
Mason County Department of Community Development qEP 2 f' 2005
P.O. Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584 - Ple.,�, ,7NING
Raymond Cox
1708 Bradner Place South
Seattle,WA 98144
September 26, 2005
ATTENTION: Ms. Kell McAboy
I wish to strongly SUPPORT the development of a pier,ramp and float on the location
of 10230 E. St. Rt. 106 Union, WA
I own a house on Hood Canal South Shore and have enjoyed this water way for years.
I would like very much to see the Paladin's and the Brady's have the right to enjoy their
beach property. While all their neighbor's have docks or houses that allow them easy
access to the water these people do not. Ray Combs, (who owned the Paladin property
until he gifted it to his family)has lived on the canal for thirty-five years. He has always
wanted a sail boat. He can no longer enter a water-craft from any other point than that of
a dock. It was his one wish when he found out that he had Alzheimer's to have a sail-
boat before "he lost all his marbles" as he put it. I would like to see that happen. I have
absolutely no opposition to docks on the Canal. They have been here for years. I think
the problem with the canal has nothing to do with docks. And there is no proof that it
does. Old septic systems, chlorinated run-off water from water systems, pesticides and
quite possibly those huge cruise ships and their ever growing population in our area are
the problem. Enjoying the water is part of living in the Northwest and certainly at the
Canal. This project will not impede anyone from enjoying the water. I have seen the
plans and it will by no means affect any of us. There is over a 145ft. between the Bauer's
and the purposed dock. If you can't sail into that much beach maybe you shouldn't sail at
all.
YES, Ray had me read those two letters of contention. I wish you could really see this
beach and what they want to build,because you would see the point's of the Bauer's and
Mr. Corbitt are completely invalid. Also these two guys didn't oppose the huge multi-
owner dock put in this summer just a block down the road. The Comb's, Paladin's, and
Brady's, are the best kind of folks there are! I hope you will STRONGLY consider
allowin them to put in their dock. One more important point is, it's a joint dock also
another big positive! I respectfully urge you to ep rmit the Paladin/Brady project.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Raym
REC ED
Dr. C. Thomas-Miksa, Ph.D I�j SEP 2 8 2095
P.O. Box 172
Union, WA 98592 MCCD - PLANNING
IMMEDIATE ATTENTION TO:
KELL McABOY
IN THE REGARDS OF:
PALADIN/BRADV PIER, RAMP, FLOAT PROJECT
LOCATED AT 10230 E. ST. RT. 106
UNION, WA
To all individuals involved and in charge of permitting this project;
It has come to my attention that my neighbors, the Paladins and the Brady's, wish to install a
pier, ramp and float, in joint effort, on their property located at the above address. 1 understand
that the proposed dock will extend out 115 ft. from their joint deck. As a waterfront resident,
who has enjoyed the beauty of this lovely fjord known as Hood Canal for years, 1 can
emphatically say that 1 wholeheartedly support the plans for this project. I believe that docks
create safe barriers from boat traffic, they provide home-owners a safe and defined entry into
the water and when property installed cause no known or documented ecological damage. The
seals also can enjoy a safe haven. 1 have thoroughly enjoyed the families of these beautiful
creatures which have rested on our docks for years. I have read the letter of Mr. and Mrs.
Bauer, while they have a legal right to state their opinions, I believe that their own bulk-headed
home is more of a proven ecological hazard to the Canal,than any dock could be.As for the
issue of view, 1 cannot find any dispute as there are two other docks in close proximity that
already extend out far past the proposed Paladin/Brady project.The proposed dock will start a
safe distance, but back by the road and out 115 ft which will put it's end many feet short of Mr.
and Mrs. Bauer's view line and while it is a joint owner dock it's proposed size is very
reasonable.The environmental study done,and up-to-date research shows,that most assuredly
the environment will not be harmed in any way.
1 have also read Mr. CorbeWs letter, he does not speak for me! As for his shocking slanderous
remarks against Ms. Paladin, her father and her family, I can only shake my head with remorse
for Mr. Corbett. He is sadly deluded and his allegations only prove the pitiful nature of this man.
1 have no tolerance for this type of irrelevant nonsense. The Paladins and the Brady's are some
of the finest examples of neighbors and human-beings 1 have ever had the pleasure of knowing.
