HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHX2018-00046 Cancelled - SHX Permit / Conditions - 8/6/2018 P�oN_srA MASON COUNTY
Mc Department of Community Services
o A o (P Planning Division
o N z 615 W Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584
ID N Y ti (360)427-9670
OJ �O
1864
Exemption from Shoreline Management Act
Case No.: SHX2018-00046 Substantial Development Permit Requirement
The Proposal By: EILEEN KRONQUIST
241 E NELSON RD
ALLYN, WA 98524
Parcel Number: 122294400050
Site Address: 241 E NELSON RD ALLYN
To undertake the following development:
PROJECT WILL REMOVE APPROXIMATLEY 90 FEET OF CONCRETE BULKHEAD & BOAT RAMP
FROM THE MARINE SHORELINE, RESLOPE THE BANK TO A 4.1 SLOPE, ADD LARGE WOOD,
MANAGE ROOF AND SURFACE RUNOFF, AND ESTABLISH NATIVE VEGETATION. LOGS WITH
ROOTWADS, AND 3 MAN BOULDERS WILL BE IMPORTED TO THE SITE. sITE SOILS WILL BE
REMOVED FROM THE SITE ESTABLISH A MORE GENTLE SLOPE
Within CASE INLET and/or its associated wetlands is exempt from the requirement of substantial
development because the development is categorized under WAC 173-27-040(2) as being category:
C-normal protective bulkhead
Please contact Kell Rowen at ext 286 if you have any questions.
Issued:8/6/2018 Authorized Local Government Official
SHX2018-00046 August 06, 201 F
RECEIVED:
MASON COUNTY
RECE!'j,` D
COMMUNITY SERVICES JUL 12 2018
Building,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health 615 W. Sbvet
615 W.Alder St.—Bldg.8,Shelton,Wa 98584 _ �/ q
Phone:(360)427-9670 ext.352 ♦ Fax:(360)427-7798 PERMIT NO.: 54 x Zb1B-
SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION
SHORELINE PERMITS
CONDITIONAL USE* SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
VARIANCE* 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 $7,047.00 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 may further describe the proposed development.
Incomplete applications will be returned.
*Shoreline Variances and Conditional uses require public hearings and have additional pages that shall be
attached to this application.
APPLICANT: Eileen Kronguist; Mike Southerland
ADDRESS: 241 E Nelson Road
(street)
Allyn WA 98524
(city) (state) (zip)
TELEPHONE: (360) 731-3958
(home) (business)
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: Karin Strelioff
ADDRESS: 450 W Business Park Rd
(street)
Shelton, WA 98584
(city) (state) (zip)
TELEPHONE: (360) 427-9436 x 122
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
General location (include property address,water body and associated wetlands—identify the name of the shoreline):
241 E Nelson Road, on the west shore of North Bay, south of Allyn
Rev. March 1, 2018
Include all parcel numbers: Projects located in open water areas, away from land shall provide latitude/longitude.
12229-44-00050
OWNERSHIP: Contract
Applicant Owner ✓ Lessee Purchaser (Identify) Other
Owner:
Eileen Kronquist and Mike Southerland
241 E Nelson Road Allyn WA 98524
(street) (city) (state) (zip)
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTON:
Development proposal(identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be used, construction
methods, principle dimensions, and other pertinent information):
This project will remove approximately 90 feet of concrete bulkhead and boat ramp from the marine shoreline,
reslope the bank to a 4:1 slope, add large wood, manage roof and surface runoff, and establish native vegetation.
Logs with rootwads and 3 man boulders will be imported to the site. Site soils will be removed from the site to
establish the more gentle slope.
Existing Use(identify current use of property with exist improvements):
The property is a single family residence.
Reason for requesting development:
The failed bulkhead is accelerating bank erosion and inhibiting the re-establishment of a natural shoreline.
The applicant shall provide, at a minimum, the following information..
a. SITE PLAN -drawn to scale and including:
i. The boundary of the parcel(s)of land upon which the development is proposed;
ii. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM). This may be an approximate location provided, that for
any development where a determination of consistency with the applicable regulations requires a
precise location of the OHWM the mark shall be located precisely and the biological and
hydrological basis for the location as indicated on the plans shall be included in the development
plan.Where the OHWM is neither adjacent to or within the boundary of the project, the plan shall
indicate the distance and direction to the nearest OHWM of a shoreline;
iii. Where appropriate, the proposed land contours using five-foot intervals in water area and ten-foot
intervals on areas landward of OHWM, if development involves grading, cutting, filling, or other
alteration of land contours;
iv. The dimensions and location of existing structures which will be maintained;
V. The dimensions and locations of proposed structures; parking and landscaping;
vi. The location of proposed utilities, such as sewer, septic tanks and drain fields, water, gas and
electricity;
vii. The location, source, composition, and volume of fill material;
viii. The location, composition and volume of any extracted materials, and proposed disposal area;
b. CROSS SECTION,drawn to scale including:
i. The existing ground elevations;
ii. The proposed ground elevations;
iii. The location and height of existing structures;
iv. The location and height of proposed structures;
V. The OHWM.
c. VICINITY MAP, including:
i. The location of subject parcel using natural points of reference(roads, state highways, prominent
landmarks, etc.).
ii. If the development involves the removal of any soils by dredging or otherwise, identify the
proposed disposal site on the map. If disposal site is beyond the confines of the vicinity map,
provide another vicinity map showing the precise location of the disposal site and its distance to
nearest city or town.
iii. On the map, or separately, give a brief narrative description of the vicinity of the proposed project
including identification of the adjacent uses, structures and improvements, intensity of
development and physical characteristics.
d. ADJACENT LANDOWNERS. Provide names and mailing addresses of all real property owners
within 300 feet of property line boundaries where development is proposed.
See attached sheet
ACKOWLEDGEMENT:
I hereby declare, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the forgoing information and all attached information is true and
correct.
(Applicant or th rized Representative) (date)
- • •••• t d aT 'k
:x •
T Y PROJECT
LOCATION '
ddY1 ~,
Google
HllyrrG%apeview <' 1—g y02017
Y
LL, 100 L F
ARMOR
REMOVAL
Site Pictures
Future
G
pocket
F �beach
.1
16.29
High tide
IV
y�Y_y? �'+�'�d t i.Y •� •t+r�'jF ✓"'``.��'z �+,�7j- 1.�}.�.;r� Y ft __.c•� �, T.. 4^isM1a �y �
R7. Fill Area
i
•�fiL��'�r"e'-;,.?`?`Yfi.�,' r Mttn._ � ��� ��' lr ' � �� �};.���> -�a,�" i
j 7 K
j4i BehindV
Bulkhead
t:
Site Plan - Existing Conditions. FOR PROPOSED CONDITIONS SEE ENCLOSED PLAN SET.
Drain Field Barn Well Garage H2O Line Septic Tank Residence
Search N Patce3 or Addres
A fee
CD
l
1 .
11
r�
1.
i
a .
Driveway
•
k
Scale
Northt 100,
Septic Line
Site Plan - Topography under Existing Conditions
00 Bulkhead Removal Plan ` o z W
N u> 0
Notes: Bulkhead to Remain 0 N L N
• Contractor to locate and protect underground utilities.
• Clearly mark all construction area boundaries before beginning work, per
direction of engineer or designated representative.
• Boundary markers and/or construction fencing must be maintained and clearly Trees
visible for the duration of construction. N
• Avoid/minimize removal of existing native vegetation to the maximum extent o �" Large a o F
feasible. j�00`„ / Stump > o
_Construction boundary • To move p T 0 N
(extent of disturbance) • d °'04
LID 0D
y� —f N
M �1 ICJ �6� N N N N
116► wV� r C 2 y F
Boat Ramp Y
_ == ===� To Be Removed = a
II ---- ----—�--•—• I
QMHHWcJ — n
Lawn 14.2 feet c ow
U ! O_ CIO _• _��• T
N
m I ��•: ___ Estimated Extreme r `—° z Z
v> .••.-------- Wave Run U 3 r W o
--------------
edllne •---• — —• •• j v
ate 1°catio�°7 tank bu�� �� J ==--�==_=• 20.7 feet / Beach y � N
APPfO�im _ --� --_ ••• —_�_•_• I tr ill).7:1 y mI
�yg— a C N
—s_ — •••_••• Move stump to---------------
/
__----___--_-__ this Location / Collapse section 19 g
•• =------------------ _ — 1 of bulkh ad _
Y C _
S Y
_ m Uj m
-- �� ��—S av'i J t7
----------------
------..--------- / ,
----------------
---------------- e
—--_- — 'vO Bulkhead and associated
Equipment concrete debris. n
access route �� 8 To Be Removed o N
/ o P
Edge of Shrubs Cut and Leave 8' o
Trees / / of Bulkhead L fr
d �
o
Tidal Datum Elevations: Construction boundary �
MLLW 0.00, (extent of disturbance)
U
MLW: 3.0'
MTL: 8.1' 0
MHW: 13.3 C
MHHW: 14.2' G S
Scale= V=15' oHW: 1s.r
Project Description:
This bulkhead removal project is designed to improve landowner access to the beach, to Contents o N o
r` U)
remove unnecessary shoreline armor, and to increase available nearshore habitat for Sheet No. �p,SPRI&Q
aquatic and terrestrial wildlife in Case Inlet. 1 Cover Sheet ¢ti�oF WAS y, +$�
2 Site Plan: Bulkhead Removal v
Overview
��
Extreme wave run-up elevation of 20.7 feet is based on 50 year wind, 50 year extreme 3 Site Plan:Grading&Drainage - i
4 Sections:Grading&Drainage •0
water level, and 2 ft of sea level rise at a MHHW of 14.2 feet. 5 Details(1) O R 549oo cpw� a
6 Details(2) s FCISTER� G N
Tidal Datum Elevations: 71 Planting Plan )NAL p
MLLW: 0.00' a Plant Schedule �_ .� �Qv 4) M 0
MLW:3.0' ( 19 N o co
MTL: 8.1' 0) Q
Location of Utilities �#
M HW: 13.3 Mason Conservation District does not make any representation to the existence or O 3
MHHW-. 14.2
non-existance of any public and or private buried or overhead utilities.Where utilities are t ;'
shown on the drawing,their location,depth and or height are approximate.The exact ca (,
OHW: 15.7' location,depth and or height shall be determined by the responsible utility.Any construction 3 D- C U)
and or O&M activites within the utility easement shall be in compliance with the utility's m >+ co
requirements.Call Utility at 1(800)424-5555 at least two business days before excavating, Q
as required by Washington State Law. C OQ_ v
L04
a C N_
L -0 U
C
.0 z z
N Q N
a H — 00
— co
= O
`i O Y z
r aas r
'w Z Z
f r
Project Location a
Line i—
y x x x x
*� O "
V a
Project Location Map Project Site Aerial Image 3 <XXXx
Source:Mason County GIS Online,https:Hgis.co.mason.wa.us/mason/ Source:Google Earth Pro,June 2017 image }X X X x
mXXXX
+exxxx
\ CO
co d
Bulkhead Removal Plan 1 Z
N � v—
Notes: Bulkhead to Remain o o
r` U)
• Contractor to locate and protect underground utilities.
