HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2010-00005 Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 6/22/2010 Mason County
Department of Planning
g
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
June 22, 2010
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Allan Borden, 360.427.9670 ext. 365
RE: Mason County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SHR2010-00005).
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates an application for a Shoreline Substantial
Development permit for the construction of a joint use pier-ramp-float structure
with a 54 ft. long by 4 ft wide wooden pier(with 100 percent functional grating),
a 40 ft by 4 ft aluminum fully grated ramp leading to a 24 ft long by 8 ft wide
long float(with 50 percent functional grating). Four galvanized steel piling
support the pier; four galvanized steel piling secure the float. One stub piling and
a float stop on each of the float pilings are proposed. Total length of the structure
from the Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM) is 115 feet. A mooring buoy is
proposed at 330 feet from the bulkhead, secured by a screw anchor. See attached
Biological Evaluation(Exhibit 12) for more details. Staff fmds the proposal is
consistent with Mason County Shoreline Master Program Piers and Docks
policies and use regulations and recommends permit conditions if the
proposal is approved.
II. Applicant: Peter Orser.
III. Agent: Amy Leitman, Marine Surveys and Assessments.
IV. Date of Complete Application: May 20, 2014.
V. Site address and Project Location: 6500 and 6510 E Grapeview Loop Rd.;
Grapeview, WA. Parcels 12232-10-01100 and 12232-10-01090.
VI. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the area. The general area is characterized by single-family
residential construction along Case Inlet on the east side of Grapeview Loop
Rd. (Exhibit 4 and 5). Residences near the project site along the waterfront
have lot depths of 300 to 1,300 feet, and lot widths of 70 to 100 feet. From
the subject property line, an existing 100-foot long pier-ramp-float to the
south is 1,220 feet away; no pier-ramp-float structure is located to the north
Orser SHR2014-00012 pier ramp float staff report 1
into the Allyn area(Exhibit 3). The beach area is cobbly and gravelly, with
some shell evident. See the attached Biological Evaluation (Exhibit 12) for a
more complete description.
B. Characteristic of the site. Two properties are involved in this request; the
Orsers own both parcels. Each of their properties are 100 feet wide along the
Case Inlet shoreline (Exhibit 2). The shoreline is protected by a rock bulkhead
for the entire width of each property and a rock- gravel ramp is located
between the properties. (pages 43 to 45 in Exhibit 12). The proposed pier-
ramp-float will be located at an existing wooden deck on parcel -01100 and
will extend from the top of the bulkhead waterward for 115 feet (pages 45 in
Exhibit 12).
The USFWS has designated the project site as critical habitat in Case Inlet for
Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout and Puget Sound Chinook salmon. The
Biological Evaluation//Regional General Permit 6 (RGP6) (Exhibit 12)
submitted by the Agent notes: a)that some primary constituent elements of
critical habitat for Puget Sound Chinook are resent and the proposal may
g P P p Y
affect estuarine and nearshore elements during pile driving; and b)that
primary constituent elements of critical habitat for Puget Sound Bull Trout are
not present. The noise and turbidity of the proposal may affect foraging and
migratory habitat in the saltwater areas but minimally affect prey species
when pile driving is scheduled at appropriate times when these species are not
spawning. Surf smelt are known to spawn in the area and are limited by
appropriate spawning substrate.
C. Comprehensive Plan Desi ation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site is Rural.
D. Shoreline Master Program Designation. The Shoreline Master Program
environmental designation for the site is Urban.
E. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 (RR-5).
VII. SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements.A Notice of
Shoreline Management Permit for a Substantial Development Permit, SHR2014-
00012 was issued 06/26/14 and posted on 07/22/14 (Exhibit 9). The Affidavit of
Publication of Shoreline Management Permit is attached(Exhibit 10). The
proposal was reviewed under SEPA, SEP2014-00030 when a DNS was issued on
07/14/14 (Exhibit 8). No comments have been received to date.
VIII. Other Permits. The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit,
Hydraulic Project Approval from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW), Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Protection
Concurrence, and US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)approval.
Orser SIMO 14-00012 pier ramp float staff report 2
IX. Analysis. Per the Mason County Shoreline Master Program SMP this proposal
Y tY g � )� P P
requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the cost exceeding
$5850 per Title 15.09.055 and by reference to the Project Classifications matrix,
Title 17.50.050. The proposal is for a joint-use pier-ramp-float on an Urban
Designation shoreline and requires a Substantial Development Permit using the
applicable policies and use regulations regarding Piers and Docks.
Applicable Pier and Dock Policies from Comprehensive Plan Chap. XI are:
1. Piers and docks should be designed and located to minimize obstruction of
views and conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen.
The proposed joint-use pier-ramp-float structure may impact some view
corridors for existing neighbors to the north and south, given that there is a
no pier-ramp-float structure to the north and existing structures more than
1,200 feet south of this project site (Exhibit 4). The proposed structure will be
10 to 15 feet above the beach at 25 to 40 feet from the bulkhead and is
unlikely to cause conflicts with beach users, recreational boaters andlor
fisherman.
2. Cooperative uses of piers and docks are favored, especially in tidal waters.
The proposal is for a joint-use pier-ramp-float structure; see proposed joint-
use agreement(Exhibit 11). The proposed structure uses the additional 15 ft.
length provision of I15 foot total length and the float area of 192 sq.ft. with
50 percent functional grating.
3. The type, design and location of docks and piers should be compatible with
the shoreline characteristics, tidal actions, aesthetics, adjacent land and water
uses.
As noted in policy#1, the proposed structure will be of a similar length as
existing pier-ramp-float structures farther south that are attached to existing
bulkheads. A joint-use proposal consolidates the recreational use of two
shoreline properties. The proposed float is under 200 sq.ft. area,far less
than the 700 sq.ft. area allowed by the Piers and Docks regulation for two-
party joint-use proposals. The pilings will have stops that will prevent the
floats from grounding out and disturbing the beach. The surface of the
proposed pier, ramp and float elements will each have grating to minimize
shading of the aquatic environment and beach area. No change in the littoral
movement of beach substrate should be caused by the construction or
operation of the structure. The proposal is compatible with the shoreline
recreational(beach access, boating,fishing, and piers and docks uses) and
adjacent residential land uses.
5. Mooring buoys and floats are preferred over piers and docks.
The proposal is for a joint-use pier supported by four galvanized steel piling
that provides access to the 8-foot wide by 24 foot deep float secured by four
Orser SBMO14-00012 pier ramp float staff report 3
galvanized steel piling. A mooring buoy is proposed at 330 feet from the
bulkhead, secured by a screw anchor (Exhibit 6).
7. Boat houses and covered moorages shall be discouraged.
None of these structures are proposed.
Applicable Title 17.50 Pier and Dock Use Regulations are:
1. The location and design of docks and piers, as well as the subsequent use shall
minimize adverse effects on fish, shellfish, wildlife and water quality.
The Biological Evaluation contained in the habitat management plan &
biological evaluation document (Exhibit 12) identifies no significant
environmental threat from this joint-use proposal. The direct effects from the
proposed project may cause some short-term impacts on salmon from the
turbidity and noise caused by the pile-driving. Indirect effects over the long-
term might include alteration of nearshore juvenile salmon migratory
pathways, increase in salmonid predation, reduction in prey resources and
location of refugia due to shading of the substrate by the structure and
additional area of increased boat use. The applicant has integrated 100
percent functional grating into the pier structure and 50 percent functional
grating into the float structure. Eelgrass blades were not observed during
their surveys; therefore, this project will most likely not impact salmon forage
habitat. Verylittle
t tl e use by shellfish was noted to the surveys conducted an the
area of the ramp and float structures. Surf smelt will not be impacted due to
absence of suitable spawning substrate.