Ms. Paladin's parent's who owned the property(now gifted to her and her children) for over
thirty-five years, were also the best examples of neighbors our small community has had.The
Paladin family has had more than their share of grief and pain over the last five years and for
someone like Mr. Corbett to publicly fabricate and tarnish their good name in our community is
reprehensible. I am dually outraged!
Hood Canal is my primary residence and even though 1 travel,due to work frequently, I ahvays
enjoy the Canal and my neighbors here the best. Please, feel free to contact me at the above
address should you require any other information.
Sincerely,
Dr. C.Thomas- Miksa Ph.D
�% E � .
Mason County Department of Community Development E
EP 2 8:2:0C t
P.O. Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584 LMCCD _ PL41lIr !g �
September 26, 2005
ATTENTION: Ms. Kell McAboy
This letter is in SUPPORT to the purposed pier, ramp and float located at 10230 E. St.
RT. 106 by Linda Paladin and Jeff Brady with file number SHR2005-0018
My wife and I have lived on the South Shore of Hood Canal for many years. We are
homeowners and business owners. I have worked on many construction projects
concerning both homes and beachfronts. After careful review and measurements I have
found the measurements presented in Mr. Bauer's letter incorrect by a very large margin.
The purposed dock is 145 feet from Mr. Bauer's bulk-headed house not 50 feet as he
states. There are three other docks besides Mr. Durgree's (to the left of the Bauer's)that
were constructed years before the Bauer's purchased their home within 250 feet of the
Bauer residence. The dock size of the Paladin/Brady dock,because the starting point of
the pier is so far back, and the entire project only goes out 115 feet, makes it a non-issue
for view because the float will reach to a normal shoreline,with no extension into the
view lines of the surrounding houses. We know it is a fact that property values are raised
by docks not lowered and that includes surrounding properties. There was no contention
from anyone on the South Shore for the extra large community dock put in this summer,
not even a block from Mr. Bauer's house.
This is a boating community,with water-craft and beach enjoyment part of what makes
Hood Canal appealing and enjoyable. I hope that you will strongly consider the facts that
this project will have no adverse affects either ascetically or environmentally as the study
done was extensive and complete. The dock will be co-owned and it is of reasonable size.
Please grant these wonderful South Shore neighbors,the Paladin's and the Brady's the
right to build their dock.
I respectfully request approval of this permit and encourage Mason County Community
Development to agree.
Sincerely,
Dave and Diane Krogh
171 E. One Nobles Rd.
Union, WA 98592
Mason County Department of Community Development
RECEIVED
P.O. Box 279 G,) r13E? 1 8 2005
Shelton, WA 98584
MCC - PLANNING
September 26, 2005
ATTENTION: Ms. Kell McAboy
We are in SUPPORT of the Paladin/Brady pier, ramp and float project. Located
at 10230 E. St. Route 106 with file # SHR2005-00018
As neighbors with waterfront beach property directly next to the Bauer's and
one house away from the Paladin/Brady property, we do not object to the
purposed pier, ramp and float project. This project will not adversely affect
our quality of boating or beaching, which we do often, nor will it hurt our
sense of view. The pier will start so far back and only extend out 115ft from
that point that we can easily get to our or the Paladin's beach. There is a good
145ft. of open beach and the float is quite close to the normal shoreline so the
view issue is null and void.
The environmental study done is impressive and complete. There is
absolutely no environmental evidence proving docks are harmful. Bulk-
headed homes and pesticide run-offs have shown harm though. Please
consider the facts, and know that other's do not speak for us. This is a
reasonable size dock, it is co-owned, and its extension into the canal is
limited. We urge you to allow these good neighbors the right to build their
dock.
We respectfully request APPROVAL of this permit and encourage the Mason
County Community Development to agree.
Sincerely,
a
/0190
& .9g59 Z
'36v- 79s-99 R-/
Mason County Department of Community Development
P.O. Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
RECEIVED
Jerry Olson 18 r
1708 Bradner Place S. SEP 2 8 2—)
Seattle,WA 98144
MCCD - PL`'OM
September 27, 2005
ATTENTION: Ms. Kell McAboy
I wish to strongly SUPPORT the development of a pier, ramp and float on the location
of 10230 E. St. Rt. 106 Union, WA
As the owner of a house down the road from the Brady's and the Paladin's I believe I
have a right to voice my opinion about this particular project. It's one of the few plans
that I have seen that will have the least impact on the neighborhood. They are going in
on this dock as joint owners, which I like very much, and the new design with all the
environmental protection built in is great! The huge environmental study they did proves
no adverse effects from installing this dock and I cannot for the life of me see how this
dock and where it is to be located can have any real negative affect on any of us. It
hardly extends out because it starts at their deck and is only 115ft. Everyone has a dock
out here and they just put in a dock not a block away from the proposed site.No one
complained about that one and it's huge compared to what they are purposing. Please
allow these great up-standing people and neighbors to have their dock.