• Clearly mark all construction area boundaries before beginning work, per
direction of engineer or designated representative. O
O
• Boundary markers and/or construction fencing must be maintained and clearly Trees ,
N
visible for the duration of construction. / �- Large
• Avoid/minimize removal of existing native vegetation to the maximum extent 000 ✓ Stump M o N
/ To move p o
feasible. O �� .�� / • N
_ Construction boundary ... J :. 1=! � O co
(extent of disturbance) �-�'® OC N C:_ `°
N O
'Q r p� a
p� CfJN r� �6' N N N N N
O O O co ,, N ^ c
I N cn 3
L
or b Boat Ramp ca
--- ---====- To Be Removed 3 °� U'
00
V7 wwwwwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwwwwwwwwww I �+
_ wwwwwwwwwwwwww
--------------- MHHW a) Q co
wowwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwwwwwwwwww � Q. "O �
wwwwwwwwww—www
c -------------- 14.2 feet
Lawn------------- L(� wwwwwwwwwwwwww N
wwwwwwwwwwwwww � N
O wwwwwwwwwwwwww L 'a N
wwwwwwwwwwwwww ww,,
+, wwwwwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwwwwwwwwww z Z
I - Estimated Extreme
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w N W OJ
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
--wwwwwwwwwwww Wave Run Up
-------------- Beach O
wwwwwwwwwwwwww
APP atelocation � buredlin AA -w-w-w-w-ww-wwww-wwww-wwwww-wwww--www--www--www--www--www-wwww-wwww-wwww-wwww-ww -""' -•-
20.7 feet / -1
n_)
ottankand *0 +�
.7 0
co—ww
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww � �— � co
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww = �
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww a 0 N
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Y
wwwwwww wwwwwwwwww p z
wwwwwwwwwwwwww Move stump to
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww ~
this Location Collapse section Y g
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
---------wwww---www of bulkh ad
------------------ -
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
rwwwwwwwwwwwwwww � _
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w (n
wwwwwww wwwwwwwwww N L
w s�wwwwwwwwwwwwww J
s"3e.c.�E^c as'�e c'.•s a�•�r�c'+ca es e�rsw
�.. C L # C. 6'.F _ - U 7
G
Bulkhead and associated }
oconcrete debris.
Equipment
8� To Be Removed x x x x
access route "'� r P o V,� � � �
O u O X X X X
Cut and Leave 8' �NSPRIN 3 X X X X
Edge of Shrubs Trees / of Bulkhead Q�I of WASIn
r
Construction boundary ' z z o
Tidal Datum Elevations: / V
MLLW: 0.00' (extent of disturbance) "' 4 0 ._
MLW: 3.0' 54900
MTL: �t RFC/STER��Gtit'�� � d
MHW: 133 s`SI�NALti� 3
MHHW: 14.2' x x�x
� x x
Scale= 1"=15' OHW: 15.7'
4►xxxx
oSPR,yN Drainage, Grading and Log Placement Plan , ( z
F WAs CU a)N o
Notes:
• Contractor to locate and protect underground utilities. - ' /
• Connect gutter downspouts to subsurface drain. 1 J '
• Any pipe exposed duringgradingp to be disposed of off site. ,o .� s49oo <u� \ I I ' Anchor boulders to be placed 0
• Crush or plug any pipes leftin the ground. c�sso�s�aG w Diffuser tee f 1 as directed by District Rep. 0 o
• Logs to be placed as directed by onsite District Representative. NgLE `\ ��� & rock 0 >(. Existing Bulkhead d N
• Logs below the Extreme High water line to be anchored as detailed on sheet 5. �o _ 15 9 N
• 00 / / to remain o N
fit- D�i7rNRT O J %D Q1(Vaf r4XfO�- o Q ', -;0+99
p�. }IL faJ 00
CPO + 90, Solid Drain Pipe- Ecy) N
e / - CN M
CL
N Extent of grading MHHW
° ° 14.2 feet ,C u 6
N
1 + 5� o� � ^. / 3 � =
1 �' Co
,+ I x� o o Extreme Wave Run up 0000
/ I of / 0+00 _ x�0 20.7 feet C o N
® / 10' long stone °- ` N
= seat wall, (-2' — - W L_ a
o+as s � z Z
high x 1 .5-2 3 :1 _ Align ent 1 2 w g
wide, typ.) Use N
0 o N
t I flat-topped
ApProx.i °°ation,dt buried s P {--- y �
/� I granite. / M
C N
/) +, 0+00 \ OHWM c o
a 15.7 feet o Y z
o
c 3 0:
Q 1+97 —_ _ 00
U Diffuser tee & rock _-+ Align men _
I 0 (
4 +l +51
O -I ±20' w/ rootwad, typ. _
d Drain Pipe \ }
±101' SOit �� Table of Quantities a
� � i11 m
i om
I j / �O �� / Material Quantity o Z X X X X
Site soil to remove through grading 160 CY t=- 0 X X X X
3 E X X X X
Fill behind remaining Bulkhead with / / 20 ft logs 3 EA ° } X X X X
15 ft logs 3 EA i' a
excavated site soils o)
10 ft logs 2 EA o
Tidal Datum Elevations: Approximate location where drain 3 man granite rock 13 EA V s
MLLW: 0.00' / ( / Perforated drain pipe 4"ASTM 3034 80 LF
MLW: 3.0' pipe to daylight; from this point, \ Solid drain pipe 4"ASTM 3034 20 LF 0
Min
TL: 8.1' pipe to continue on ground surface / \ \ / Catch basins(See detail,Sheet 5) 3 EA 0
MHW: 13.3
MHHW: 14.2' to the Diffuser tee/discharge point Seat wall granite rock 3 TN 3 M
t' ' axxxx
Scale= 1 =15 OHW: 15.7' Organic compost 15 CY a ���
Xxxx
/ Wood Chip Mulch 14 CY Ah ;X iK X X
FBiodegradable Erosion Control Fabric 111 SY
.x x x x
Section Profile View of Alignment 1 V- z° CO
Grading and Drainage Sections 30 — _ _ _ �— — — — T=J _ _ O N o
26� _� — — — Cut - — Bury logs 3 dia. min. — — — U
24+- r '�J� - — — — — 1 Existing Bulkhead (remove)
18 Extreme High Water Wave Runup
16- - - - - - - =1-� - - - - - - - OHWM p
14 - - - - - - MHHW La N
LO
1g rn
I I N
N
0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 0+85 E �
ai
N
L Section Profile View of Alignment N o
32� N
30 Cn
2s ------ - P SPR f t 0
2s — = - — — but — — Large stump on site to be moved to cavity 1�of WAS c a
24— — — — �<' — — — and anchored with rocks — 4
20Extreme High Water Wave Runup ��' ,�' ;z� 00 Q COCO
_ _ _ 'any
181=
— - - — k,
14n cr MHHW ��C/STERtiO �1�4 L N
lot AL
8T-
6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -�(-I� N N
0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 1+00 1+11 :�:3
U) .N CO
. CO
V a c cV
fiction Profile View of North Drain Alignment Diffuser Tee Y Z
Catch Basin 34 - - - I— _ — i - - — I- - - Y g
--------- 0.5% min slope — —
3! -
- -----------
c �
26 - (/1 U
22 — — . Connect Downspout = _ I_ _ _ _ _ I_ _ _ _ a) Y
0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 0+99
U_ c
_ L 0
Section Profile View of South Drain Alignment
Catch Basin I- - - - - — - -_ _ - - - - - - — 0
32 _—_ ° lope= 0 s oxXXX
0 5°/ min s
30 NX
28- -f— SOU 3 � XXXX
- - - Curtain Dra Solid Pie
in - - - — - p — — - - - - - - _ - - - � N xxxx
26-- — — — — - — �-
22--- - - - - - - - - - �--- - - �--- — Above Ground — _ � - - - � — — � o
20 — — — — — — — — — — — Solid Pipe — — — — Diffuser TeetI
1 s _ — / v
18 — — = Screen with Vegetation — Diffuser �J o .
— — —
14
12 3
10 x
x x x x
0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 1+00 1+25 1+50 1+75 'm X X X X
+x x x x
CIO o
Details
p Z 00
Existing Ground ( 18 Inch Catch Basin `V
ti
�^ �J
Slope Direction = with Grate Lid
Back Fill with native soil NDS 1203 or equal v '`
Drain Rock to conform with w/ necessary accessories
WSDOT Standard Specification C)
1.5' min for "Gravel Backfill for Drains" 4" ASTM 3034 _ o
Line bottom and side of gravel filled Perforated Drain Pipe ______ ___ -� o N
trench with 30 mil PVC liner -- o
Wrap gravel with Mirafi 140N geotextile, ---------- c
Curtain Drain N C
or equiv. See Cross Section Detail ----__---- 4" ASTM 3034 .a Q
4 4" diameter ASTM 3034 This Sheet Solid Drain Pipe c�
!- — 1.5' --- perforated drain pipe = c°
3 d U)
Curtain Drain Cross Section Detail Catch Basin - Plan View Detail 00 Q M
Scale: V=1' Scale: V=1' 'a Q
I- 1.5' -)
Existing Ground N
t Z Z
z
*+ Q) W OJ
Back fill trench with existing site soils,
in than 6" lifts, compact to resistance. Chain and staple to log y n N
1.5' Min as specified below H
Pipe zone fill for trench to conform
with WSDOT Standard Specification 17 a N
p�SPRIN =
for "Gravel Backfill for Pipe Zone �~�ti F WAs i Z
Bedding
4" diameter ASTM 3034 Y
Solid drain Pipe ,p 54900 ww
17' ISTE,3 Man Granite Rock �ssI�NAL �� Y
Subsurface Drain Cross Section Detail
Scale: V=1'
Log Anchor Plan View Detail
Xn
Diffusion Tee Scale: V=2'
Notes:
5 x x x x
Use 90 degree Anchor Notes: o "= X X X X
L Z X X X X
tee and end . Number of rock anchors per log will be based on the adjacent table. Logs 3 X X X X
' + X X X X
caps with screw Rocks above the extreme water line will not be anchored with rocks. Boulders will N
in plugs Log Diameter (3'x3'x3') per Rocks (3 x3 x3 ) have minimum diameter of 3 and be drilled through with minimum 2 inch %
for cleanouts. Range per 20 foot log bore. Logs will be attached to the boulders with galvanized chain, which shall o Y
Glue all joints. 15 foot log have a minimum working load limit of 5,000 lbs. ($ inch Grade 43 High Test
Use Perforated 1.0' to 2.0' 2 Rocks or better) to
Pipe for arms of 1.5' to 2.0' 2 Rocks 3 Rocks • Chain shall be wrapped around the log and secured to itself with an 3
tee. a X X X X
2.0' to 2.5' 3 Rocks 4 Rocks equivalent grade shackle, and must be stapled to the log. CS 0 X X X X
Diffusion Tee Plan View Detail • Rocks will be placed, with minimum excavation, adjacent to or on top of the m X X X X
NTS 2.5' to 3.0' 1 5 Rocks 7 Rocks logs at the Project Manager's direction. X X X X
Details: Erosion and Sediment Control CO �
°
Z
CU N N "-'
�PSMNC o ti CO
1� of WASy/
z v
d
,pF 54900 0 4 Final 10'-0" at each end: a 30 degree � N
s CASTER angle to prevent flow around (typ.)
AL NG
■ N
Disturbed area 4 U)
m
017- ■ \ N O
■ ■ t U (NO high visibility L
fencing.
C
f Locate m Q CO
r at drip line Length varies Q
r._:- _ or beyond ■ = o o'
- i.-�- H+�,[tTl`"''7***}•'`'/ . .f`tt � i-�{-i Contour line
-■ ■ ���� ` -�
3Zmin. O
w
M w o
J.� ',-r. .,. r•'1-+'7.. ••„ �:,''*=„�*3 -t' s= ..........
vs
■ Cedar stakes 0
( yP ) Protected area L
3' CO
o.c. t
/ C C N
Y V
Exiting Tree/Shrub Protection Detail
NITS Straw Wattle - Plan View Detail �C g
NTS
-a =
c
rn Uj CO
General Notes
2"x2"x3' cedar stake, typ. o Y Y
1. Contractor to call and have all utilities located prior to start of construction and is responsible for
maintaining those markings for the duration of construction.
2. Contractor is to comply with all standard FLH/FHWA standard erosion and sediment control Disturbed area L.
Dist. varies
requirements.
3. Contractor is responsible for any damage to adjacent property or to the public right of way during
construction. `
0 LOxxxx
4. Biodegradable straw wattle shall be in accordance with the latest FLH/FHWA standard specifications. o o x x x x
Wattle shall be a minimum of 10" in diameter or sized to suit conditions as specified by the engineer. ..:..:.<-_.:< `. 3 x x x x
Always install wattle perpendicular to slope and along contour lines. c >
<,!. > o xxxx
Remove sediment from the up-slope side of the wattle when accumulation has reached z the effective'
height of the wattle. Protected area o
Straw wattle is to be used in place of filter fence for primary control around grading areas during 1 -0 min. V
construction.