2. Docks and piers shall be located, designed and operated to not significantly
impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent property owners,
or adjacent water uses. Structures shall be located a minimum of five feet
from side property lines. Community or joint-use facilities may be located on
the property line.
The proposed pier-ramp float will be located more than 30 feet south of the
common property line between lot—01100 and lot—01090. This location is at
he existing small beck on the southern of the two properties involved,
minimizes the obstruction of views from neighboring properties, and is
designed to not interfere with continued recreational uses in the beach area.
4. No pier, dock, or float or similar device shall have a residential structure
constructed upon it.
None are proposed.
7. Maximum overall length of a recreational pier or dock facility including
float shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of three feet of water as
measured at mean lower low water on salt water. The length of any pier or
dock shall not exceed the lesser of 15% of the fetch or 100 feet from Ordinary
Orser SB R2014-00012 pier ramp float staff report 4
High Water Mark(OHWM)on salt water. Joint-use facilities may be an
additional 15 feet in length, not to exceed minus 5 feet depth.
The pier-ramp-float is proposed at a total length of 115 feet waterward of
OHWM(rock bulkhead), which is the maximum allowed length. The
application drawing shows the float and pilings shall have stops to keep the
float no lower than 0.0 feet, Mean Low Low Watermark(MLLW), with a stop
for floats on each piling at I foot above the seabed.
8. Only one dock is allowed per lot.
One proposed. Any existing anchored float will be removed.
9. The width of recreational piers and docks shall not exceed eight feet.
The proposed width of the joint-use pier is four feet, the ramp is four feet and
the float structure is 8 feet.
10. At the end of a dock or pier, a float may be attached. These floats may either
be parallel to the dock or pier, or form a"T"or"L". In tidal water,the joint-
use float shall not exceed 700 gross square feet without a boat slip or 1,000
gross square feet with a boat slip.
The float surface area is 192 square feet and extends 24 feet waterward from
the end of the ramp.
13. Recreational piers shall be no higher than 11 feet above mean higher high
water. Piers and docks shall have at least an eight-foot span between pilings.
Per the drawings in the Project Description, the proposed height is
approximately 3 to 3.5 feet above mean higher high water. The pilings will
have an approximately 14-to 15-foot span.
14. The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of eight inches above
the surface of the water.
If the proposal is approved, the float structure will meet this standard.
15. All floating structures shall include intermittent supports to keep structures off
the tidelands at low tide.
The proposal drawings do show stub pile that will keep the structure at least
one foot above the beach substrate.
16. All facilities shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound
condition. Abandoned or unsafe docks and piers shall be removed or repaired
promptly by the owner. Where any such structure constitutes a hazard to the
public,the County may, following notice to the owner, abate the structure if
the owner fails to do so within a reasonable time, and may impose a lien on
the related shoreline property in an amount equal to the cost of the abatement.
This provision shall be included in conditions of approval.
Orser SIMO 14-00012 pier ramp float staff report 5
Applicable Title 15 Review Criteria: Per section 15.09.050 (C)(1-3),the
Hearing Examiner shall review a proposed development according to the
following criteria.
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and
meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially
Title 6, 8, and 16.
Staff Response: To address each Title:
Title 6—No review for septic and water service is part of this review.
Title 8 - The proposal is located within the shoreline critical areas and
buffers, and the environmental checklist from July 2014 and the review
criteria discussed earlier in this report address the scope of the
proposal and any potential impacts to the shoreline area.
Title 16—Since this does not involve subdividing or changing boundary
lines, Title 16 does not apply.
2. The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and
is in the public interest.
Staff Response: The proposal SEPA checklist and Determination of
Non-Significance addressed the potential impacts of the proposed
overwater recreational project. The review concluded that public health,
safety and welfare are not impacted and the public interest in the
shoreline area is protected.
3. The development does not lower the level of service of transportation
and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards
established within the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Response: The proposal did not involve transportation issues, nor
were neighborhood park facilities affected. The proposal will not lower
the level of service of transportation in the area of the properties.
Neighborhood park facilities would not be required for this land use and
the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan will
not be lowered.
X. Conclusions. Based upon these policies, use regulations and guidelines,the
project is found to be consistent with the Mason County Shoreline Master
Program regarding Piers and Docks. Planning staff is satisfied with the Biological
Evaluation(RGP6 document) and the assessment of proposal impacts.
Staff recommends the following conditions if the proposal were to be approved:
1. The joint-use agreement dated March 6, 2014 presented by the applicant
(Exhibit 11) shall be recorded on the two parcels involved in this joint-use pier-
ramp-float request [Parcel nos. 12232-10-01100 and 12232-10-01090].
2. Debris or deleterious material resulting from construction shall be removed
from the beach area and project site and shall not be allowed to enter waters of
the State.
Orser SHR2014-00012 pier ramp float staff report 6
3. Remove any existing float and anchoring system.
4. Install float stops on all float pilings to suspend the floats at least 1 foot above
the seabed.
5. Install stub pilings beneath both floats to suspend them at least 1 foot above
the seabed during extreme low tides.
6. Install 4-foot wide 100 percent functional grating on the 8-foot wide float.
7. Install fully grated ramp.
8. Install 100 percent functional grating deck surface on the 54-foot long pier.
9. Floatation for the structure shall be entirely enclosed and contained to
permanently prevent the breakup or loss of the floatation material into the
water.
10. Orient flotation so that it does not obstruct the grating.
11. Install plastic wear-strips between the float and the pilings to reduce treated
wood chafe.
12. Pressure treated wood in the float elements must be completely dry prior to
placement in water. Use of creosote or pentachlorophenol is prohibited.
13. Pile driving shall take place in a suitable fall -winter time period to minimize
direct impacts on migrating salmon, wintering bald eagles and forage fish
spawning activities (per WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval).
14. Pile driving must be suspended if there is killer whale activity in the vicinity
and resume in their absence.
15. All facilities shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound
condition. Abandoned or unsafe docks and piers shall be removed or repaired
promptly by the owner. Where any such structure constitutes a hazard to the
public,the County may, following notice to the owner, abate the structure if
the owner fails to do so within a reasonable time, and may impose a lien on
the related shoreline property in an amount equal to the cost of the abatement.
16. All other necessary permits from Mason County, Washington State and/or
Federal Agencies that are required for this proposed development and
construction must be obtained PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION and all
conditions must be adhered to until completion of the project.
XI. Choices of Action.
1. Approve.
2. Approve with conditions.
3. Deny(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted).
4. Remand to for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance
with Section 15.09.090 of Title 15.
Orser SHR2014-00012 pier ramp float staff report 7
c2_---__--___
AGENCY USE ONLY
a �
Date received:
US Army Corps i i
WASHINGTON STATE se *_Dstro
Seattle District Joint Aquatic Resources Permit
Agency reference#:��2D14
Application (JARPA) Form1,2 ; Tax Parcel#(s): I Z
t ,
USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW.