I respectfully urge the Manson County Community Development to permit and allow
the Brady's and the Paladin's the right to build a pier, ramp and float.
Sincerely,
Jerry Olson
Mason County Department of Community Development RECEIVED
P.O. Box 279 OCT 0 3 2005
Shelton, WA 98 584 'q
September 28, 2005 MCCC� - PLANNING
ATTENTION: Ms. Kell McAboy
We are writing this letter in SUPPORT of the Paladin/Brady pier, ramp and
float project. Located at 10230 E. St. Route 106 with file # SHR2005-
00018
We live in close proximity to the Brady's and the Paladin's. We own
waterfront property on the South Shore of Hood Canal and we fully
support the purposed pier, ramp and float project. Being familiar with all
types of construction projects we can find no fault with the either the
environmental or ascetic aspects. The environmental study and its
findings prove beyond a doubt that the environment will not be harmed.
The location of the dock and the reasonable size really make it a non-
issue ascetically. Because the pier starts back almost from the road (but
a safe distance from), and the entire dock only extends out only 115ft.
the issue of view and neighbor accessibility to their respective properties
is a mute point. I have read the other letters of contention and I do not
agree with them at all. I object to the insinuation that either of these
individuals have the right to speak for others. Their pettiness is just
plain nonsense. Stick to the facts, they are, that this dock project is
simple and non-threatening in all ways. A dock of much larger size was
granted approval not less than a block away from the Paladin/Brady
project this summer. It was also a non-issue of view because it also
starts close to the road. The purposed dock is at least 145 feet away
from Mr. Bauer's bulk -headed home (a proven environmental problem)
and of course hundred's of feet away from Mr. Corbitt's. The only
neighbors who use the beach and water front from the Bauer's to the
Paladins are the Brady's.
We respectfully request approval of this permit and encourage the Mason
County Community Development to agree.
Sincerely,
V" V_A) l
William and Annette Simmons
11218 E. Hwy 106
Union, WA 98592
AdShIlk
Washington State Olympic Region Headquarters
CAiDepartment of Transportation 5720 Capitol Boulevard,Tumwater
Douglas B. MacDonald P.O.Box 47440
Secretary of Transportation Olympia,WA 98504-7440
360-357-2600 n2_0
Fax 360-357-2601
September 30, 2005 www.wsdot.wa.gov 88
C
Ms. Kell McAboy
c/o Mason County DCD, Planning Division r 1 3 25
PO Box 279 —
Shelton, WA 98584
Re: Mason County Parcel Number 322365100001
State Route(SR)106—Approximate Milepost 10.26
Dear Ms. McAboy:
This letter will serve as our official response to the application for a pier,ramp
and float for Linda Paladin and Jeff Brady located 10230 E SR106 in Union. This
location is approximately milepost 10.26 on SR106.
I physically visited the site on September 29, 2006. My investigation found a
current structure on the proposed area that is almost certainly located within SR106 right-
of-way. The right-of-way plans on file at the Washington State Department of
Transportation for this area of SR106 show an approximate sixty-foot wide right-of-way
for the highway. We believe that the existing structure and part of the proposed fixed pier
would be an encroachment on SR106.
We do not approve the building of the pier, ramp and float for this location
without a valid airspace lease from the property owners. A valid airspace lease would
require an application to lease from the proponents of the application and then a review
process for approval or denial to lease the subject area.
Please feel free to contact me at 360-357-2724 or Elba Richards, the Property
Management Supervisor at 360-704-3261.
Sincerely,
Lori A. Schandel
cc: Elba Richards, Property Management Supervisor
EC � IV
Ep
R18809 Highway 2,Leavenworth,
nrT Washington 98826 n '
tAL IE 503763-3-94 L
101 clicldgnwi.net
October 1,2005
Kell McAboy
Mason County Department of Community Development
PO Box 279. Shelton Washington 98584
Dear Kell
I am writing to strongly object to the Paladin/Brady proposal to build a dock on Pebble
beach adjacent to the Kenneth McKay family home.