0
�n m
Straw Wattle - Section Detail o<<
a x x x x
NTS xxxx
x x x x
Planting Plan \ 1
Notes: � z °O
\ � o
N N �O
• Plant species and quantity details can be found on Sheet 8. \ N
• All planting areas except back shore zone to be mulched with 2" o
of compost and 3 of wood chips prior to planting. O Q•..,
• Biodegradable erosion control fabric to be secured to exposed
ground surface after compost application and before wood chip
placement. .•' ,
• Trees to be located per plan (or landowner direction). Existing Tr es •�
• Shrubs to be planted 3' on-center for medium shrub mix and 4' / �`'� N
& Shrubs �`••
on-center for the large shrub mix. Beach access aths °'
g to remain I p N �'
• During planting, chips to be moved aside to create planting hole, 1 (Coastal Strawberry/grass N c
then replaced afterward leaving space around the shrub stem. 1 / mix) N oCU
• Plants to be watered during planting. N
Ex. lawn
Legend , /
0 0 Upland -Large Shrub Mix 00 Q co
(-761SF) = ocl� N
0 / / Beach R a N
Upland -Medium Shrub Mix ' -� . :• ....::......: s z Z
1 �•`•`•. / N can
Beach - back shore mix 1 ` / w
/ O Y z
\ / Back shore Planting Mix Y
Coastal Strawberry / Grass mix _ `/ 1/ (Dune Grass, Seaside Salt g
• (�947SF) 1 Grass, Gumweed, Yarrow) _
I m Cj - (n
American Dunegrass/Seasalt Grass / / o Y ° Y
�l / ♦ U a
Madrone / Pacific Crabapple 0
\ xxxx
g Z x I x x x O H X X X X
Oceanspray I o JXXX X X
Logs
L
Upland Large Shrub Mix s
Sword Fern \ _ v
o „
Oregon grape / Evergreen Huckleberry / / v m jCxjC5 jxC jxC
�� 11 ` 3 <x KXx
Scale= 1 =10-0 <<<
Tufted Hairgrass / Miscanthus / Pollinator Species O / m X X X X
J/ 'txxxx
i
Ci
Plant Schedule and Specifications a) o z
N a) O
s
v
Spacing
Quantity Scientifc,Name Common Name Size o.c.
d P
Native 0
0
> o
5 Rosa nutkana Noatka Rose #3 4 0 4 Cn
15 Vaecinium ovaturn Evergreen huckleberry #1 4 E U
11 Pofystichum munitum Sword fern #1 4 N
15 Mahonia repens Oregon grape #1 4 N °
� � rn Q-
3 Molodiscus discolor Oceans pray #2 4 s
a) u
1 P'hysocarpos capftatus Pacific ninebark #1 4 Y
9 Gautheria shallon Salal #1 4 = a Lj,
2 Acer circinatum Vine maple 5-6' 4CO
W i Q M
1 Fran_qula (Rhamnus)purshiana Cascara #2 (7-8') 4 3" layer of o
0 A melanchier alnifolia Serviceberry #5T4-0' 4 mulch. No a N
3 Pinus contorts var contorta Share Pine #2 4 more than 1" L N
15 Symphoricarpos albus Snowberry #1 4 of mulch on s 2 z z
8D
a) w�+ o
top of root ball. =
Scarify sides ty 0 N
Perrenial Pollinator Species of planting 0
3 Mliscanthus sinensis Morning Light Miscanthus #2 3 hole. '3 : M
• 12 Carex testacea New Zealand sedge #1 3 2" compost Cr o N
12 Sedum "Autumn joy" I gallon 3
added to p Y z
7 Cistus 'Grayswood pink' Grayswood Pink Rack rase I gallon 3 ex. soil g
3 Ceanothas glorlosus 'Point Reyes' Pt_ Reyes Ceanothus #1 3
5 Germanium macrorrhizom 'LoWelden' Bigroot Geranium #1 3 >_,.._.._.._, :::; �; ;�; ;;r•,-r,.,
:.:,..._....-::::::.....................:_......:....:...::::::. ........;:..-;> . .;: Ex. soil
42 _
=;;,:..:c•;-;;> ....:•r::nr.....:;. :..-.::::.......:cr,•;;....::..:::•::.;......... co (n
Cn
Backshore Planting Zone o Y Y
50 Grindelia integrifolia Puget Gum-weed RR 1'
200 Leyrmus (Ely+mus) mollis American Dtunegrass BR 1' Bottom of root ball rests on u
50 Desc,ahmpsta cespitosa Tufted hairgrass 10" plug IBR 2' existing or recompacted soil. F
25 Achillea mi lefolhurn Common Yarrow 4" 1'
i o P
300 Uistichlis spicata Seashore salt grass BR 1 Prior to mulching, lightly tam soil around the root ball in 6" lifts X X X X
5 Arternfstan chamissonfs Leafy Arnica 4" pot 3' g y p o = = X X X X
r X X X X
to brace tree/shrub. Do not over compact When the planting P 3 ii 31 5 X
630 hole has been backfilled, pour water around the root ball to X X X X
settle the soil. °� U)
Lawn/Strawber
cn
ry � ,
100 Fragaria chlloensis Coastal strawberry Plug or 4" 3' v
d
25 Grass seed mix NW Supreme Lawn Mist Tree / Shrub Planting Detail o
Sun mark Seeds 9#/1000 SF Nis v
X X X X
CO
X X X X
Kronquist/Southerland Proposed Bulkhead Removal
Preliminary Ecological Site Assessment
DATE: September 25, 2016
TO: Wendy Gerstel, Qwg Applied Geology and
Karin Strelioff, Mason Conservation District
FROM: Jim Brennan, Marine Ecological Consulting Services, LLC
SUBJECT: Kronquist/Southerland Property Ecological Assessment Report
Address: 241 E. Nelson Road,Allyn, WA 98524
Parcel No. 12229-44-00050
Water Body: Peale Passage;WRIA 14
Lat. N.460 121.630' Long.W. 122°49.553'
Introduction
The following report provides a summary of observations and measurements taken while visiting the
subject property on August 17, 2016. The report was written to provide a basic ecological
characterization and recommendations for consideration in the evaluation of feasibility for bulkhead
removal,design, and implementation of restorative actions. This reconnaissance-level assessment is
intended to provide basic information for evaluating the feasibility of taking further actions, and to help
identify important ecological characteristics of the site and potential benefits of taking restorative
actions. Additional information will be needed to more fully characterize restoration benefits, as
determined by the design and implementation plans that are developed for this project. The first phase
of determining the feasibility of taking restorative actions for achieving ecological benefits is to perform
a basic site characterization, identifying opportunities and constraints, and considering potential design
elements and options. This report informs this first phase. The next phase is to use the site assessments
to inform the alternatives analysis and design of the project. The final phase is implementation,typically
followed by monitoring and assessment.
Background and Purpose of Report
This report was prepared under contract to Qwg Applied Geology as part of a service contract between
Qwg Applied Geology and Mason Conservation District(MCD),which serves to provide the MCD and
shoreline property owners technical assistance and site assessments for evaluating the feasibility and
benefits of removing shore armor,as a part of the Shore Friendly Program. The Shore Friendly Program
is a Puget Sound marine and nearshore grant from the U.S. EPA,co-managed by Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife and Department of Natural Resources. The goal of the Program is to
reduce the amount of"hard armor" (i.e., bulkheads) on Puget Sound shorelines. To achieve this goal,
the State management agencies have provided funding to some local jurisdictions for the purpose of
r T
R`
working with shoreline property owners to achieve the Program goals of reducing shore armor and
change social behaviors related to waterfront living and development.
More than 50 percent of the U.S. population lives in coastal areas,and development pressures are
having a substantial impact on coastal ecosystems along with the many resources that are derived from
these systems. Similar to other coastal areas,the Puget Sound region has experienced a large increase
in the human population,which has resulted in substantial coastal development and associated
modification of nearshore marine systems. Such development patterns have led to substantial loss of
natural habitats and species declines, including Northwest icons,such as orca whales and Chinook
salmon. Historically, most coastal development regulations did not adequately account for or mitigate
impacts associated with shoreline modifications, due in part to the lack of understanding of how such
modifications affected the health and integrity of marine systems. Overtime,the science and
management of these systems has improved, but many challenges remain, including increasing
development of shorelines, legacy impacts from historic development,and the increasing loss of
habitats and species declines. Along with an improved understanding of ecosystem processes,
structure, and functions,the Endangered Species Act listing of Chinook salmon and orca whales have
required an improvement in how marine nearshore systems are managed, because of the dependency
of these organisms, among many others, on these systems. One of the key stressors on nearshore
systems is shore armor(e.g., bulkheads,seawalls),which disrupt sediment input and distribution, result
in a loss of riparian structure and functions,and displace associated fishes and wildlife (Williams et al.
2001;Johannessen and MacLennan 2004; Brennan and Culverwell 2004; Collins and Sheikh 2005;
Brennan 2007; Simenstad et al. 2011). In order to address the impacts of coastal armor and other
development issues, millions of dollars are being spent annually to improve protections for marine
nearshore systems and to restore degraded areas where feasible. The State salmon and Puget Sound
recovery plans have focused on a number of ecosystem elements for advancing protection and recovery
efforts, including bulkhead removal. The MCD and Shore Friendly Program are actively participating in
these efforts by providing education and technical assistance to shoreline property owners,with a goal
of making improvements to shoreline conditions. Candidate sites have been selected for site
evaluations in this early phase of determining bulkhead removal feasibility. Preliminary site evaluations
will help fulfill a critical phase in determining feasibility and whether projects should be further
considered for design and implementation.
This report summarizes preliminary site observations and provides an ecological assessment of the
shoreline property owned by Eileen Kronquist and Mike Southerland, located on Harstine Island,on the
r est shore of Peale Passage. The purpose of the report is to provide site observations, important
z \`s ecological characteristics and/or attributes for determining the feasibility and benefits of bulkhead
\LA,0 removal at this site.The report includes important considerations and suggestions for design elements
to meet the Program goals of achieving ecological improvement, increased protection of the natural
ecosystem, and to demonstrate improved stewardship while being compatible with shoreline residential
living. As this is a reconnaissance level assessment,additional information will be required to more fully
inform the design and implementation phases of the proposed removal of a bulkhead at this property.
Location
r
The subject property is a waterfront residential parcel, located on the NW shore of Case Inlet,at 241 E.
Nelson Road,Allyn,Washington (Figures 1&2). The site is accessed by taking Grapeview Road off of
Highway 3,then left onto Nelson Road.
Goo
i
Figure 1. Location map of subject property
i
V`
�n
.ram}� � . � '1,:;•�
Figure 2. Parcel map of vicinity. Yellow arrow marks subject property.
General site Description and Characteristics
iC�:',AGtu .
The subject property is gently sloping down to and around the residential structure,then increases
down the front yard (approximately 15%)to the beach. The yard on the waterward side of the
residence is lawn, bordered on either side by trees (Figure 3). According to the neighbor, (Ray
Kronquist),who escorted me onto the property,the septic drain field was installed in 1954, and is
located approximately 46-feet landward of the bulkhead. The house is set back over 70-feet from the
bulkhead (approximately 68-feet measured from the bulkhead to the deck). The bank has been
armored with a 3-foot high concrete bulkhead,which extends across the entire face of the bank
(approximately 100-feet), minus a 9-foot section where a concrete boat ramp extends through the
bulkhead down onto the beach (Figure 4). The bulkhead has concrete return walls on both ends. The
bulkhead and ramp are aged, revealing cracks,and exposed footings. An approximately 20-foot section
of the bulkhead has failed, laying on the beach, and the exposed bank behind it has eroded back
approximately 20-feet from the bulkhead, leaving a 5.5-foot high cut bank(Figure 5).
r,
{
r
Figure 3.View of yard and beach from deck.
In addition to the bank erosion along the section where the bulkhead has failed,there was obvious
slumping of soils and sink holes behind the intact bulkhead.
t :v
WAN
Figure 4. Bulkhead and ramp.UP a
♦ 1
1 u. s ZT.�.C,'•L�' 1 i � � '�I• r�
Figure 5. Failed bulkhead and cut bank.