,
,
L______________________________________1
Part 1—Project Identification
1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) hf @1W
Orser Pier, Ramp Float, and Mooring Buoy
Part 2—Applicant
The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [help]
2a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Orser, Peter
2b. Organization(If applicable)
2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
4606 Forest Ave. SE
2d. City, State, Zip
Mercer Island, WA 98040
2e. Phone(1) 2f. Phone(2) 2g. Fax 2h. E-mail
(206) 795-7008 peter.orser@wreco1.com
Additional forms may be required for the following permits:
• If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit(RGP),contact the U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers for application information(206)764-3495.
• If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act,you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form(SPIF)or
prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at
htti)://www nws usace.armv mil/Missions/Civi[Works/Regulatory/PermitGuidebook/EndangeredSpecies asox.
• Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits.If you need a Shoreline permit,contact the appropriate city or county
government to make sure they accept the JARPA.
2To access an online JARPA form with(help]screens,go to
htto://www.ei)ermittina.wa.gov/site/alias resourcecenter/iaroa iarpa form/9984/iaroa form asox.
For other help,contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at(800)917-0043 or helpo-ora.wa.gov.
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 1 of 22
Part 3—Authorized Agent or Contact
Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11 b of this
application.) hell
3a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Leitman, Amy
3b. Organization (if applicable)
Marine Surveys &Assessments
3c. Mailing Address (street or Po Box)
521 Snagstead Way
3d. City, State, Zip
Port Townsend, WA
3e. Phone(1) 3f. Phone(2) 3g. Fax 3h. E-mail
(360) 385-4073 (360) 301-0262 marine.surveys.inc@gmail.com
Part 4—Property Owner s
P Y �
Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both
upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. [help)
X Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.)
❑ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.)
❑ There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for
each additional property owner.
❑ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don't know,
contact the DNR at(360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E
to apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization.
4a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
4b. Organization (if applicable)
4c. Mailing Address (Street or Po Box)
4d. City, State, Zip
4e. Phone(1) 4f. Phone(2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 2 of 22
Part 5—Project Location(s)
Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. hel )
❑ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA
Attachment B for each additional project location.
5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) h[ elp]
X Private
❑ Federal
❑ Publicly owned (state, county, city,special districts like schools, ports, etc.)
❑ Tribal
❑ Department of Natural Resources (DNR) —managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E)
5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) [b@jPJ
6500 E Grapeview Loop Road
5c. City, State, Zip(If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) [help]
Allyn-Grapeview, WA 98546
5d. County [help]
Mason
5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. [help]
1/4 Section Section Township Range
NE 32 T22N R01 W
5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. heI
• Example:47.03922 N lat./-122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees-NAD 83)
Lat: 470 21.477, N; Long: 1220 49.636, W
5g. List the tax parcel number(s)for the project location. h[ elp]
• The local county assessor's office can provide this information.
12232-10-01100 and 12232-10-01090
5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) hel
Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel #(if known)
Harold & Shirley Vlist et al P.O. Box 1516 12232-10-91110
H & L Bennett Trust
--------_._...-........_.............._.............._................
.
Allyn, WA 98524
David Henry Guiles et al 16916 1st Ave. SE 12232-10-01080
Diane Dorothy Yokoyama
--.._..._.._..-------..._..-----...-..............
Bothell, WA 98012
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 4 of 22
5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. [hep]
There are no wetlands mapped on these parcels.
5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. h[ pid
Case Inlet
5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? [he�jl
X Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know
51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. [hpi
Please see Habitat Management Plan for survey results and pictures of the site, in short:
This site is described as residential parcel. The site is located on the shoreline of Case Inlet with Grapeview Loop
Rd to the west and other residential parcels to the north and south. The habitat in this area is relatively intact with
a single family residence and. Priority habitat types occurring in and near the project area are marine intertidal
and estuarine areas (WDFW 2011). This area is located within WRIA 14.
5m. Describe how the property is currently used. [hell
Single family residence/vacation cabin
5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. [hell l
Single family residences
5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current
condition. [hell
Parcel # 12232-10-01090 In the process of building a new single family residence. See permit# BLD2013-00612
Parcel# 12232-10-01100 has a 952 sq. ft., one bedroom, single family residence built in 1965.
5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. h[ M
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 5 of 22
Part 6—Project Description
6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. [help]
Please see Habitat Management Plan for construction details and plans, in short:
The proposed project involves the construction of a joint-use new pier, ramp and float(PRF) structure as well as
mooring buoy at the Orser property on Case inlet in the South Puget Sound Basin. The structure will be 1 15' in
total length and be oriented at 75' magnetic north. The PRF structure will be composed of a 4'x 54' pier with
50%fiberglass grated surface and 50%composite decking, a 4'x 40' 100%grated aluminum ramp, and an 8'x24'
float with 50%fiberglass grated surface and composite decking. The structure is supported by (4) 8" diameter
galvanized steel piling associated with the pier section and (4) 8" diameter galvanized steel pilling to secure the
float in place. Total constructed length is 1 15', with 1 10' of overwater coverage. Float piling will be equipped
with (2) 8" stub piling as float stops to prevent grounding. The mooring buoy will be secured by helix screw
anchors approximately 330' from the bulkhead along T1 transect at a depth of-7.7.
6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. hel ]
For boat moorage and recreational use of Case Inlet.
6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) [help]
❑ Commercial X Residential ❑ Institutional ❑ Transportation X Recreational
❑ Maintenance ❑ Environmental Enhancement
6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help]
❑ Aquaculture ❑ Culvert X Float ❑ Retaining Wall
❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam /Weir ❑ Floating Home (upland)
❑ Boat House ❑ Dike/ Levee/Jetty ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Road
❑ Boat Launch ❑ Ditch ❑ Land Clearing ❑ Scientific
Measurement Device
❑ Boat Lift X Dock/ Pier ❑ Marina / Moorage
❑ Stairs
❑ Bridge ❑ Dredging ❑ Mining
El Stormwater facility
❑ Bulkhead ❑ Fence ❑ Outfall Structure
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 6 of 22
❑ Buoy ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Piling/Dolphin ❑ Swimming Pool
❑ Channel Modification ❑ Fishway ❑ Raft ❑ Utility Line
❑ Other:
I
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 7 of 22
6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction
methods and equipment to be used. [help]
• Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody.
• Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain.
See Habitat Management Plan for details,t his project is in Case Inlet, a FWHCA and FEMA Flood Plain A.
In Short:
1) Residential recreational dock will be designed as follows:
a) A pier width of 4 feet with at least 40%functional grating with 60%open area.
b) Pier support piling to be spaced with maximum span or spacing between support pilings. A spacing of 20
feet is considered optimal. Steel pilings are 8"to 10" in diameter.
c) Ramp widths will be a maximum of 4 feet and fully grated.
d) A float width no greater than 8'with functional grating installed on 50 percent of the surface area
e) Float structure length will be no greater than 60 feet.
2) No portion of the dock or float system shall ground or rest on the beach. Pile blocks or stops will be used to
maintain a minimum of 12 inches between the bottom of the dock or float and the beach grade.
3) Flotation for the structure shall be fully enclosed and contained in a rigid shell that prevents breakup of loss of
the flotation material into the water and is not readily subject to damage by ultraviolet radiation and abrasion
caused by rubbing against dock fixtures or waterborne debris. Flotation material shall not be constructed of
shrink-wrap type plastic,or spray-on foam-type shell. Flotation material may be contained by the following
material: concrete,polyethylene shells or rubber tires.
4) For floats and piers that are designated to be constructed of treated wood,the specification is for ACZA
treated Douglas fir.