The McKay property affected has been owned and enjoyed by my parents,my brother
and our families including four generations for nearly sixty years.My parents bought
the property in 1946 and constructed the summer home for the enjoyment of their
family and friends. They chose pebble beach as it was and is considered a"prime"
area due to the gently sloping beaches and consequently the accumulation of fine
gravel in front and on each side of the bulkhead.
The construction site would highly impact this beach not only for our family but also for
the Bauers,who enjoy this beautiful and pristine area.The view from the family home
would be obstructed and the beach and water area would make the launching of the
Hobie Cat impossible due to the prevailing winds..My brother and family have used
and set sail from this beach for twenty years.This area has also been used for
swimming,small boats and fishing.
We have witnessed for years the spawning of smelt on this beach area.The fine gravel,
which has been created by the bulkhead, provides an area similar to that at the State
park.
I would like to pose these questions: What if every property owner on Hood Canal
decided to build a walkway and dock on their property? Would they all be approved if
they met certain standards?
For those fortunate to have beachfront property,their rights should be foremost in
deciding what structure would interfere with the usage of the beach and waterway,
which that has been enjoyed long before the Brady's and Paladins owned their
property.
This area on Hood Canal has always fostered a quiet and peaceful atmosphere due to
the consideration of good neighbors who enjoy a retreat where everyone can relax and
view the beauty of Hood Canal.
To summarize my objections:
1. Obstruction of the view from the family home and bulkhead.
2. Difficulty to use the water and adjacent beach area to launch and set sail of a
Hobie Cat.
3. Interference with fishing.
I hope you will take into consideration more seriously the objections of the Bauer's,the
McKay's and our extended family that have live closest to the proposed structure.
Unfortunately,I will not be able to attend the hearing,as I will be recovering from
surgery during the month of October. However, if there are questions I will be available
by phone.
Sincerely,
Cathryn McKay Click
R C E I E D
4 2005
MCCD - PLANNING
October 2, 2005
Ms. Kell McAboy 2 2
Mason County Department of Community Development
Planning Division
P.O. Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
Dear Ms. McAboy:
I am writing this letter to register my opposition to the proposed Paladin/Brady
pier/ramp/float at 10230 E. SR 106,Union, WA.
The residence at 10251 E. SR 106 was constructed by Arthur McKay in the 1940's and
has been in the McKay family for 60 years. Four generations of the McKay family have
used and enjoyed this property, and surrounding waters, unobstructed. The construction
of this pier/ramp/float(PRF)will forever negatively impact the McKay property
aesthetically, potentially structurally, and functionally.
The proposed pier, located within fifty-eight feet of the southwest side of the McKay
house, will parallel for thirty-nine feet and then end twenty-one feet past the McKay
bulkhead. An attached ramp will continue out thirty-five more feet to a twenty foot long
by eight foot wide float. A second twenty foot float, similar to the first, will attach at a
right angle to the first float and point northeast. The northeast end of the PRF will be
approximately seventy-one feet from the western end of the existing McKay bulkhead.
If construction is approved the view to the southwest of the stunning sunsets, spectacular
4th of July fireworks, and even approaching rain squalls from the front porch,yard, living
room,and even bedrooms will be forever lost. The peaceful quiet evenings enjoyed on
the front porch interrupted only by sounds of water lapping at the beach or the squawk of
an occasional great blue heron or even the sound of a far off motor boat will be forever
lost to the never ending squeaks groans and other noises from a PRF not more than one
hundred feet away. If the PRF is to be lighted so as to be accessible at night then the
years of star gazing from the porch and investment of telescopes will also be lost. There
will also be financial impacts to these lights as denser curtains will need to be installed in
each bedroom as well as the living room and perhaps added to the bathroom and kitchen.
The PRF,as many of the others have become, will become a nesting haven for pigeons
and daytime rest area for seagulls. With this pier being only fifty-eight feet away from
the McKay house and only forty-two feet away from an existing yard,small carousel
clothesline, storage shed, saltwater rinse-off area,and boat storage area these pigeons and
seagulls and all their waste will have a serious and detrimental effect. The pigeons and
seagulls and their waste will ruin the cedar shingle roofs as well as the painted siding of
both structures. They will also render the yard, small carousel clothesline, rinse area, and
boat storage area on the west side of the McKay property potentially useless. The floats,
as all the others have become,will be a nighttime refuge for seals and otters. The never
ending nighttime horseplay, guttural noises, and snoring will only exacerbate an existing
nighttime noise pollution problem.