The property to the south also has a concrete bulkhead,which is thicker,taller,and appears to have
been built more recently. Immediately to the north,the bank reveals a massive root wad with no
armor. The exposed soils in the cut bank appear to be glacial till,with some moisture near the base (just
above beach grade). Also observed were two corrugated drain pipes, lying behind the broken section of
the bulkhead. Downspouts around the house appeared to be drained into a pipe system; it is assumed
that the outlet of the drainage system is the corrugated pipe seen at the beach.
The property faces approximately east(-103 degrees),with the greatest fetch from the southeast(-157
degrees)and northeast(^23 degrees) (compass bearings taken from the subject property). The beach is
gently sloping(approximately 10%slope),with finer gravel at the higher tidal elevations and larger
gravel on the beach face(Figures 6 W). The larger gravel on the beach face is indicative of higher wave
energy exposure during the intermediate tides. The finer gravel higher up the beach appears to be
suitable size for surf smelt spawning, but may or may not persist during other times of the year(e.g.,
winter storms), especially given that the beach gravel appears to be a fairly thin veneer over hard soils
(possibly till,as observed in the bank). Such conditions, in addition to wave deflection off of bulkheads,
typically results in courser beach sediment during winter seasons, as opposed to the calmer summer
season. Therefore, it is difficult to determine if the upper beach substrate would be appropriate for
smelt spawning at other times of the year. A review of the forage fish spawning maps provided online
by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (http:Hwdfw.wa.gov/conservation/research/
projects/marine_beach_spawning/) indicates that surf smelt spawning has been documented both
north and south of the subject property, but has not been documented at this site. Unfortunately,
survey data are incomplete for determining whether surf smelt spawning may or may not occur at this
site with complete certainty. Regardless,the bulkhead removal would likely provide conditions for
improving habitat for forage fish spawning by reducing wave deflective energy and allowing for finer
sediment deposition at tidal elevations utilized by surf smelt for spawning.
.- �(��:,'?''" � " � :.?� Mari j�ESi!''4i��` •`.'
A >'^i it
(i J
Figure 6. Photo of beach gravel just below bulkhead. Figure 7. Photo of gravel on beach face.
Summary of Observations, Assessment, and Recommendations
The subject property presents a number of challenges that need to be addressed when considering
bulkhead removal, and for achieving improvements to nearshore conditions. A large section of the
concrete bulkhead has already failed, and the remaining bulkhead and ramp are in poor condition. The
gap in the bulkhead has allowed for bank recession, and it appears that drainage(both septic drain field
and precipitation)also contribute to soil erosion,slumping,and sink holes in the gap and behind the
remaining, intact bulkhead. The lawn does not provide sufficient interception and absorption or soil
stabilizing functions that would be provided by other vegetation,such as native trees and shrubs, in
addition to not providing a range of other riparian functions beneficial to nearshore ecosystems(e.g.,
insect production,organic matter/inputs, LWD, microclimate moderation,water quality). The rate of
bank recession was not part of this assessment, but may lead to problems with the septic drain field and
other infrastructure if not remediated. The potential for extralimital effects(i.e.,on adjacent
properties) is also a consideration,whether the bulkhead is removed or not. Therefore,a holistic
approach is recommended for achieving the Program goals, in addition to achieving the goals of salmon
recovery, protection of Puget Sound, and developing a remedial action that will also be compatible with
residential infrastructure and living along the shoreline.
In order to create a more resilient shoreline, and one that would provide for improved ecosystem
functions for the long term, I would recommend exploring design options that consider complete
removal of the bulkhead and ramp,while also including structural elements that ensure erosion control
of the subject property and adjacent properties. This may be achieved by reshaping the bank to create a
more gradual slope, or terracing,with return walls at either side of the property to protect adjacent
properties, drainage control,and establishment of a native vegetation buffer. In order to achieve such a
design may require relocation of the septic drain field. According to the neighbor(Ray),the landowners
have considered moving the septic drain field. Given its age, location,contribution of moisture to the
bank, and potential nutrient contribution to the adjacent water body, a number of benefits could be
realized by its relocation,including removal of a major constraint to design options. Such design options
do not preclude opportunities for access to the beach or views of the water, if designed with property
owner considerations for use,aesthetics, and improvements of bank stability and ecological benefits.
Despite the many challenges with the proposed bulkhead removal, and the relatively small scale of the
project, many ecological improvements could be achieved with the proper design. Design elements
should include planting native riparian vegetation appropriate for the site, bulkhead and ramp removal,
drainage control, including an energy dissipater outfall, return walls,or other structures to prevent
erosion on adjacent properties, and creation of increased shallow water habitat (i.e., increased upper
intertidal area and shallow beach gradient). Even if the bulkhead is rebuilt, it should be located further
landward, and the riparian area should be improved. Establishing riparian vegetation would have the
potential for increasing slope/bank stability, improve drainage issues, provide wildlife habitat, provide
nutrients for the aquatic environment, including prey provision forjuvenile salmonids and forage fishes
(among others),and may provide microclimate moderation, beneficial to forage fishes and wildlife.
Increasing upper intertidal area benefits migrating juvenile salmonids,which use the intertidal for
feeding, refuge, migration,and physiological transition.
Recommendations and Potential Constraints for Feasibility and Design
Considerations
The following recommendations and potential constraints are based on observations made during a
single site visit and only a conceptual proposal for bulkhead removal. Additional information regarding
the design and restoration methods are needed to more fully inform potential risks, ecological benefits,
and appropriate actions to be taken at this site. Some of the recommended actions may be viewed as
potential constraints if they are not incorporated as a part of the restoration plan,where the goal is to
achieve maximum cost and ecological benefits.
• Remove the concrete bulkhead and ramp during a period of lower tide cycles, and in the dry
season,to avoid bank saturation during construction.
• Access may be an issue from the uplands. If so,the project may require barge access,which will
increase costs.
• Relocation of the septic drain field is recommended to reduce soil moisture and introduction of
nutrients into Case Inlet, in addition to opening up opportunities for alternative restoration
design options.
l ►
,mt
• Reshaping the bank may be an option if there is no threat to existing infrastructure,and an
appropriate gradient may be achieved.
• Plant native vegetation as densely as feasible, based upon the ecological goals, bank stability
needs, and desires of the landowners for uses of their property.
• Incorporate a trail to the beach as part of the restoration design if the landowners desire access
for pedestrian traffic, or for getting a small boat down to the beach.
• Ensure that the adjacent properties are protected from bank erosion by installing return walls,
or wings in the reshaping and re-grading of the bank.
• Capture/control all upland drainage.
• Accurate elevation data will be needed to evaluate feasibility of design options and for creating
accurate design plans. A topographic/bathymetric survey will likely be needed to inform plans,
along with extreme tidal events.
References
Brennan,J.S. 2004. Marine Riparian:An assessment of riparian functions in marine ecosystems.
Published by Washington Sea Grant Program. Copyright 2005, UW Board of Regents, Seattle,WA 34p.
Brennan,J.S. 2007. Marine riparian vegetation communities of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore
Partnership Report No. 2007-02. Published by Seattle District, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle,
Wa.
Collins, B.D. and A.J. Sheikh. 2005. Historical reconstruction, classification, and change analysis of Puget
Sound tidal marshes. Project Completion Report to:Washington Department of Natural Resources, 120
p. Available at URL:
http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/technical_papers/historical_shoreline_dnr.pdf.
Johannessen,J. and A. MacLennan. 2007. Beaches and bluffs of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Nearshore
Partnership Report No. 2007-04. Published by Seattle District, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle,
Wa.
Simenstad,C.A., M. Ramirez,J. Burke, M. Logsdon, H. Shipman, C:Tanner,J.Toft, B. Craig,C. Davis,J.
Fung, P. Bloch, K. Fresh,S.Campbell, D. Myers, E. Iverson,A. Bailey, P.Schlenger,C. Kiblinger, P. Myre,
W. Gerstel, and A. MacLennan. 2011. Historical Change of Puget Sound Shorelines: Puget Sound
Nearshore Ecosystem Project Change Analysis. Puget Sound Nearshore Report No. 2011-01. Published
by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Olympia,Washington,and U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers,Seattle,Washington. http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/.
r/ f
APPlied
Geology \
Wendy Gerstel, LEG,LHG,owner Phone: 360.754.2409
1802 Pine Ave. NE E-mail: wendy@qwgappliedgeology.com
Olympia, Washington 98506
To: Karin Strelioff
Mason Conservation District
450 W Business Park Rd.
Shelton,WA 98584
Date:April 27,2016
Subject:"Shore Friendly Mason"Program—Kronquist/Sutherland Property Geologic
Assessment Report;241 E.Nelson Road,Allyn,Washington,Parcel#12229-44-00050
BACKGROUND AND REPORT SCOPE
This report summarizes a geologic assessment of the shoreline property owned by Eileen
Kronquist and Mike Sutherland at 241 E.Nelson Road,Allyn,Washington(Fig. 1). The report
documents observations and considerations with respect to site geology,hydrology, and
geomoTWg,and coastal processes necessary to evaluate the feasibility of removing some or all
of abou�� 7�5ft f concrete armor fronting the property. Currently, about 25ft of the existing
armor"- isrepair and/or collapsed. The report also presents recommendations for
addressing erosion,and offers some initial conceptual alternative mitigation design options. The
term alternative is used here to imply non-traditional treatment that would not incorporate hard
engineered structures,but would instead enhance shoreline habitat while meeting landowner
objectives for property use.
The observations and preliminary design concepts offered in this report are based on a remote
review of information available on the internet in combination with field observations made on
April 4,2016,under the funding of the Shore Friendly Mason Program. Site visit participants on
April 4d,,2016,included Karin Strelioff of Mason Conservation District, the landowners, and
this report author. A previous site visit by the author was made in February of 2007,at the
request of the landowners and in the company of representatives from the South Puget Sound
Salmon Enhancement Group,Washington Sea Grant, and the People for Puget Sound.To my
knowledge there were no follow-up visits until that of April4,2016.
This report describes site observations,evaluates the potential risk to any infrastructure of
removing the full length of shoreline armoring, documents landowner objectives for any
shoreline modifications as discussed during the site visits, and offers some conceptual ideas for
those modifications.
Shore Friendly Mason Page 1 of 10
Geologic Assessment Report—Kronquist/Sutherland
m�
f
WAIQ
�,,o air►®,�
d rra
E NERpLL���
pARpING3 Mt!
Figure 1. Mason County Parcel Search image of the Kronquist/Sutherland property on North Bay at the
northern end of Case Inlet. The assessed parcel is highlighted in red. The inset map shows the
location of the parcel within Mason County.
This report is being submitted as a stand-alone product under the requirements of licensure for
the practice of geology in the State of Washington;however,it is understood that the memo's
content may be included within,or provided as a supplement to a more comprehensive report
on the project being compiled by Mason Conservation District under the Shore Friendly Grant
Program.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The assessed property is located along the west side of North Bay at the northern end of Case
Inlet. It is accessed from Highway 3 south of Allyn,Washington,via Grapeview Loop Rd. and
East Nelson Rd. The property is east-facing and slopes gently shoreward,steepening slightly
where the natural slope grades to the fill directly behind the bulkhead. At the time of
construction(late 1950s)surface soils from the area east of the house were apparently graded
and used for fill behind the bulkhead. The bank height behind the intact bulkhead is about 3-
4ft. Bank height in the unstable area is 5-6ft.
The residence is oriented north-south at an angle to the shoreline such that the northern end of
the home is about 77ft from the edge of the bank and the southern end about 50ft from the bank
(Fig.2). The bulkhead fronts the shoreline for-75ft,the southern 25ft of which has collapsed
over the past 10 years.The bulkhead is constructed of concrete 6-8in thick and about 3ft high
from the top of the footing,which was exposed in several places at the time of our visit. Several
Shore Friendly Mason Page 2 of 10
Geologic Assessment Report-Kronquist/Sutherland
drains are visible along its length just above the footing. Two perpendicular wall segments
extend landward for about 4ft from the shore-parallel portion of the bulkhead. The function of
these is unclear but interestingly, the southernmost marks the current northern boundary of the
slope failure (discussed further below).