5) If ACZA pilings are used then the wood shall have undergone one or more of the following BMPs to
minimize leaching of contaminants into the water or the bed(note: see amendment to Best Management Practices
(BMPs)for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments, BMP Amendment#1, April 17,2002):
a)Aqua-Ammonia Steaming Cycle(AASC);
b) Post Treatment Kiln Drying;
c)Minimum Plant Holding Time("MPHT"). In addition to recommendations for the ACZA BMPS-
Amendment#1 for"MPHT"treatment, all ACZA treated wood shall be held under cover a minimum of 3
weeks at a constant temperature that meets,or exceeds 60' F. If the ambient temperature is less than 60' F,
then ACZA treated wood must undergo the Post Treatment Kiln Drying,noted above.
d) In-Retort Ammonia Removal Plus Plan Holding Time(MPHT), as conditioned in previous section (c), but
held under cover, for a minimum of 1-week,at a constant temperature that meets or exceeds 60' F.
e) ACZA wood treatment methods shall be verified by providing a signed and dated certification from a third
party.
6) In cases where steel piling is specified,the piling may be coated with an epoxy coating or hot-dip galvanized.
7) Removal or destruction of overhanging bankline vegetation shall be I imited to that necessary for the
construction of the project.Normally there is no removal.
8) Intertidal wetland vascular plants shall not be adversely impacted due to project activities(e.g., barge shal I not
ground,equipment shall not operate, and other project activities shall not occur in intertidal wetland vascular
plants). If such vegetation is adversely impacted, it shall be replaced using proven methodology.
9) Floats shall not ground on surf smelt spawning beds. The pier, ramp,float and associated moorings shall have
been designed and shall have been located to avoid shading of eel grass Zostera s
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 8 of 22
10) Eelgrass and kelp shall not be adversely impacted due to any project activities(e.g.,barge shall not ground,
equipment shall not operate,and other project activities shall not occur in eelgrass and kelp).
11)All natural habitat features on the beach larger than 12 inches in diameter, including trees, stumps, logs and
large rocks, shall be retained on the beach following construction. These habitat features may be moved during
construction if necessary.
12) Project activities shall be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed.
13)No petroleum products or other deleterious materials shall enter surface waters.
14)Project activities shall not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life.
General Construction and Operating Procedure:
1)Timing of the in-water work,e.g.pile driving will be as specified in Section IV.
2) Where forage fish spawning is documented or reported, additional testing may be requested of WDFW to vary
work windows. Site inspection,notification and scheduling will be per WDFW procedures.
3) Work on projects will be accomplished per the submitted and approved drawings and specifications.
4) All manmade debris involved in the construction process will be removed from the site and disposed in
approved upland site.
5)All required in-water construction, including pile driving and installation of pier pile caps, will be conducted
within the permitted work window.
6)Over-water construction may need to be completed after the in-water work window due to the very limited
time frame of the in-water work window. This work may include completion of the pier deck,and installation
of ramp, float and any required utilities. Over-water work will be conducted under the following procedures:
a) All materials will be moved by hand equipment or small barges that will bring materials to the site
but will not be allowed to ground or in any way be detrimental to the site.
b) The ramp and float will be constructed at an upland off-site location and installed as modular units.
Most of the pier deck and framing materials will be pre-cut off-site.
c) All over-water remaining construction completed with hand tools and small relatively quiet power
tools, i.e. skill saw, ''V?electric drill,etc.
d) Typical construction times to complete a residential dock wi I be 7 to 14 days.
7)All possible precautionary measure will be taken to contain material, material wastes or any other foreign
material on project site.
6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (Month/Year) [hell
• If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or
stage
Unknown, project is in proposal stage and no construction date has been set. Will notify USACE when
scheduling.
6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. [hh�
Unknown, project is in proposal stage. No contractor has been hired, USACE will be notify when information is
available.
6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? [help]
• If yes, list each agency providing funds.
❑ Yes X No ❑ Don't know
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 9 of 22
Part 7—Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation
❑ Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area.
(If there are none, skip to Part 8.) [help]
7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. hel
❑ Not applicable
7b. Will the project impact wetlands? help]
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know
7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? hei ]
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know
7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? [help]
• If Yes,submit the report, including data sheets,with the JARPA package.
❑ Yes ❑ No
7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating
System? help]
• If Yes,submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package.
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know
7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? h[ eM
• If Yes,submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g.
• If No,or Not applicable,explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable
7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was
used to design the plan. [heir)]
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 10 of 22
7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted, the extent and duration of the
impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a
similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. [help]
Activity (fill, Wetland Wetland Impact Duration Proposed Wetland
drain, excavate, Name' type and area (sq. of impact3 mitigation mitigation area
flood, etc.) rating ft. or type (sq. ft. or
category' Acres) acres)
If no official name for the wetland exists,create a uename uni such as"Wetland 1". The name should be consistent with other q ( ) project documents,such
as a wetland delineation report
2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System.Provide the wetland
rating forms with the JARPA package.
3 Indicate the days,months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity.Enter"permanent"if applicable.
4 Creation(C),Re-establishment/Rehabilitation(R), Enhancement(E), Preservation(P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee(B)
Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available:
7i. For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic
yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. [help]
7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in
cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help]
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 11 of 22
Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation
In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non-wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) [help]
X Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.)
8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
hl�I
❑ Not applicable
See Habitat Management Plan for details on impact minimization and mitigation, in short:
In order to minimize any direct effects on the listed species caused by this project, pile driving should take place
during the work window between July 16 and January 14. Additional design parameters and conservation
measures will minimize indirect adverse effects of the project. They include:
1. Installation of 100%functional grating in the float.
2. Installation of 100%grating in the ramp.
3. Installation of 50%functional grating in the pier
4. Orientation of floatation so that it does not obstruct the grating.
5. Use of steel pilings instead of ACZA-treated wood pilings.
6. Mitigation: According to the Army Corps of Engineers RGP-6 (February, 2005), 6 mitigation points will
be required for this project. (Habitat Category C for joint-use structures). The proposed structure will have an
approximate overwater area of 552-ft2.
The pier is designed with 100% functional grating or 216 ft2 of pier grating, while it's only required to have
40% functional grating or 87 ft2 of pier grating. The additional 129 ft2 of pier grating will produce the
following number of points
(129/9)*3points=43 Mitigation Points (MMO#4).
Furthermore because this project is located in a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area(FWHCA) and
within FEMA Floodplain Zone A, a mitigation and monitoring plan is include in addition to the mitigation in
dock design described above. The mitigation and monitoring plan involves the removal of non-native and
invasive plants and replanting of native vegetation at the project site, and can be seen in Section VI.
81b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? [L@jPJ
X Yes ❑ No
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 12 of 22
8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non-wetland
waterbodies? [help]
• If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d.
• If No, or Not applicable,explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
X Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable
See Habitat Management Plan for mitigation and monitoring plan, in short:
MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN
The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) lists 4 forms of mitigation for construction impacts in the
regulatory floodplain; in order of preference,these are avoidance(staying out of the floodplain), minimization
(avoiding the most important habitats, in this case the shoreline and riparian buffer zones), restoration(restoring
or improving conditions on-site),and compensation(improving habitats outside of the project site)(FEMA
2010). While the current project, by its nature as a shoreline development, cannot avoid the floodplain, it can
successfully minimize impact and restore on-site habitat.