The proposed PRF also presents some structural concerns. What will be the impact of
driving piling within forty-two feet and along the side of an existing sixty year old
bulkhead and within fifty-eight feet of the side of a house and foundation? The creation
of cement block and large rock oyster pens approximately twenty-five years ago by
current and former neighbors has led to scouring out of gravel from around the existing
McKay bulkhead and stairs. Currently the elevation of beach gravel directly in front of
and along the bulkhead is approaching two feet lower than it was thirty years ago. What
impact will the piling running alongside the southwest side of the existing bulkhead have
on the beach gravel elevation?
For sixty years the McKay family has used the canal for numerous activities. Some of
these activities have included swimming,water skiing, motor boating, sailing and
recreational fishing and harvesting of shell fish. All these activities were accomplished
right from the shore with relatively few obstructions and with little or no concern about
being able to do so safely.
i
If the proposed PRF is approved for construction,the McKays will no longer be able to
swim safely in front of their own property with little regard to neighboring boats. Where
neighboring, as well as family,motor boats and/or personal watercraft were generally
operated outside of areas used by swimmers,the proposed location of the PRF will
potentially bring motor boats and other watercraft traffic dangerously close to and into
areas used by swimmers. Four generations of water skiers have learned to water ski by
starting close to shore where they could have direct and hands on instruction by family
members. The proposed PRF will make this nearly impossible because of safety
concerns regarding the young and inexperienced skier striking neighboring property.
Motor boating,and the use of personal watercraft,has also been a McKay family staple
for sixty years. The proposed PRF will make leaving and returning to the shore far more
dangerous. When there is a ten to fifteen mile per hour wind from the southwest,which
is the case more than the exception,boats will not be able to depart the beach headed into
the wind. Heading into the wind is the safest and offers the operator the most control. If
the wind is out of the east there will be the potential of becoming fouled in the pier before
ever getting started. Returning to shore will also be more difficult with an east wind
because the PRF will prevent a return heading into the wind. Sailing, enjoyed for more
than twenty-five years, will be made all but impossible. The sailboat used by the McKay
family is a sixteen foot catamaran. This is primarily a one person sail boat and is set-up
and launched from the shore. With the PRF preventing any sort of angled departure or
return to the shore, which affords the sailor the most control(i.e. heading into the wind)
the sailor will be required to depart and return perpendicular to the shore. With the
prevailing winds coming from the west and with no way to fully dump the wind from the
sails the potential for over running the beach or capsizing in a confined area will be great.
1 Fishing and obtaining seafood from the Canal has also been a sixty year tradition for the
McKay family. Some of the seafoods enjoyed are salmon,trout, smelt,crab, shrimp,
clams, and oysters. As have others,the McKays have witnessed first hand the decline of
some sea life over the years, and as do others the McKays support the ongoing scientific
research that is being done to find the true causes. It concerns the McKays though to see
a proposed PRF fall directly on the fine gravel beds where they have annually observed
smelt spawning. At a time when we hear how important it is to protect spawning beds for
other species we should be more careful to protect known smelt spawning beds too. It is
also a concern as to what impact the treated piling and lumber will have on adjacent
clams and oysters. If the treatment keeps barnacles off, will the treatment leach and be
absorbed by the adjacent oysters and clams? What long term health effects could this
have on humans who regularly consume these clams and oysters? What effect will the
increased bird population and their droppings have on the clams and oysters directly
adjacent to the pier?
As what could be considered a pioneer family on the canal the McKays have enjoyed a
long and great love for the canal. I personally have witnessed many neighbors come and
go. Some were great and close family friends while others were merely acquaintances.
In each case we have respected their rights and their property. I believe we have been,
and will continue to be, good neighbors. I also believe in personal property rights in as
far as they do not have a detrimental impact on adjoining property. I believe this
proposed PRF will have a most detrimental impact on the McKay family's property
aesthetically,potentially structurally and functionally. I ask that it not be approved.