•
y1�� e r FF 4. r
ti.
i
4,
Figure 2. Google Earth image from 2013 of the Kronquist/Sutherland property showing the residence
and other features discussed in the text. The approximate location of the recently-expanded bank
instability is shown by the dashed light orange line and arrow, the intact bulkhead is shown by a
solid dark orange line(as are the approximate locations of the two perpendicular spur walls), the
collapsed bulkhead by a dashed dark orange line, and the discharging spring is indicated by the
blue 'tailed'circle.
Between the residence and the bulkhead, landscaping consists of lawn with several large fir and
cedar trees along the northern and southern property boundaries. My understanding is that the
septic drain field is located in the lawn area towards the southern end of the house. The greener
late-season grass visible in the Figure 3 photo would substantiate this.
Shore Friendly Mason Page 3 of 10
Geologic Assessment Report—Kronquist/Sutherland
Changes in beach elevation over the length of bulkhead and through time have resulted in
relative changes in the height of the exposed concrete face relative to the beach face, apparently
resulting in periodic overtopping by waves. A comparison of photos taken during the 2007 site
visit with observations made on April 4,2016 suggests that the large root wad roped to the bank
and slowly migrating north,promotes sediment deposition between it and the bank(Fig.4.)
,W
Figure 3. Washington Dept. of Ecology 2006 Figure 4. View to the south taken during the 2007 site
shoreline oblique photo showing the visit. Note sediment and shells accumulated
assessed property with suspected between the root wad and the bulkhead, and the
location of septic drain field as indicated modifying effects on beach elevation. The root
by green grass(outlined in dashed black wad is now located just north of the concrete
line.)Note area of instability as it boat ramp visible in the foreground.
appeared in 2006 planted with shrubs,
and position of root wad that year.
Of particular note, and to my understanding the trigger for this most recent site visit, is the
expanded area of instability(Figs.2 and 3), and the corresponding collapse of additional
portions of the bulkhead. These are described in more detail below.
GEOLOGY,HYDROLOGY,AND COASTAL SETTING
The Kronquist/Sutherland property is situated on an east-facing flank of one of a series of
northeast-southwest trending flutes(elongate troughs and ridges)formed by glacial erosion
during the last advance of continental ice about 13,000 years ago (Fig.5.). The flutes are
developed in till, a glacially-deposited and consolidated sediment consisting of varying sizes of
gravel supported in a matrix of primarily silt and clay with some sand(designated as Qgt on
the geologic map shown in Figure 5.) The till is likely several hundred feet thick in places,
extending to some depth below beach elevation. It is exposed in the banks along much of the
shoreline north and south of the assessed property where vegetation and armoring haven't
concealed it from view, as well as in the beach face underlying a thin veneer of cobble lag. The
recent slope failure on the property exposes about 5-6ft of the till (Fig. 6).
Shore Friendly Mason Page 4 of 10
Geologic Assessment Report—Kronquist/Sutherland
_J
Till is characterized as being of relatively low permeability, meaning that surface water does not
easily infiltrate, nor does till transmit groundwater readily except along fractures and slightly
coarser(sandier) zones within the matrix. The existence of these zones is important as they
commonly serve as conduits for groundwater that discharges from shoreline banks and bluffs
and can trigger slope instability. The spring at the base of the recent slope failure is likely
exploiting one such coarse sediment zone or layer and may be partially responsible for the
instability in this area.
Qls • '
Qb-�j• �� ti'
uplifted `
(GIs, �� / C shoreline
r
, 3
Qb
F , Fi ;� ± Ip i j€ i Qb
{ LYY ':.1.) P:
7` 1
m
Ti
53
l 1 ' �` rtt l •�
i` / mile
Figure 5. Geologic mapping by Logan, et al. (2012), shows the distribution of glacial till(Qgt) underlying
the assessed property(orange arrow), beach deposits of mobile sand and gravel are shown in
yellow along the shoreline(Qb.) The shaded relief base map shows the dominant northeast-
southwest morphology of glacial fluting. The ridge to the west of the property directs groundwater
flow eastward into Case Inlet. Reach and Stretch Islands, mentioned in the text, lie just off this map
to the south.
Shore Friendly Mason Page 5 of 10
Geologic Assessment Report—Kronquist/Sutherland
To the west of the assessed property, flute troughs support topographically-aligned surface
streams and wetlands. Where one flank of the trough occurs at the shoreline, as along the reach
of the assessed property,upland processes (surface and ground-water movement) and coastal
processes (tides, waves, and storms) work together to trigger slope instability.
WIM ,.,
`w
ti
.�"" 1 t. l2 fT�sTKJ"-•�
, 'r a
I
a i Mr .. j{r• L / �! r! 1 ^w
i
M t9 e L
iv
Y �/ ��y y7r• �' I c � y •.
�y! 4 Y'
i �• , 4 r
Figure 6. Unstable bank area in 2007(top photo)exposing glacial till behind the deteriorating bulkhead,
and the same area(now expanded)on April4, 2016(bottom photo.) The spring discussed in the
text discharges from the small cavity at the base of the bank in both photos. Note that the drain
field(Figs. 2 and 3)is situated directly upslope of this location.
Shore Friendly Mason Page 6 of 10
Geologic Assessment Report—Kronquist/Sutherland
Net shore transport direction of sediment(also called net shore drift or long-shore drift)along
the west shore of Case Inlet is northward. This is clearly evidenced by the accretion landforms
(spits) that dominate the northern ends of off-shore islands such as Stretch and Reach Islands,as
well as points of land on the mainland(Qb in Figure 5.) Movement of the large root wad
northward provides further evidence.
The beach substrate in front of the assessed property is relatively coarse. It appears as a thin
veneer of cobble gravel over the wave-cut beach platform of till. Observations suggest that this
portion of the drift cell is limited in its supply of finer sediment for several reasons, among
them; 1.)There is evidence of beach face erosion in the"pedestals" of till holding up some
cobbles;2.)There are no"feeder bluffs" (readily available coastal bluff sediment prone to
landsliding)identified within the drift cell south of the assessed property;3.)Deposition of
sediment originating south of the property has been deposited at the northern tips of Stretch
and Reach Islands, and points of land on the mainland;4.)The till exposed at and directly
south/updrift of the property is relatively resistant to erosion;and 5.)Armoring to the
south/updrift of the assessed property may be increasing wave energy and thereby sediment
transport rates northward to the spit at the north end of the drift cell in which the property is
situated.
Another geologic feature of note which contributes to the configuration of and coastal processes
along this shoreline reach is the Tacoma Fault, actually comprised of a series of fault traces.
Irregularities in the shoreline caused by displacement along these fault traces impact sediment
transport and the patterns of erosion and/or deposition. The labeled fault traces depicted on
Figure 5 show that uplift is occurring on the north side of the fault zone,further complicating
the sediment transport picture by interrupting northward sediment flow,or drift.
The orientation and aspect of the shoreline in this reach provides relative protection from
prevailing southwest winds.However,less frequent but possibly stronger winds approaching
from the north or southeast travel over significant fetch(the distance over which wind travels
and forms waves) and therefore have the potential to produce larger high energy waves.
Overtopping of the bulkhead during extreme tidal or storm events, and erosion of the
saturation-weakened sediments behind it,may be working together to cause the demise of the
bulkhead and the expanding erosion"amphitheater." In addition;it is worth considering that
the septic drain field,which lies directly upslope of the bank failure,may be contributing excess
water to the area.
SHORE MODIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS
This geologic assessment and feasibility evaluation is intended to address the potential removal
of some or the entire-75ft of concrete bulkhead fronting the assessed property. In offering
conceptual ideas to accomplish this through Shore-Friendly erosion management, the assessment
takes into consideration both upland and coastal processes contributing to the instability
occurring along the southern portion of the property, as well as the property-use objectives of
the landowner.
Shore Friendly Mason Page 7 of 10
Geologic Assessment Report-Kronduist/Sutherland
My understanding is that key objectives for the landowner in moving forward with any
bulkhead removal or other shoreline restoration modifications include but may not be limited
to:
1. Removal of the existing intact and collapsed armor,
2. Reintroducing some of the vegetation of childhood memories,
3. Preservation of the large root wad currently occupying a portion of the beaclifront.
4. Incorporating native vegetation to stabilize the unstable portions of the bank,
5. Creating a peaceful"pocket beach" for sitting(and smoothie-sipping) using the newly-
formed erosion"amphitheater", and,
6. Improving beach access to accommodate seasonal changes in beach elevation (existing
concrete ramp creates seasonally unreliable access).
Additional recommended considerations for shoreline and upland modifications include:
1. Relocating the septic drain field upslope of the residence to better dissipate groundwater
before it reaches the shore bank,
2. Evaluating and repairing as necessary all existing drainage infrastructure and conveying
all collected water safely to the beach with appropriate energy dispersion,and,
3. Planting site-appropriate water-wise and water-absorbing native vegetation.
Regional and site-specific observations need to be considered collectively in designing any
erosion mitigation or shoreline restoration. Land-use practices past and future also need to be
factored in as much as possible.At present, a healthy forest canopy upslope of the property
serves to mitigate heavy precipitation runoff and groundwater infiltration through
evapotranspiration and precipitation interception. In the event that some or all of this forest be -
removed,particularly if for the purposes of residential development, cumulative increases in
surface and groundwater should be anticipated along the lower slopes of the assessed and
adjacent properties. As stated above,surface water can infiltrate locally into the till along
fractures and coarse permeable zones within the deposit. Infiltration can also occur via
drainage infrastructure such as catchment basins,drywells,French drains, and septic system
drain fields.
EROSION MITIGATION AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONCEPTS
As always,removal of the bulkhead or other elements of shoreline armoring should be
accompanied by an acceptance of some initial retreat of the bank from its current position,
particularly where unconsolidated materials exist behind the bulkhead and/or springs
discharge from the bank. Maintaining free drainage of springs is critical in mitigating triggers
of instability.
The distance of the residence from the shoreline,the relative resistance of the till to erosion,and
the low shorefront bank height make risks to the structure relatively low,but still a necessary
consideration in any design development.
Shore Friendly Mason Page 8 of 10
Geologic Assessment Report—Kronquist/Sutherland
The low bank lends itself to the option of incorporating mechanical grading or resloping to
create a gentler access to the beach. Applying this to the active areas of bank retreat could help
stabilize the slope,create a pocket beach, and introduce interesting and habitat-enriching
variability in the configuration of the shoreline.
Because of its compactness,till generally does not provide a favorable rooting medium.
Therefore, any freshly exposed till should be capped with nutrient-rich soils and mulch as a
foundation for healthy native vegetation.The stabilizing role of the vegetation comes from its
development of a root network that binds the soil together, anchors the soil to underlying
sediment, and reduces destabilizing soil moisture through evapotranspiration. The nearby
cedar trees to the north speak to their important role in bank stabilization. The Mason
Conservation District Technical Team can provide recommendations for native plants
particularly suited to the site conditions and these planting objectives.
BULKHEAD REMOVAL FEASIBILITY SUMMARY
This assessment finds that the Kronquist/Sutherland property would be a good candidate for
bulkhead removal,with the necessary attention to deterring current triggers of bank instability.
Undertaking any shore modifications requires the understanding and acceptance that restored
coastal processes involve both erosion and deposition,particularly in the first few years
following treatment. Predicting the exact rate and location these will occur subsequent to
bulkhead removal is difficult.The successful project design will therefore need to accommodate
the potential impacts of high tide and storm waves, the notable surface and groundwater that
drain to the property,sea level rise, geologic hazards such as earthquakes, and existing
• shoreline regulations.
I hope you find this report helpful in making decisions on how best to develop Shore Friendly
solutions for the assessed shoreline. Please contact me with any questions or concerns
regarding the observations and findings presented herein.
Shore Friendly Mason Page 9 of 10
Geologic Assessment Report—Kronquist/Sutherland
REFERENCES
Logan, Robert L.;Walsh,Timothy J.,2007, Geologic map of the Vaughn 7.5-minute quadrangle,
Pierce and Mason Counties, Washington:Washington Division of Geology and Earth
Resources Geologic Map GM-65, 1 sheet, scale 1:24,000.