Like all mitigation, any project that has the potential to impact functions and values of an important aquatic
habitat,that project needs to provide for compensation and mitigation. In this project, no values and functions are
anticipated to be impacted;however, mitigation is proposed to improve the current conditions on the site. In
looking at long term management strategies to maintain the improved conditions, we looked to the Federal
Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources Final Rule (2008):
Compensation for impacts to aquatic resources in coastal watersheds (watersheds that include a tidal
water body)should also be located in a coastal watershed where practicable. In general, the required
compensatory mitigation should be located within the same watershed as the impact site, and should be
located where it is most likely to successfully replace lost functions and services, taking into account such
watershed scale features as aquatic habitat diversity, habitat connectivity, relationships to hydrologic
sources (including the availability of water rights), trends in land use, ecological benefits, and
compatibility with adjacent land uses. When compensating for impacts to marine resources, the location
of the compensatory mitigation site should be chosen to replace lost functions and services within the
same marine ecological system (e.g., reef complex, littoral drift cell). Compensation for impacts to
aquatic resources in coastal watersheds (watersheds that include a tidal water body)should also be
located in a coastal watershed where practicable.
A. Site Vegetation
Existing vegetation on top of bluff adjacent to shoreline: Douglas Fir(Pseudotsuga menziessi), Western Red
Cedar(Thuja plicata), Pacific Madrone(Arbutus menziessii), Salal (Gaultheria shallon), Evergreen Huckleberry
(Vaccinium ovatum), Dull Oregon Grape(Mahonia nervosa),and Sword Fern(Polystichum munitum).Non-
native invasive species include: English Ivy (Hedera helix), Evergreen Blackberry(Rubus laciniatus),and Scotch
Broom (Cytisus scorparius).
B. Proposed Mitigation Plan
Mitigation is required for this site as the proposed structure will be built within a FWCHA and FEMA floodplain
zone A. The proposed mitigation is the removal of existing non-native invasive species in the shoreline buffer
along the top of the bluff in the southeastern corner of parcel # 12232-10-01100. The plants to be removed are
the English Ivy(Hedera helix),Evergreen Blackberry (Rubus laciniatus),and the Scotch Broom (Cytisus
scorparius), which are all listed as Class C Weeds on the WA State Noxious Weed List. In addition to removing
invasive species, native plants will be installed along the top of the bluff on parcels 12232-10-01100 and 12232-
10-01090 to improve the functions and value of the marine riparian band on this portion of the shoreline. The
plant species include:Nootka Rose(Rosa nutkana), Common Snowbenry (Symphoricarpus albus), Oceanspray
(Holodiscus discolor), Evergreen Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), Salal
Gaultheria shallon) and Sword Fern Pol stichum munitum .
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 13 of 22
i
The plants selected for this site are all native plants that can tolerate salt spray from a marine environment. They
were selected to improve the overall value of the functions in this critical area. Soil stability, nutrient input and
wildlife habitat were all important factors. Following is a table showing the plant species and numbers for the
planting area. Plants should be selected from a regional native plant nursery. Substitutions to the plants in the list
below should be chosen from a list of approved native marine riparian plants.
Plant List
Quantity Common Name Botanical Name Size Spacing
3 Nootka Rose Rosa nutkana 1 gal 6'
2 Snowberry Symphoricarpus albus 1 gal 6'
3 Ocean Spray Holodiscus discolor 1 gal 6'
3 Evergreen Huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum 1 gal 6'
1 Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 1 gal 6'
To be determined at time of planting Salal Gaultheria shallon 3.5" 3'-5'
To be determined at time of planting Salal Gaultheria shallon 3.5" 2'
8 Sword Fern Pol stichum munitum 1 gal Random
Plants should be installed in late fall or early spring following the construction work. During these times plants
are semi-dormant and soils are easier to work. Plants will be laid out by hand generally following the spacing
specified on the planting plan map(Figure 12). Photos of the areas targeted for mitigation can be seen in Figures
13-16.
The plants will be installed by digging a one to two foot hole, loosening the soil,placing plant in ground after
loosening soil around root ball. The hole must be deep enough to ensure that roots are straight, but not so deep as
to bury plants too far above the root collar. Once the plant is in place the hole will be backfilled and tamped
lightly. Mulch should be applied 3"deep around plants,being careful not to touch stem of plant.
No extraordinary measures are proposed at this time to protect the installed plants other than mulching, weeding
and watering. Substitutions might be necessary for species or individuals that cannot be found at local nurseries.
All plant substitutions will be approved by the project biologist prior to installation to ensure their suitability for
the site.
C. Performance Standards
Performance standards are measurable criteria for determining if the goals and objectives of the mitigation
project are being achieved. If the proposed benchmarks are not achieved by comparing the surveys to the
mitigation goals,then contingency plans will need to be implemented.
Performance Standard# 1 (survival rate): Immediately after planting, all plants will be counted and
documented. At the end of each growing season (late Aug- early Sept)plots will be visited and a count of
surviving plants will be documented. The percent survival for the plots will be calculated by dividing the
total number of plants after planting by the total number of surviving plants at the end of the season.
Photo stations for each replanting site will be determined and a photograph of each transplant location
will be taken on an annual basis. Individual plants that die must be replaced with native species in order to
meet the survival performance standards.
Performance Standard#2 (percent cover): The percent cover standard will be monitored by looking at
each monitoring unit of the enhanced areas from above and estimating the area covered by the individual
species. The percent cover within an area can be quantified as a total greater than 100%because plants(in
tree, high/low shrub and herbaceous layers)overlap in cover.
Performance Standard #3 (invasive removal): All areas where invasive plants were removed will be
surveyed visually and categorized with photo stations. This is to ensure that 0%(none)of the targeted
Invasive species(English ivy, English Holly, Morning Glory and Himalayan Blackberry)will be present
and have not reestablished within each monitoring year.
D. Monitoring Plan
An as-built drawing and report will be submitted to Mason County DCD as documentation of the implementation
of the approved planting plan within one month of installation. Once approved,the monitoring proposal is to
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 14 of 22
maintain and monitor the survival of the native plants installed as well as removal of the invasive plants for five
years.
The plan will include vegetation description and photo documentation from established photo stations. A
panoramic photo of the entire mitigation site will also be provided. Monitoring will take place over a period of
five years at the end of the growing season (late August or early September)of each monitoring year. The
performance standards will be monitored by measuring plots in zones within the planting area that will be
established and mapped after planting occurs, on the as-built plan. There will be photo points for each plot and
they will be referenced on the as-built plan. Each year the photo points that are established at each site will be
used for comparison. Photos will be taken at all points for all years as visual documentation of the performance
standards progress,or lack of.
In addition to photos at designated points, photos documentation must include a panoramic view of the entire
planting area. Submitted photos must be formatted on standard 8 '/2"by I I"paper, dated with the date the photo
was taken, and clearly labeled with the direction from which the photo was taken. The photo location points must
be identified on an appropriate drawing.
Collected data and photos will be compiled into an annual Riparian Planting report each year and submitted to
the Mason County DCD by December of each monitoring year for five years. Each annual monitoring report
shall include written and photographic documentation on plant mortality and replanting efforts and must
document whether the performance standards are being met. Monitoring results will determine whether or not
contingency measures will be needed.