Sincerel ,
John K. McKay
RECEIVED
QCT 12 2005
Mason County Department of Community Development MCCD - PLANNING
P.O. Box 279
Shelton, WA 98S84 Z 3
October 6, 200S
TO THE ATTENTION OF PLANNER: Kell McAboy
We are in STRONG SUPPORT of the development of a pier, ramp and
float on the location of 10230 E. St. Rt. 106 Union, WA
I grew up in Shelton. My family was one of the first to build on Web Hill
over sixty years ago and we have also shared waterfront property on the
South Shore of Hood Canal near Pebble Beach with our family members
continuously for over 30 years. We would like to state that we would love
to see our wonderful neighbors the Brady's and the Paladin's have the
opportunity to put in their purposed pier, ramp and float project.
Environmentally we can find no opposition with this project and the
purposed pier, ramp and float is well situated back from the view line of
the canal.
We have enjoyed the canal and this breath-taking landscape for many
years and hope to do so for many more to come. A dock at the location
of 10230 E. St. Rt. 106 will not hinder us from that enjoyment in any way.
Please allow the Brady's and the Paladin's the right to build their
purposed project.
We strongly urge the Mason County Department of Community
Development to vote for APPROVAL of this project
Sincerely,
Victor and Cathie Cummings
2340 N.W 1191h
Portland, Or 97229
RECEIVED
Mason County Department of Community Development 2 2 �5
P.O. Box 279 _
Shelton, WA 98584 MCC7 - PLANNING
October 8, 2005 21.�
ATTENTION: Ms. Kell McAboy
We wish to strongly SUPPORT the development of a pier, ramp and float on the
location of 10230 E. St. Rt. 106 Union, WA
We own several homes on the South Shore of Hood Canal. One of our homes is
located next to the Brady's and Paladin's. We also own the largest portion (100
ft.) of waterfront beach next to the Brady's Paladin's and Bauer's. We can not find
a single thing wrong with the purposed pier, ramp and float project pending for the
Brady's and Paladin's. The environmental study that was done on the purposed
site clearly shows that the effects of a dock there will not be environmentally
hazardous in any way. We can find no points of contention with the size or the
placement of the project, as their pier will begin at their deck (not from a bulk-
headed home), and extend out only 115ft. This can not in any way affect our view
line or our ability to use our beach. We find it quite disagreeable that other
neighbors have taken it upon themselves to insinuate that we (and the other
waterfront neighbors) are in silent opposition to this project. This is simply not
true. Both the Brady's and the Paladin's have been terrific neighbors, and we
would very much like to see this purposed project approved. Every home on the
left of us has a dock and it has never been a problem or issue. These docks
extend much farther out, as their pier's start at their bulkheads. The same is true
about the extension with the docks on the right. The community dock to the right
does not start at a bulkhead but goes out much farther by a good 20 ft. than the
Brad /Paladin project. As well, a large community dock was approved and bulit a
Y p 1 9
block away this summer and our neighbors had absolutely no problem with that
project and neither did we. We sincerely hope that all of you at the Mason County
Department of Community Development will most certainly approve this project.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
�SincerE�N,
Wayne and Jeanette Souza
lo�9r
�, Z /off
66f)�&-4 Gilt 7�5��
RECEIVE
[OCT :127122-105 1
Mason County Department of Community Development Wr I - PLAW12NG
P.O. Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584 0S)
October 8, 2005
ATTENTION: Ms. Kell McAboy
We are writing this letter in support of the pier, ramp, and float project on 10230
E. St, Rt. 106 Union, WA
We have enjoyed the South Shore of Hood Canal for years. We would like to
add our voice in full support of the purposed Paladin/Brady project. The
purposed size and location of the project is not contentious in any way. The
environmental study done show's that the project will not harm the environment
and the length of the dock (because of the starting position of the pier) will not
affect our view line. Please note that we felt the need to speak up about this
project because we found out that other neighbors have implied that we are
silently in opposition to the project. We would like to state for the record that
we are not! The Paladin's and the Brady's are wonderful quite neighbors and we
wish to support them fully in this project!
We urge the Mason County Department of Community Development to vote for
Approval of this pier, ramp and float project.
Sincerely,
Paul and Nancy Mitchell
o 9 /27, 6"X ea �� A/,
'A�l1J q 8 33S
Kell McAboy- Brady/Paladin SHR2005-00018 Page 1 J
From: "mereth" <mereth@skokomish.org>
To: "'Kell McAboy"' <KeIIM@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 10/14/2005 9:04:40 AM
Subject: Brady/Paladin SHR2005-00018
Kell,
Please add the following report produced by the Point No Point Treaty
Council into the Hearing Examiner record for the Brady/Paladin proposal
referenced above.