Mason County Parcel Search accessed at
http://magmason.co.mason.wa.us/website/mason/viewer.htm
Puget Sound Lidar Consortium accessed at http•//l2ugetsoundlidar.ess.washington.edu/
Washington Dept. of Ecology Coastal Atlas accessed at
httl2s:Hfortress.wa. og v/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Mal2.aspx
tie 01 Wash's
a
188
sed Geo\0
Wendy J. e 4/27X '
Wendy Gerstel Qwg Applied Geology
DISCLAIMER
The findings presented herein are based on site observations made on April 4,2015,in combination with interpretations
from a review of existing geologic maps, air photos, and other data available on the Internet. No drilling or other
subsurface explorations were made for this investigation. This contractor assumes no responsibility for the
implementation of any recommendations. No expressed or implied warranties are made regarding the use of this
information.This product is for use by the client only.
Shore Friendly Mason Page 10 of 10
Geologic Assessment Report—Kronquist/Sutherland
r
Cultural Resource Consultants
TECHNICAL MEMO 1608J-1
DATE: September 15, 2016
TO: Katrinka Hibler
Mason Conservation District
FROM: Margaret Berger, Principal Investigator
RE: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead
Project,Allyn,Mason County, Washington
The attached short report form constitutes our final report for the above referenced project. No
evidence of archaeological or historic sites was found in the project location. No further cultural
resources investigations are recommended. Please contact our office should you have any
questions about our findings and/or recommendations.
BALLARD LABS 1416 NW 46T"ST.,STE 105PMB 346, SEATTLE,WA 98107
PHONE 206 855-9020 - info@crcwa.com
1
Author: Sonja Kassa
Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland
Bulkhead Proiect, Allyn Mason County, Washington
Date of Report: September 15, 2016
County(ies): Mason Section: 29 Township: 22 N Range: 01 W
Quad: Vaughn, WA (1990) Acres: less than .1 acre
PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) ® Yes
Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? ❑ Yes ® No
Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? ❑ Yes ® No
TCP(s) found? ❑ Yes ® No
Replace a draft? ❑ Yes ® No
Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? ❑ Yes # ® No
Were Human Remains Found? ❑ Yes DAHP Case # ® No
DAHP Archaeological Site #:
• Submission of PDFs is required.
• Please be sure that any PDF submitted to
DAHP has its cover sheet, figures,
graphics, appendices, attachments,
correspondence, etc., compiled into one
single PDF file.
• Please check that the PDF displays
correctly when opened.
Management Summary
This report describes the cultural resources assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland
Bulkhead Project in Allyn, Mason County,Washington. Mason Conservation District requested
a cultural resources assessment prior to ground disturbing activities associated with the removal
of a bulkhead located at 241 E Nelson Road in Allyn. This assessment was developed to identify
any previously recorded archaeological or historic sites in the project location and to evaluate the
potential for the project to affect cultural resources. Background research and field investigations
conducted by Cultural Resource Consultants,LLC(CRC) did not result in the identification of
any previously unrecorded historic or archaeological sites. No further cultural resources work is
recommended.
1. Administrative Data
Report Title: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead
Project,Allyn,Mason County, Washington
Author s : Sonja Kassa
Report Date: September 15, 2016
Location: The project is located at 241 E Nelson Road in Allyn,Mason County, Washington.
Legal Description: The legal description for the project is Township 22 North, Range 01 West,
Section 29, W.M.
USGS 7 5' Topographic Map(s)• Vaughn, WA(1990)(Figure 1).
Total Area Involved: Less than .1 acre.
Objective Research�� Design): This assessment was developed as a component of
p P
reconstruction environmental rev
iew view with the goal
g of preventing cultural resources from being
disturbed during construction of the proposed project by identifying the potential for any as-yet
unrecorded archaeological or historic sites within the project area. CRC's work was intended, in
part, to assist in addressing state regulations pertaining to the identification and protection of
cultural resources (e.g., RCW 27.44,RCW 27.53). The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act
(RCW 27.53)prohibits knowingly disturbing archaeological sites without a permit from DAHP,
the Indian Graves and Records Act(RCW 27.44)prohibits knowingly disturbing Native
American or historic graves. This assessment is funded by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and is therefore considered a federal undertaking and subject to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA) of 1966 as amended. Under Section 106, agencies
involved in a federal undertaking must take into account the undertaking' s potential effects to
historic properties within the defined area of potential effects (APE) (36 CFR 800.16(1)(1)).
Historic properties are typically defined as those 50 years or older. This process involves
identifying and inventorying historic properties within the APE, and evaluating those properties
to determine if they are eligible for listing on the NRHP. If NRHP eligible historic properties are
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason County,WA
Page 2
i
1 ,
identified within the APE then potential adverse effects to the historic properties must be
assessed, and a resolution of adverse effects recommended.
CRC's investigations consisted of review of available project information and correspondence
provided by Mason Conservation District,local environmental and cultural information, and
historical maps; and field investigations. CRC contacted cultural resources staff at the Squaxin
Island Tribe, Skokomish Tribe, and Nisqually Tribe on a technical staff-to-technical staff basis to
inquire about project-related cultural information or concerns regarding the project area
(Attachment A). At the time this assessment was completed,the Nisqually Tribe responded that
they had no specific concern for this project. Any additional information made available
subsequent to the submission of this report will be included in a revision of this report. This
assessment utilized a research design that considered previous studies,the magnitude and nature
of the undertaking,the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties, and the likely
nature and location of historic properties within the area of potential effects (APE), as well as
other applicable laws, standards, and guidelines (per 36CFR800.4(b)(1)) (DAHP 2015).
behalf of Eileen Kron uist and Mike
District, on b q
Project Descri tion: Mason Conservation D P
Southerland,requested a cultural resources assessment for the Kronquist-Southerland Bulkhead
project located at 241 E Nelson Road in Allyn,Mason County,Washington. This project will
remove a 75-foot concrete bulkhead and install large woody debris(LWD) and rocks with some
associated grading at this moderately low bank waterfront property on Case Inlet.The existing
removed. This
will involve some
concrete bulkhead along 751inear feet of shoreline will be rem .
excavation,no more than 36 inches deep,to remove the concrete supports.Logs and/or rocks
led to stabilize the new slope. Depending on site
soils in area of focus,bank side
may be instal P
Y _
slopes may be cut back at a 3 to 1 slope.
For purposes of this assessment,the APE(hereafter `the project location') for cultural resources
for this project is considered to contain the locations of all project elements as described above
and as shown in Figures 1 —2.
Recorded Cultural Resources Present: Yes [ ] No [x]
2. Background Research
Background research was conducted in September 2016.
Context Overview: Six cultural resources assessments have been prepared by archaeologists
within a one-mile radius of the project(e.g.,Perrin et al. 2012). The context presented here
summarizes environmental,ethnographic,historical, and archaeological information presented in
these reports by reference; archaeological and historic data from DAHP and the Washington
Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data(WISAARD)records
search; ethnographic resources; geological and soils surveys(e.g.,USDA NRCS 2016;WA
DNR 2016); and historical maps and documents from Bureau of Land Management United
States Surveyor General(USSG)Land Status&Cadastral Survey Records database,
HistoryLink,Historic Map Works,HistoricAerials (NETR 2016),University of Washington's
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason County,Page 3
Digital Collection,Washington State University's Early Washington Maps Collection, CRC's
library, and project information provided by Mason Conservation District.
Environmental Context: The project area is geographically situated within the Puget Trough
Province between the Olympic Peninsula and the Cascade Mountains (Franklin and Dyrness
1973). This portion of the province is described as a depressed glacial lowland part of which is
submerged creating the Puget Sound. Late Pleistocene and early Holocene glacial events shaped
the geomorphology of this region by creating this broad low-lying province characterized by
glacial outwash surfaces and channels.
The most recent glacial event in the Puget Sound,termed the Vashon Stade of the Fraser
glaciation,began approximately 17,000-18,000 years ago. Rising temperatures roughly 14,000
years ago brought about sudden climatic change causing the glacier to rapidly retreat north. This
transition into an ice-free regional landscape allowed the area to be suitable for habitation by
approximately 11,000 years ago(Kruckeberg 1991:22). Globally,the formation of large glaciers
lowered eustatic sea levels. The retreat of the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet caused a
rise in sea levels and initiated isostatic rebound after deglaciation, locally altering the sea levels.
Reconstructions of sea level change in near by areas (e.g., Quilcene and Squamish Harbor)have
indicated that sea levels were significantly lower(10-24 feet) during the Early Holocene(Beale
1990). During the Vashon Stade, the advance and retreat of glaciers scoured and compacted
underlying geology.
While sedimentation during glacial times was widespread and voluminous, active deposition in
non-glacial periods including the present day has been more restricted, occurring in river valleys
and at the base of steep slopes (Booth et al. 2003). In addition, geomorphic processes such as
isostatic rebound, global sea level rise, and tectonic movement are also factors that have affected
the geomorphology of the Puget Sound region to varying degrees during the Holocene (Booth et
al. 2003; Dragovich et al. 2000; Thorson 1989). These events created a palimpsest landscape
largely characterized by glacial advance and retreat features overlain with Holocene sediments in
low lying areas, the results of which formed the landforms and parent materials present in the
project.
Surface GeoloQy: Mapped surface geology for the study area consists of Pleistocene
continental glacial drift(Qgd) (WA DNR 2016). The Pleistocene continental glacial drift unit is
comprised of Pleistocene till and outwash clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders deposited
by or originating from continental glaciers. Local variations within this unit may be nonglaical
sediments,modified land, and/or artificial fill.
Mapped Soils: Soils mapped in the project location consist of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8
to 15 percent slopes (USDA NRCS 2016). This soil unit forms on ridges and hills from glacial
drift and/or glacial outwash over dense glaciomarine deposits deposited during the late
Pleistocene. A typical profile of this soil unit is: 0 to 7 inches: gravelly sandy loam, and 7 to 59
inches: very gravelly sandy loam. Deposition during the Holocene was likely restricted to the
build-up of organic material creating a modest humus layer on the ground surface.Natural
coastal processes have also played a role in removing or depositing sediments within the project
area(Downing 1983).
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason County,WA
Page 4
Archaeological Context: Thousands of years of human occupation of the Puget Sound have
been summarized in a number of archaeological, ethnographic, and historical investigations over
the past several decades that provide a regional context for evaluating the project area(e.g.,
Greengo 1983;Kopperl et al. 2010;Larson and Lewarch 1995;Morgan et al. 1999;Nelson
1990).Following deglaciation, subsequent changes to landforms, climate, and vegetation
influenced the available resources and,consequently,the spatial distribution of human activities.
Similar to elsewhere,human land use was generally structured around the value of natural
resources available in local environments including fresh water,terrestrial and marine food
resources, forests, and suitable terrain. Archaeological evidence suggests the presence of
nomadic hunter- gatherers not long after the area became ice-free about 12,000 years before
present(B.P.).
Ames and Maschner(1999)defined a broad regional sequence for the Pacific Northwest based
on cultural change over time: Paleo-Indian(pre-Clovis-Clovis) (circa 11,800 B.C.— 10,500 B.C.),
Archaic(10,500 B.C.—4,400 B.C.), Early(4,400— 1,800 B.C.),Middle(1,800 B.C.—A.D.
200/250), and Late Pacific (A.D. 200/250—A.D. 1,775), and Modern(after A.D. 1,775). Land
use shifted from generalized marine, littoral, and/or terrestrial use during the Paleo-
Indian/Archaic to littoral,tidal, and terrestrial in the Early Pacific and continued into the
ethnographic periods. Settlement patterns also changed during the Archaic to Early Pacific from
short-term use of pit houses and shelters to increased sedentism in seasonal or permanent villages
with special use or seasonal campsites. Subsistence followed a similar pattern as that of land use
with a general exploitation of resources available on the landscape. During the Early Pacific
there was an increased use of littoral and tidal resources, an increased focus on marine and
riverine resources in the Middle Pacific, and specialization in marine,riverine,littoral, and
terrestrial in the Late Pacific due to food storage methodologies.
Owing to problems with preservation(high moisture, soil acidity), coastal and riverine
archaeological finds are generally limited to shell middens, stone tools, and stone tool-making
debris (Carlson 1990). Technology during the Paleo-Indian and Archaic periods consisted of
lithics,bone, antler, and perishable materials. During the Early Pacific the frequency of these
materials in the archaeological record increases. In assemblages from the Middle and Late
Pacific, a diversification of tools and tackle of bone is seen while stone tools occur in lower
frequencies. Contact between Indian peoples of Puget Sound and Euro-Americans brought about
significant changes to native culture resulting from acculturation pressures to Euro-American
ways of life.