Performance Standards#1 & 2
Year 1: Achieve 100%survival success of replanted natives into mitigation areas
Year 2: Achieve 100%survival success at end of second year into mitigation areas
Year 3:Achieve 90%survival success at end of third year into mitigation areas
Year 4: Achieve 90%survival success at end of fourth year into mitigation areas
Year 5: Achieve 90%survival success at end of fifth year into mitigation areas
Performance Standard #3
Year 1: Achieve 100%removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 2: Achieve 100%removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 3: Achieve 100%removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 4: Achieve 100%removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 5:Achieve 100%removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
E. Maintenance and Contingency
Maintenance shall occur at least twice during the growing season to ensure the survival of all native species
within the mitigation area, including volunteer natives. Watering by hand or sprinkler may be necessary during
year number one until the plants are established. Water requirements will depend on the timing of planting with
the seasons and weather conditions. Once plants are established,extra watering may not be necessary. Hand
weeding will be necessary around all plants that are being monitored for survival and coverage.
If the 90%survival rate is not met by the end of any monitoring year,plants lost to mortality will be replaced to
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 15 of 22
f
achieve the percentage cover performance standard described above. Prior to replacement, an appropriate
assessment will be performed to determine if the survival was affected by species/site selection, animal damage,
or some other factor. Subsequent contingency actions must be designed to respond directly to the stressor(s),
which are increasing mortality of planted native species. If a particular species is shown not to endure site
conditions then another, more appropriate species will be selected. If excessive damage is observed, protective
measures will be introduced. Monitoring years may be added if significant re-planting becomes necessary.
Monitoring on an annual basis for five years will occur with photographs to determine the survival rate of the
transplanted area. If 100% success is achieved before reaching the five-year mark, monitoring will continue
without extra replanting efforts. Within the five year time period, transplanting will occur on an annual basis to
replace any plants that are lost until 100% success is achieved.
8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used
to design the plan.
• If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. Ihelal
See above, compensatory mitigation to compensate for ecosystem functions.
8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. [help]
Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or
dredge, fill, pile name' location of impact3 (cubic yards) to be linear ft.) of
drive, etc.) placed in or waterbody
removed from directly affected
waterbody
If no official name for the waterbody exists,create a unique name(such as"Stream 1")The name should be consistent with other documents provided.
2Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent,provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and
indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain.
3 Indicate the days,months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter"permanent"if applicable.
8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount(in cubic yards)
you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. [help]
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 16 of 22
N/A
8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging,
type and amount of material you will remove,
yp y o e, and where the material will be disposed. [help]
N/A
Part 9—Additional Information
Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of
this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question.
9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. [help]
Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent
Date of Contact
9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington
Department of Ecology's 303(d) List? [hell
• If Yes, list the parameter(s)below.
• If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at:
hftp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/.
❑ Yes X No
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 17 of 22
9C. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? LtLeM
• Go to http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm to help identify the HUC.
17110019
9d.What Water'Resource Inventory Area Number(WRIA#) is the project in? [help]
• Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/wria.htm to find the WRIA#.
17
9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for
turbidity? [hell)]
• Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swas/criteria.htmi for the standards.
X Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable
9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline
environment designation? heI
• If you don't know,contact the local planning department.
• For more information,go to: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/laws rules/173-26/211 designations html.
❑ Rural X Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ❑ Conservancy ❑ Other
9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? [hell)]
• Go to http://www dnr wa gov/BusinessPermits[Topics/ForestPracticesAppIications/Pages/fp watertvping aspx for the Forest
Practices Water Typing System.
X Shoreline ❑ Fish ❑ Non-Fish Perennial ❑ Non-Fish Seasonal
9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater
manual? [hell)]
• If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet.
X Yes ❑ No
Name of manual:
9L Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? heI ]
• If Yes, please describe below.
❑ Yes X No
9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. [Leipj
Residence/single family home
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 18 of 22
I
9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? Iheir)l
• If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package.
❑ Yes X No
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 19 of 22
91. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project
area or might be affected by the proposed work. help)
See Habitat Management Plan
9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and
Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. [help]
See Habitat Management Plan
Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits
Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for.
• Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.ecy.wa.goy/opas/.
• Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help(cDora.wa.gov.
• For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA.
1 Oa. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.) [help]
• For more information about SEPA, go to www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/seva/e-review.html.
❑ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application.
X A SEPA determination is pending with Mason County (lead agency). The expected
decision date is unknown
❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 10b.)[help)
❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below).
❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt?
❑ Other:
❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law.
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 20 of 22
10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) [ham
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Local Government Shoreline permits:
X Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance
❑ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain):
Other City/County permits:
❑ Floodplain Development Permit ❑ Critical Areas Ordinance
STATE GOVERNMENT
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
X Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption—Attach Exemption Form
Effective July 10, 2012, you must submit a check for $150 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
unless your project qualifies for an exemption or alternative payment method below. Do not send cash.
Check the appropriate boxes:
❑$150 check enclosed. Check#
Attach check made payable to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
❑Charge to billing account under agreement with WDFW. Agreement#
❑My project is exempt from the application fee. (Check appropriate exemption)
❑ HPA processing is conducted by applicant-funded WDFW staff.
Agreement#
❑ Mineral prospecting and mining.
❑ Project occurs on farm and agricultural land.
(Attach a copy of current land use classification recorded with the county auditor, or other proof of current land use.)
❑ Project is a modification of an existing HPA originally applied for, prior to July 10, 2012.
HPA#
Washington Department of Natural Resources:
❑ Aquatic Use Authorization
Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for$25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
Do not send cash.
Washington Department of Ecology:
X Section 401 Water Quality Certification
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers):
❑ Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) X Section 10 (work in navigable waters)
United States Coast Guard permits:
❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non-bridge projects)
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 21 of 22
Part 11—Authorizing Signatures
Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the
JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. M!pj
1la.Applicant Signature (required) hel
certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true,
complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and I
agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits.
I herebye authoriz h e ag nt named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf In matters related to
this application. (initial)
By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent
to the permitting agencies enter'enteri= the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or
any work related to the project. (initial) -
3 Z7 I
Applicant Printed Name ApplicaM Signature Date
11 b. Authorized Agent Signature hel
I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true,
complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and
agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued.
Authorized Agent Printed Name A d Agent Signature Date
11 c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant) h[ eld
Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements.
I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the
project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior
notice to the landowner.
Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature Date
18 U.S.0§1001 provides that:Whoever,in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly falsifies,conceals,or covers up by any trick,scheme,or device a material fact or makes any false,fictitious,or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false,
fictitious,or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than$10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5'years or both.
If you require this document in another format,contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance(ORIA)
at(800)917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call
877 833-6341. ORIA publication number: ENV-019-09 rev.08/2013
(4 - 000( 17--1 6 0 C4-I"
1
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' MAIL NG ADDRESSES
WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
FOR PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office,Bldg 1, Second Floor
Harold& Shirley V list et al
12232-10-91110 (adjoining) H&L Bennett Trust
P.O. Box 1516,Allyn, WA
98524
Michael&Bonnie Omura
12232-10-01130 4327 NE 6e
To the South Seattle,WA 98115
Margaret&Rodney
12232-10-80010 Graddon
P.O. Box 406
Allyn, WA 98524
Robert Eldridge
12232-10-91143 P.O. Box 263
Allyn,WA 98524
David Henry Guiles et al
12232-10-01080 (adjoining) Diane Dorothy Yokoyama
169161 Ave. SE,Bothel,
WA 98012
To the North Duane Griffith
12232-10-01070 P.O. Box 1710
Allyn, WA 98524
Richard&Leslie Begert
12232-10-01060 529 1 l'Ave. W,Kirkland,
WA 98033
1
Figure 1. Vi lcinih M21p j
' a r
. •� / *' -
LO
-
* Project Locationy `,
:r 4 !►.., err�r ti= "�`q.f�'f t r
.a L4•' `R1 '�
•�/; _K.. {�� � -RAJ
CORPS REFERRENCE PARCEL IDs OWNER PROPOSED PROJECT:
APPLICANT:Peter Orser 1 22 32-1 0-01 1 00 :Peter-Orser Pier,Ramp;and float with Mooting
6500 E Grapeview Loop Road. 6500 E Grapeview Loop Road Buoy
Grapeview WA 98546 Grapeview,WA 98546
ADJACElr'T PROPERTY OVVNERS: SITEADDRESS: Sheet of
DATE:01123;14
12232-10-01080: 6500 E Grapeview Loop Road.