The report quantifies the extent of various shoreline modifications
including bulkheads, docks,jetties, launch ramps, rail launches and stairs.
It is organized by drift cell and is broken out by region or sub-region.
Field work for the project was accomplished in 1999-2000, so the extent of
shoreline modifications has only increased in the last 5 years.
The results of the study indicate that the South Shore sub-region was the
most heavily developed shoreline on Hood Canal with about 70% of the entire
shoreline already armored and had the highest number of docks (n=146) as
well as the highest density of docks per lineal feet of shoreline.
The Skokomish Tribe is planning on testifying at the hearing in front of the
Hearing Examiner. Thank you for your time.
Marty Ereth
Habitat Biologist
Skokomish DNR
North 541 Tribal Center Rd.
Skokomish Nation, WA 98584
(360)877-5213 x504
marty@skokomish.org
CC: "Jeff Heinis" <jheinis@skokomish.org>
Kell McAboy- Paladin/Brady Proposal Page 1 j
From: "mereth" <mereth@skokomish.org>
To: "'Kell McAboy"' <KellM@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 10/14/2005 9:07:03 AM
Subject: Paladin/Brady Proposal
Kell,
Please add the following publication to the Hearing Examiner record for the
Paladin/Brady proposal. The publication is from the Point No Point Treaty
Council and is titled "Shoreline Alterations in Hood Canal and the Eastern
Strait of Juan de Fuca".
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Shortcut to:
http://www.pnptc.org/PNPTC_W eb_data/Publications/habitat/PNPTC_Shoreline_Alt
erations_Report.pdf
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail
security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
r
r
,
34�
,
E ""• n
pia _♦ �.,� :.:.T +.
• l
4�1 `� i p.J,y+"�+S 1. '3. y. � � .. __ .. <p •i-<� "�
.�c �., ("� �`•/'�r�/ y,�y�••- J,�f !�'f ter_ _
On
000*0
iw
lot 0
ram'
a t
.74
C-
aR •{ K
-74
ILIIv
1 �r J
... 5�� � fit .._ ,�,' � ,- .-... s sm, s .•.w,..z'w .,.. ,
.x-.. .'•'. ems' }. ^,1^j,^a :. e'":.. i., ^ ___ .. f.. - .
`".-^•,4_,ace�4/q r: .. �+ iJ w.�. " .rr" :7 a.ti �i. ' Py,„�
(( '•'+��' -�,"' ,�+-�a11-.�.' y..`*�'�" n-°rt }.a'�`�7 " r �"'•i .rl �'A �. . a„t +r�r ti a`.
'°°� '"' i'� `!r►�, yks 7�aw.! �Ss�t.� ,�1. ♦^¢^Y. a +4- '�'� A. .,a � �
s t .,, '. ray i• $ i� w, Sy .y`� r', `< ... - — '
pi
Ot
air
104
��► '3 j.Fes' a. .
t +b °i.� 4 .4�® „pas s '•. '�p> Lor 4 �`$5'..
�" a `�f •.rC �° ^i 06? � mil
y. � - K - ,y }.�++w(' � it �. �•LT''`3.+4 &'�. rw�'. �a�,. .4,•1�'� Z j R�'S� � �� 'KT,. yr�.� 1
M `5 ,;.`
fir 4.3
Ah
05
`'.'� �' �@��`Z''y•y' g� z.F,� F ^ice. I'�r.. �� q' x,�„.
s�ty +�.(.wa'Q, _ �, y,. a• t�l��'��t'�foii.
v
W�
\ T
F.
- 7
t• n A61
' e
Ask
v4sp
i
`tea :�, r• _ .n W.,
s- �Y.,�'�rsr - � �"�"'� ..-�`�c �'� �".�Faeq� �''�1e!_�3 �1� � y_ '3* .:�r.a ;� � 'i'j<'Q+ •
-
;z��_.y"F "' �::,�.��...e•„r.� �+'r�"�rr'a".�" ,_*`d''s�^J"�"�+"'""�,n--�"_,,.`���v nr-r __. � �.., ° .�.�yc.+� �''3t3F� �,�„ ...�c �r
4 .
f�
J�
w►
Y_
—• - "y.- - -- � ........�- ram^",+ ..
,,Z.s