Traditional Territory: The project area lies within territory traditionally used and occupied by the
Squaxin, Twana, and Skokomish people(Ruby and Brown 1992; Spier 1936). During late
historic times,the South Coast Salish occupied the south Puget Sound.The Squaxin people
occupied the seven inlets in the area between Hood Canal and Case Inlet;while the Twana
occupied the Skokomish River area and either side of Hood Canal.
Ethnog[ Nhic Context: Early ethnographers documented locations of villages and names for
resource areas,water bodies,and other cultural or geographic landscape features from local
informants.Named places and village sites tended to be located along major waterway,river
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn,Mason Cou t,�W 6
confluences and/or the mouths of streams and creeks. Waterman(ca. 1920, 2001:267-268)
identified one name place, T sgwElts,north of the project near Allyn was named for Sherwood
Creek and translated as"hot."
Historic Context: The historic contact of the general project area is provided by Chambers
(2013a:9-10),
"Spanish explorers first navigated the Puget Sound area in the early
1600s...Exploring Expedition, under Lieutenant Charles Wilkes, mapped and
subsequently named the bays and inlets throughout Admiralty Inlet, Hood Canal
and Puget Sound, in an attempt to promote the region's potential for non-native
settlement (Rochester 2003)...Regional non-native settlement increased
drastically following the Oregon Donation Land Act of 1850...One of the first
non-native settlements in North Bay is credited to Silas Stiles (North Bay
Beginnings, Mason County Historical Society Museum, Shelton, Washington). In
1872, John Wiseman took out a DLC on the east side of North Bay (Davis n.d.).
A few years later, in 1889, Fred Sisson and his family settled in what was to
become Victor. The Sisson's purchased the land from Herman Woodin who had
come to area in 1887 (Davis n.d.). In 1887, John and Delilah Eberhart and James
and Deborah Wickersham each settled on 149 acres on what was to become Allyn
(Allyn Community Association n.d.)...by 1854, following negotiations between
the Squaxin (as well as the Nisqually and Puyallup) and the United States
• government the tribe's territory had been ceded to the United States Government
in exchange for reservation lands. The Squaxin were assigned a reservation on
Squaxin Island and compelled to abandon their villages. Non-native settlement
along North Bay continued to expand especially nearest the shorelines where
resources were more readily accessible. The shorelines supported the early
economies of the local communities, which primarily included logging,
viticulture, and oystering...Sawmills were established along drainages where
water was used to power the mills and to float the logs from one place to another.
By the 1900s, Case Inlet had become home to two main oyster growers /
operators: the Sargent Oyster Company located near the head of the bay and
Coast Oyster at Allyn(Allyn Community Association n.d.)...The early North Bay
communities also depended heavily on the waterways for transportation as the
few roads in the early days consisted of a trail between Victor and Allyn (Victor
Cut-Off Road) (Davis n.d.; Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 1856a, 1856b,
1858). Initially, privately owned boats and docks were the principle mode of
transportation to move people and served the local needs very well but as the
industries and populations grew larger watercrafts were required...Steamboats
served communities all along Case Inlet including at Grapeview (Detroit), Allyn,
Eberhardt Float, and Stretch Island(Findlay and Patterson 2008)...The waterways
continued to provide the area's principle source of transportation until the 1930s
when water travel was largely replaced by the development of roads."
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project, Allyn, Mason County, WA
Page 6
Historical Records Search: Review of historical maps and aerial imagery provided an
understanding of the historic and modern land use, and ownership of the project location. The
General Land Office conducted early cadastral surveys to define or re-establish the boundaries
and subdivisions of Federal Lands of the United States so that land patents could be issued
transferring the title of the land from the Federal government to individuals. The USSG(1856)
map depicts the project as located in Tract 6 (21 acres)of Section 29 Township 22 North,Range
01 West(Figure 3).No cultural annotations (e.g.,trails)were noted within proximity to the
project location; however,"Sherwood's Mill"is identified in the N'h of the NW'/4.Numerous
trails are identified at the northern end and eastern side of Case Inlet. According to the BLM
(2016)records, Tract 6 was patented to John C. Gill on February 12, 1892 (BLM Serial Nr:
WAOAA 086636;Authority: May 20, 1862: Homestead Entry Original [12 Stat. 392]). The
USGS (1898)map shows the project location and the majority of the shoreline around Puget
Sound as"Area form which timber has been cut."Historic aerial imagery available from 1951
until present shows the project location a sparely vegetated with few trees, similar to that
observed during the present day(NETR 2016). Historic topographic maps available from 1954 to
present do not depict any pertinent information regarding the project area(NETR 2016). The
Metsker(1955)map does not depict any specific ownership information regarding the project
location.
DAHP Records Search: A review of the WISAARD database identified previous cultural
resource studies,recorded precontact and historic sites, and recorded built environment,which
helps gauge the potential and likely nature of cultural resources present within the project
vicinity(DAHP 2016). Six cultural resources assessments have been completed within one mile
of the project location. These investigations have been conducted in response to a Mason County
historic maritime transportation survey(Chambers 2013a), culvert replacement(Kiers 2015),
power line installation(Norman and Nelson 2001),transportation routes (Bundy 2007; Cole
2002), and hydroelectric development(Perrin et al. 2012). Of these,Norman and Nelson(2001)
did not identify potentially significant prehistoric or historic cultural resources; however,three
isolated historic objects were observed; Cole(2002) identified a precontact shell midden
determined potentially eligible for historic registers under Criterion D;Perrin et al. (2012)
identified the Cushman Hydroelectric Project North Bay Crossing a contributing resource within
the Cushman Hydroelectric Historic District and recommended minimization and mitigation of
effects to the property; and Chambers(2013)recorded 18 historic inventory properties and 11
archaeological sites.
Cultural resources identified within one mile of the project location as a result of the above listed
and other cultural resource discipline studies are identified as follows.Eight historic structures
over 50 years in age have been recorded at approximately one mile from the proposed project to
the north, south, and east(Table 1).None of these have been found eligible for historic registers
and none will be affected by the proposed project.
Numerous archaeological sites have been recorded along the shore of North Bay and in the
vicinity of Allyn. Two sites have been recorded within one mile of the proposed project.
Approximately .45 mile to the northwest is historic-era site 45MS222, a historic water structure
consisting a evenly spaced, deteriorated pilings located at the head of a small inlet on North Bay
(Chambers 2013b). To the southwest of the proposed project approximately .45 mile is
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason County,WA
Page 7
precontact site 45MS 11, a shell midden located near the mouth of a small creek on the shoreline
(Howard 1949). This site consisted of shell and humus that covered an area 30.2 yards northeast-
southwest and between 2 to 10 yards northwest of the banks edge. A small piece of worked bone
was collected.
3. Archaeological Expectations
Archaeological Predictive Model: The DAHP statewide predictive model uses environmental
data about the locations of known archaeological sites to identify where previously unknown
sites are more likely to be found. The model correlates locations of known archaeological data to
environmental data"to determine the probability that,under a particular set of environmental
conditions, another location would be expected to contain an archaeological site"(Kauhi and
Markert 2009:2-3). Environmental data categories included in the model are elevation, slope,
aspect,distance to water, geology, soils, and landforms. The model classifies the proposed
corridor location as "Survey Highly Advised: Very High Risk" for the project area to contain as-
yet unrecorded archaeological sites (DAHP 2016). This prediction is supported by the project's
location in a shoreline environment.
According to Schalk's (1988)predictive model for the identification of precontact cultural
resources on the Olympic Peninsula, which can be generalized for other areas around the Puget
Sound, and summarized by Lewarch et al. (1993),the resources that most influence the spatial
distribution of people on the landscape would be 1) anadromous fish runs, 2)shellfish beds, and
3)marine fish in tide flats and deep offshore waters. Consequently,the material record of
precontact people on the landscape would be found along shorelines, slightly inland in protected
flat areas, and near the mouths of freshwater rivers and creeks.
Archaeological Expectations:This assessment considers the implications of the predictive model
coupled with an understanding of geomorphological context, local settlement patterns, and post-
depositional processes to characterize the potential for archaeological deposits to be encountered.
Local geomorphology and the mapped depositional context indicate that intact,undisturbed
archaeological deposits, if present,would likely be shallowly buried and may be seen in eroding
cut banks or other subsurface exposures. Given the nature of the subject property it is likely that
potential deposits could have been disturbed by earth moving activities and erosive beach forces,
or preserved by capping with fill.
Consequently,the project has the potential to contain precontact and historic era resources.
Types of precontact archaeology that may be encountered could include shell middens, culturally
modified faunal remains,hearth features, fish weirs, stone or bone tools and/or implements,
structural remnants, or other evidence of resource gathering and processing activities, and/or
temporary or more permanent camps. Historic era archaeology would most likely be associated
with logging activities and/or residential development.
4. Field Investigations
Total Area Examined: The entire APE(less than .1 acre).
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn,Mason County,WA
Page 8
Areas not examined: None.
Date(s)of Survey: September 14, 2016
Weather and Surface Visibility: Weather conditions were warm(-80 degrees) and sunny.
Mineral soil visibility was present in the eroding shoreline bank and in soil exposure within the
grassy lawn.
Field Methodology: Pedestrian surface survey and subsurface survey via hand
excavated shovel test probes(STPs).
Fieldwork conducted by: Sonja Kassa.Notes are on file with CRC.
Fieldwork consisted of pedestrian surface survey and subsurface testing via hand excavated
shovel test probes. Pedestrian survey provided information on the current condition of the project
area and helped to gauge the potential for as-yet unknown archaeology within the project
boundary. The project can be described as a moderately sloping manicured lawn contained
behind a concrete bulkhead(Figure 3). The bulkhead was failing in the southern portion,which
had caused a large segment of the shoreline to erode landward exposing a cut bank profile
(Figure 4). Sediments lacked stratigraphy and were comprised of cemented yellow gray fine
sandy silt with poorly sorted gravels and cobbles that matched the mapped glacially derived
surface geology and soils description. The archaeologist walked the shoreline along the bulkhead
examining smaller mineral soil exposures (Figure 5) and attempting to identify any cultural
materials along the beach that may have eroded away;none were identified. Soil exposures
demonstrated that subsurface environment was consistent throughout the length of the project.
Two probes were excavated within the project boundary(Figure 6). Probes were placed in select
locations to examine subsurface conditions across the project and identify areas that may be
more likely to contain as-yet unrecorded archaeology. The probes were manually excavated with
a shovel and all sediments were passed through 1/4-inch hardware mesh to screen for artifacts.
The probes were 30 to 40 centimeters in diameter and reached depths of 23 to 60 centimeters
below surface(Table 2). STP 1 consisted of sediments consistent with those observed behind the
eroding bulkhead,while sediments in STP consisted of presumably the same sediments as STP 1
that had been redeposited to fill behind the bulkhead,these were moist and dark grey and were
present over beach material(Figures 7 and 8).
Both probes were negative for intact archaeological deposits.No intact historic or precontact
archaeological materials or buried anthropogenic surfaces were identified during the course of
this survey. Probes were backfilled immediately following documentation.
5. Results
Cultural Resources Identified within the APE: None.
Project Conclusions Findings and Recommendations: This assessment was conducted to
determine potential effects of this project on cultural resources;no previously unrecorded
cultural resources were identified..Nor does this project contain the likelihood to affect cultural
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn,Mason County,9 9
resources. Based on background research and field investigations, CRC recommends a
determination of"No historic properties affected."
In the event that any ground-disturbing or other construction activities result in the unanticipated
discovery of archaeological resources,work should be halted in the immediate area, and contact
made with county officials,the technical staff at DAHP, and tribal representatives. A protocol
for unanticipated discoveries is provided in Attachment B. Work should be stopped until further
investigation and appropriate consultation have concluded. In the unlikely event of the
unanticipated discovery of human remains, work should be immediately halted in the area, the
discovery covered and secured against further disturbance, and contact effected with law
enforcement personnel, consistent with the provisions set forth in RCW 27.44.055 and RCW
68.60.055.
No historic properties affected [x]
Historic properties affected []
No adverse effect to historic properties [ ]
Adverse effect to historic properties [ ]
Attachments:
Figures [x]
Photographs [x]
Other [x] Copies of project related correspondence between CRC and area tribes
cultural resources staff.
[x] Inadvertent Discovery Protocol.
6. Limitations of this Assessment
No cultural resources study can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for
prehistoric sites,historic properties or traditional cultural properties to be associated with a
project. The information presented in this report is based on professional opinions derived from
our analysis and interpretation of available documents,records, literature, and information
identified in this report, and on our field investigation and observations as described herein.
Conclusions and recommendations presented apply to project conditions existing at the time of
our study and those reasonably foreseeable. The data, conclusions, and interpretations in this
report should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions described in this report.
They cannot necessarily apply to site changes of which CRC is not aware and has not had the
opportunity to evaluate.
7. References
Allyn Community Association
n.d. Allyn Settled 1853. Electronic resource,http://allynwa.com/id38.htm, accessed June 2013.
Ames,K. M. and Maschner,H. D. G.
1999 Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames&Hudson,
London.
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason County,WA
Page 10
Beale,H.
1990 Relative Rise in Sea-Level during the Past 5000 Years at Six Salt Marshes in Northern
Puget Sound, Washington. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia.
Booth,D. B.,R.A. Haugerud, and K.G. Troost
2003 The Geology of Puget Lowland Rivers. In Restoration of Puget Sound Rivers, edited by
D. Montgomery, S. Bolton, and D.B. Booth, chapter 2.University of Washington Press,
Seattle.
Bundy,Barbara
2007 Section 106 Compliance State Highways Safety Project,XL 2645. Washington State
Department of Transportation.
Bureau of Land Management(BLM)
1856a Township No. 21 North,Range No. 1 West,Willamette Meridian. General Land Office
(GLO)Land Status and Cadastral Survey Records. Electronic resource,
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov, accessed July 2013.
1856b Township No. 22 North,Range No. 1 West,Willamette Meridian. General Land Office
(GLO)Land Status and Cadastral Survey Records. Electronic resource,
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov, accessed July 2013.
1858 Township No. 21 North,Range No. 2 West,Willamette Meridian. General Land Office
(GLO)Land Status and Cadastral Survey Records.Electronic resource,
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov, accessed July 2013.
Carlson,R. L.
1990 Cultural Antecedents.In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7:Northwest
Coast,pp. 60-69. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D.C.
Chambers, Jennifer
2013a Mason County Historic Maritime Transportation Survey: Phase 1. Aqua Terra Cultural
Resource Consultants. Submitted to Mason County Historic Preservation Commission.
2013b State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45MS222. On file at DAHP,
Olympia.
Cole, Stephen C.
2002 Heritage Resources Investigations for the Grapeview Loop Road Reconstruction,Mason
County,Washington.Northwest Archaeological Associates,Inc. Submitted to Mason
County Department of Public Works.
Davis,Irene B.
n.d. Victor. Unpublished personal account held at Mason County Historic Society, Shelton.
Downing,John
1983 The Coast of Puget Sound:Its Processes and Development. Washington Sea Grant
Publication University of Washington Press, Seattle.
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason County,WA
Page 11
Dragovich,J.D.,B.W. Stanton,W.S. Lingley Jr., G.A. Griesel, and M. Polenz
2003 Geologic Map of the Mount Higgins 7.5-minute Quadrangle Skagit and Snohomish
Counties,Washington. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File
Report 2003-12,Washington State Department of Natural Resources.
Findlay,Jean Cammon and Robin Patterson
2008 Mosquito Fleet of South Sound Puget Sound. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston.
Franklin, Jerry F., and C. T.Dyrness
1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PNW-8.
Google,Inc.
2015 Google Earth Pro(Version 7.1.5.1557). [Software] Available from
https://www.google.com/work/earthmaps/earthpro.httnl, accessed August 21, 2016.
Greengo,Robert E. (editor)
1983 Prehistoric Places on the Southern Northwest Coast. Thomas Burke Memorial
Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle.
Howard,Florence
1949 University of Washington Archaeological Field Form,45MS222. On file at DAHP,
Olympia.
Kauhi,T. C., and J. Markert
2009 Washington Statewide Archaeology Predictive Model. GeoEngineers. Submitted to
DAHP, Olympia.
Kiers,Roger
2015 Cultural Resources Survey, SR 302 N. of E. Victor Rd—Culvert Replacement
pProject,
Mason County,Washington. Washington State Department of Transportation.
Kopperl, R., C. J. Miss, and C. M. Hodges
2010 Results of Testing at the Bear Creek Site 45KI839,Redmond, King County, Washington.
Prepared for City of Redmond and David Evans and Associates, Inc. Northwest
Archaeological Associates,Inc., Seattle.
Kruckeberg,A. R.
1991 The Natural History of Puget Sound County. University of Washington Press. Seattle.
Larson,Lynn L., and Dennis E. Lewarch(editors)
1995 The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle,Washington: 4,000 Years of Hunter-Fisher-
Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound. Larson Anthropological Archaeological
Services, Gig Harbor, Washington.
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason County,WA
Page 12
Lewarch,Dennis E.,Leonard Forsman, and Lynn L. Larson
1993 Cultural Resources Overview and Probabilistic Model for Subase Bangor and Camp
Wesley Harris,Kitsap County,Washington. LAAS. Submitted to Parametrix,Inc.
Metsker Map Company(Metsker)
1955 Page 004. In Atlas of Mason County 1955. Electronic document,
http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/JS/29615/Page+004/Mason+County+I955/Wa
shington/, accessed September 12,2016.
ine
Morgan,Vera, Glenn Hartmann, Susan Axton, and Craig Holst
1999 Cultural Context. In The SR-101 Sequim Bypass Archaeological Project: Mid- to Late-
Holocene Occupations on the Northern Olympic Peninsula, Clallam County,
Washington, edited by V. E.Morgan,pp. 3.1-3.36.Report prepared for Washington
Department of Transportation. Eastern Washington University Reports in Archaeology
and History 100-108,Archaeology and Historical Services, Cheney.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research,LLC (NETR)
Resource h ://www.historicaerials.com/?javascript,
2016 Historic Ae
rials. Electronicrip
accessed August 21, 2016.
Nelson, Charles M.
1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In Handbook of North American Indians,Volume
7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles,pp. 481-484. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington,D.C.
Norman,Leslie K., and Margaret A.Nelson
2001 Heritage Resources Investigations for the Proposed Power Line along Highway 3 South
of Allyn,Mason County,Washington.Northwesr Archaeological Associates,Inc.
Submitted to Mason County Public Utilities Department No. 3.
Perrin,Natalie K.,Jenny Dellert, and Heather Lee Miller
2012 Cushman Hydroelectric Development Mason County,Washington North Bay Crossing
Rebuild Project Section 106 Evaluation Report. Historical Research Associates.
Submitted to Tacoma Public Utilities.
Rochester,Janius
2003 Pacific Northwest Explorations Before the American Presence. HistoryLink.org Essay
5449. Electronic resource,
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfin?DisplayPage=output.cfin&file_id=5449, accessed
May 2013.
Ruby,Robert H., and John A. Brown
1992 A Guide to Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest.University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason County, WA
Page 13
Schalk,Randall
1988 The Evolution and Diversification of Native Land Use Systems on the Olympic
Peninsula: A Research Design. Institute for Environmental Studies University of
Spier,Leslie
1936 Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology, Number 3. George
Banta Publishing Company,Menasha,Wisconsin.
Squaxin Island Tribe
2007 Squaxin Island Tribe: General Information. Electronic resource,
http://www.squaxinisland.org, accessed December 30,2015.
Thorson,Robert M.
1989 Glacio-isostatic Response of the Puget Sound Area,Washington. Department of
Geology and Geophysics, University of Connecticut.
United States Geological Survey(USGS)
1898 Map of western Washington, showing classification of lands. Electronic resource,
http://content.libraries.wsu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/maps/id/51, accessed
September 12,2016.
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA
NRCS)
2016 Web Soil Survey,Washington. Electronic resource,
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed September 12,
2016.
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management(BLM)
2016 General Land Office Records Search. Electronic resource,
http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/details/patent/default.aspx?accession=WAORAA%2000
4720&docClass=SER&sid=uklbehxw.4mk, accessed September 12,2016.
United States Surveyor General(USSG)
1856 General Land Office Map, Township 22 N., Range 02 W, Willamette Meridian.
Electronic resource,
http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/yPlatView 1_2.php?path=PWA&name=t220n
01Ow 001 jpg, September 12, 2016.
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation(DAHP)
2015 Washington State Standards for Cultural Resources Reporting 2015. On file at DAHP,
Olympia.
2016 Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data
(WISAARD) database. Electronic resource,https://secureaccess.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/,
accessed September 12,2016.
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason County,WA
Page 14
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR)
2016 Washington Interactive Geologic Map.Division of Geology and Earth Resources—
Washington's Geological Survey.Electronic resource,
https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/geology/, accessed September 12,2016.
Waterman,T. T.
ca.1920 Puget Sound Geography.Unpublished manuscript,Allen Library,University of
Washington, Seattle.
2001 sda?da?gw el dibel legucid?acaciltalbixw Puget Sound Geography.Vi Hilbert,Jay
Miller, and Zalmai Zahir, contributing editors. Lushootseed Press,Federal Way,
Washington.
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason Co P 9e 5
8. Figures and Tables
j
ttt
✓^ Project Site
Rocky Poi
Figure 1. Portion of USGS Vaughn,WA(1990)WA 7.5-minute quadrangle annotated with the approximate location
of the proposed project.
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason County,WA
Page 16
•
Figure 2.The red line indicates the location of the existing concrete bulkhead.The area of potential effect is outlined
in orange.Equipment will be stationed on the bank above and not on the beach.The blue box indicates the septic
drain field location.The white line indicates the likely equipment access route using the existing driveway and lawn
area.Provided by Mason Conservation District.
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason County,Page 17
_ a
y w b t ,fit
i 1
y
Figure 3. Overview of the project location;view is to the southwest.
'Oa
S
r
1 � _
44"'
4'
ur• >
Figure 4. Overview of the failing bulkhead in the foreground and the exposed bank face in the
background in the southern portion of the project;view is to the northwest.
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason County,WA
Page 19
Table 1.Historic invento ro erties identified within one mile of the project location.
Historic Function Potential Project
Address Built Date Historic Register Status Effects
1344 Treasure Island Dr, Maritime 1956 Inventory-No None.
Grapeview,WA determination made by
SHPO.
5590 State Route 302 E, Domestic—Single- 1920 Inventory-No None.
Belfair,WA 98528 family residence determination made by
SHPO.
200 Rocky Point Ln, Domestic—Single- 1930 Inventory-No None.
Belfair,WA 98528 family residence determination made by
SHPO.
180 Rocky Point Ln E, Domestic—Single- 1920 Inventory-No None.
Belfair,WA 98528 family residence determination made by
SHPO.
80 Rocky Point Ln E, Domestic—Single- 1920 Inventory-No None.
Belfair,WA family residence determination made by
SHPO.
7700 E Grapeview Loop Domestic—Single- 1940 SHPO determined not None.
Rd,Allyn,WA family residence eligible for historic
registers.
7710 E Grapeview Loop Domestic—Single- 1960 SHPO determined not None.
Rd,Allyn,WA 98524 family residence eligible for historic
registers.
7730 E Grapeview Loop Domestic—Single- 1950 SHPO determined not None.
Rd,Allyn,WA 98524 family residence eligible for historic
registers.
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project, Allyn, Mason County,Page 18
+ A
Ar
'0 t �,,•
Figure 5.Overview of an exposed bank face in the northern potion of the project;view is to the
west.
�. /fir •'<� i � ''
► r._
SIP2•
r
4P
Figure 6. Satellite imagery annotated with the locations of the excavated probes(base map:
Google Earth).
CRC Technical Memorandum#1608J-1
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Kronquist and Southerland Bulkhead Project,Allyn, Mason County, WA
Page 20