David Henry,Gwles et al. Grapeview,WA 98546 Coordinate System:
16916 1 a Ave SE R'A State Plane South(Ft)
Bothell, NKA 98012 In Case Inlet Near:GrapeNie•:, Tidal datum:feet MLLR'
County: Mason State:WA Scale:NSA
12232-10-91110:
Harold&Shirley, Mist et al.
PO BOX 1516
Allyn, %VA 98524
I
Figure 2. Parcel Boundaries
6 Legend
71
• t ~ �`' • "" ^ �' * Project Location
Jae
A- 41f.;-,N�,;j�w 4.
tA
- o r:
4`•t' ?„"#fs +� ` ?'�►
ir
CORPS REFERRENCE: PARCEL IDs/OWNER: PROPOSED PROJECT:
:1PPLICANT:Peter Orser 12232-10-01100 :Peter Otser Pier,Ramp,and Float with Mooting
6500 E Grapeview Loop Road. 6500 E Grapeview Loop Road. Buoy
Grapeview,WA 98546 Grapeview,WA 98546
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE ADDRESS: Sheet_of
DATE: O1/23/14
12232-10-01080: 6500 E Grapeview Loop Road.
David Henry,Guiles et al. Grapeview,WA 98546 Coordinate System:
16916 Is'Ave SE WA State Plane South(Ft)
Bothell,WA 98012 In:Case Inlet Near:Grapeview, Tidal datum:feet MLLW
County:Mason State:WA Scale:N/A
12232-10-91110:
Harold&Shirley,Vest et al.
PO BOX 1516
Allyn,WA 98524
OMPPOV Z'
O F� p DR ����vl�vb ✓
w 1CTOR RD
kl
1 ttr
i
F �GS�v O I
22NF 2W
L� Q 0
— `-- — w E MERRILL DR I O ' —
�::
z c
i Q�S W J►� �-g' ,�
l E HARDINGS HILL'RD z
Lu
i Q
�5
t�GRONaJ
E DETROIT.DR'
I
RY,
E COUNT
E.OAKDALE ST a
J
lPierce
P , P97]
w} nl j j z
21
a
a
I
a'
N �i ��Oct Ofse - deck
w .E 1 inch =2,000 feet
1 inch = 0 miles Wintfli
SA
y N' �`
r .
U'
W
a ..
E CRONQUIST RD
- t
4 t e
f
E DETROIT DR - �./►\ '���
» GLAS-FIR LN
i,
l�ETRY LN
.COUN •.} sue'` " -71
" 4 source E--s Di illdl lobe. GeoEye. i-cubed, USD . USGS. E�X.
Ge4 apping, erogrid. IGN, IGP. swisstopo. and the GIS User Come urrit�y
1 inch = 500 feet
W 1 inch = 0 miles
S r-� 5
Y.. +. merit•!�° �. �� ?^ "
s ,
r J
.. • H ..ail°...;�M ',, r'1
Googte earth feet 2000
meters 700
�� W 60e�
Figure 3. Site Plan
PETM A LAURA ORSEA
6510 E. Ro
fR ALLYN.WA 9 524
M32 1
k"
TN
LOCATION
OF HELIX SCREW
ANCHOR
APPROX.220'FROAI.SHORE
PETEQ 6 LAURA ORSEA
65M E.6QAPEVT--W LOOP RD
ALLr4.WA 9
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
16— LN
1w
LL
RESIDENCE 4OCt BaKAEAD
75'
50' luor
t. 36- 11
ro
WR"7---
HAROLD d 5KERLEY%U5T ET AL
PC Box 1516
ALLYN WA 98525
122 32-IG-9113o
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 37
le* b c-� 7
Figure 4. Plan View of Proposed Pier, Ramp, and Float
TN
PIER P ALUM,
4' E�Y 54' 4' DY 4p' B' BY 24'FLOAT.
100%ALU ALU*RAMP, 5076 FUNG1 0WAL
100%6RATEG GRATIMG-
L
4 GALV. STEEL
PIER PILINGS. STOPS
8"OR 10*DIA_ STOPS 4 6A4 V• STEEL
PER 8U -rl4ER FLOAT P�LIh#��
7CfSTN66TAIH PER BUILDER
TO
}
54' -34'- 24'El
f15'
50,
NOTE; THESE PLANS NOT
FOR CONSTRUCTION
PURPOSES
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 38
N F° MASON COUNTY
� STg T
o P A 0 c N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
N Planning Division
Y n P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670
ia64
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-340)
SEP2014-00030
Description of Proposal: Install 115 ft. total length joint-use pier ramp float system adjacent
to existing shoreline deck: 4 ft. by 54 ft. grated and composite
decking wood pier, supported by 4 galy. steel piles; a 4 ft. by 40 ft.
fully grated aluminum ramp; and 8 ft. by 24 ft. wood frame 50%
grating float , secured by 4 galy. steel piles.
Proponent: PETER ORSER
Location of Proposal: 6500 E GRAPEVIEW LOOP RD ALLYN
Parcel Number: 122321001100
Legal Description: TR 10 OF GOVT LOT 1 & NE NW TAX 132-D
Directions to Site: Grapeview Loop Rd. 1 mile south of Allyn; down long drive.
Lead Agency: Mason County
The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required
under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is
available to the public upon request.
Please contact Allan Borden at ext. 365 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC
197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown
below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community
Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 7/28/2014. Appeal of this determination
must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County
Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals.
Authorized Local Government Official Date
�*� �O& q
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
P.O. Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584
(360) 427-9670
SHR2014-00012 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT.
Notice is hereby given that Peter Orser,the owner of the described property below,has filed an
application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the development of:
Install 115 ft. total length joint-use pier ramp float system adjacent to existing
shoreline deck: 4 ft. by 54 ft. grated and composite decking wood pier, supported
by 4 galy. steel piles; a 4 ft. by 40 ft. fully grated aluminum ramp; and 8 ft. by 24
ft.wood frame 50% grating float, secured by 4 galy. steel piles.
Parcel Number: 12232-10-01100.
Site Address: 6500E Grapeview Loop Rd., Grapeview, WA.
Location of Project: Along Case Inlet 1.5 miles south of Allyn WA.; within the northeast '/4
Section 32, Township 22 N., Range 1 W. in Mason Co. WA.
Said proposed development is subject to shoreline management permit review(M.C.C. 17.50)and
associated Mason County Development Regulations standards. Any person desiring to express their
view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify in writing of their interest to:
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
426 WEST CEDAR ST.
SHELTON,WA 98584
The comment period is at least 30 days from the final date of publication given pursuant to WAC 173-
14-020. The final date of publication, posting or mailing of notice is July 3, 2014.
A Threshold Determination will be issued the week of July 7,2013 under WAC 197-11-340.
Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the Hearings Examiner public hearing Tuesday
August 12, 2014; 1:00 PM. in MASON CO. BLDG. 1. [411 No. 5" St., Shelton]. Contact this office at
(360)427-9670, ext. 365 for further information.
.........
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NO TIDE
Zv C 0Z (—.
STATE OF.WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF MASON )
1,.
do herebycertify that 1 posted �- copies of
the attached 1� v��� `►�-C/l
on r�Z day of 20_Lq in public places as follows:
one at
5aa t
one at
one at
2�
In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this day
of 0 �--1
Address. � ,�!' �f S W4
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF MASON )
Subscribed and sworn to me this eda' y of �� }-20
LDEBBERA
y Public
Washington
COKERota ubiic forthe State of Washington
SSION EXPIRES15/2014 - Residing at 8c,"5�6
Commission Expires
61
Agreement Regarding.Point Use Over Rater Structure
Effective Date: March 6,2014
This agreement regarding a joint-use pier,ramp,and float structure is made as of the date shown above
between Peter Orser,the owner of the property commonly known as 6500 Grapeview loop Road more
particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto.and Peter Orser the owner of the property commonly
known as 6510 Grapeview loop Road,more particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto.Both
properties are shown on the attached plat map,Exhibit C attached hereto.
Whereas,the owners of 6500 Grapeview Loop Road have commenced with plans for the construction of a
joint-use pier,ramp and float structure to be located on 6500 Grapeview Loop Road.
Whereas,the owners wish to enter into an agreement to provide for the use,access,maintenance,costs and
such other matters concerning the joint-me pier,ramp and float structure.
Now,therefore,in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived here from,the parties covenant and
agree as follows:
1.Joint Use Restriction: The current and future owners of 6510 Grapeview Loop Road(hereinafter referred
to as the Joint Use Owners)voluntarily agree to build no additional over water structures on
6510 Grapeview Loop Road except for the maintenance or modification of the joint-use pier,
ramp,and float structure located on 6500 Grapeview Loop Road.
2.Joint Use Construction:'The current and future Joint Use Owners agree to and recognize the
requirements for construction,use and mitigation requirements associated with the joint-use pier,ramp
and float structure located on 6500 Grapeview Loop Road.
3.Access Rights:The current and future Joint Use Owners hereby convey and warrant to the current
owners and future owners of the affected parcels an access easement over and across the affected
parcels as is reasonable and desirable to gain ingress and egress to the joint-use pier,ramp,and float
structure.
4_ Binding Effect.This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the current and future
Joint Use Owners,their heirs,successors and assigns of the affected parcels,and all covenants
contained herein shall run with the land and this joint-use agreement shal l be recorded on the deed or /
title for each parcel.
5.This agreement may not be amended without the written permission of all governmental agencies
(in particular,the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle District.Regulatory Branch)having
Jurisdiction over the joint-use pier,ramp,and float structure_
SO AGREED,
Current Owner of 6500 Grapeview Loop Road Tax#
Print Name
Signature Date
Current Owner of 6500 Grapevew Loop Road Tax#
`�E {I J•. C.QL
Pont
Signature Date
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Legal description of 6500 Grapeview Loop Road
Exhibit B: Legal description of 6510 Grapeview Loop Road
Exhibit C: Map of 6500 Grapeview Loop Road and 6510 GrapeNicw Loop Road
�2
s U� �
O
s
S SSNLV
Orser Pier, Ramp, and Float Project
Habitat Management Plan & Biological Evaluation
Parcel # 1 2232- 1 0-0 1 1 00, Mason County
January 23rd, 2014
For:
Peter Orser
6500 E. Grapeview Loop Rd.
Grapeview, WA 98546
Prepared by:
Marine Surveys&Assessments
Office: 627 Hudson St.
Mailing: 521 Snagstead Way.
Port Townsend,WA 98368
Phone: (360) 385-4073
Email: marine.surveys.inc@gmail.com
s s 1,A
Orser Pier, Ramp, and Float Project
Habitat Management Plan
Parcel # 12232-10-01100, Mason County
January 2 3 rd, 2014
For:
Peter Orser
6500 E. Grapeview Loop Rd.
Grapeview, WA 98546
Prepared by:
Marine Surveys&Assessments
Office: 627 Hudson St.
Mailing: 521 Snagstead Way.
Port Townsend,WA 98368
Phone: (360) 385-4073
Email: marine.surveys.inc@gmail.com
Table of Contents
I. Project Information.............................................................................4
A. Project Location...............................................................................4
B. Project Description.......................................................................4-7
C. Action Area....................................:.................................................7
II. Habitat and Species Information........................................................7
A. Habitat Description..........................................................................7
B. Species Description......................................................................7-8
1. Puget Sound Chinook............................................................8-9
2. Bull Trout...................................................................................9
4. Puget Sound Steelhead...............................................................9
5. Rockfish...................................................................................10
6. Marbled Murrelets ...................................................................10
7. Forage Fish...............................................................................10
8. Humpback Whales...................................................................11
9. Leatherback Sea Turtle............................................................I I
10. Southern Resident Killer Whales.............................................I I
C. Survey Results ......................................................................... 11-19
III.Effects Analysis of Proposed Development......................................20
A. Direct Effects...........................................................................20-21
B. Indirect Effects.........................................................................21-23
C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects................................................23
D. Take Analysis.................................................................................23
IV.Mitigation and Management Measures
to Minimize or Avoid impacts...........................................................24
V. Determination of Effect.....................................................................25
VI.Mitigation and Monitoring Plan................................................26-31
References...........................................................................................32-34
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 2
List of Figures and Attachments
Figure Number Page
1. Vicinity Map........................................................................................35
2. Parcel Boundaries ................................................................................36
3. Site Plan...............................................................................................37
4. Plan View of Proposed Pier, Ramp, and Float.....................................38
5. Aerial View of Project Location..........................................................39
6. Aerial View of Project Location..........................................................40
7. Surf Smelt Spawning Habitat at Project Location...............................41
8. Orser Habitat Survey Map...................................................................42
9-11. Site Pictures................................................................................43-45
12. Proposed Mitigation Planting Plan ......................................................46
13-16. Mitigation Targets and Planting Areas.....................................47-49
Attachment Number Page
1. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Puget Sound Chinook and Puget Sound Steelhead..................50-51
2. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Coastal—Puget Sound Bull Trout............................................52-54
3. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Georgia Basin Rockfish ...........................................................55-59
4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Southern Resident Killer Whale...............................................60-61
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 3
ORSER HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
The proponents are proposing to build a joint-use pier,ramp and float overwater structure as well
as install a mooring buoy along the shoreline of Case Inlet. A Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
report is required for this project as it is situated in a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Area(FWHCA) and within FEMA Floodplain Zone A. Therefore this HMP will discuss the
potential impacts to the FWHCA and propose appropriate mitigation which would provide
protection to the action area.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project location:
Parcel# 12232-10-01100
Section 32, Township 22N, Range 01 W.
6500 E Grapeview Loop Rd
Allyn-Grapeview, WA 98546
Latitude: 47' 21.477'N, 122'49.636'W
See Figure 1 for project location.
B.Project Description:
The proposed project involves the construction of a joint-use new pier, ramp and float (PRF)
structure as well as mooring buoy at the Orser property on Case Inlet in the South Puget Sound
Basin (Figures 1-6). The structure will be 115'in total length and be oriented at 75' magnetic
north (see Figure 3). The PRF structure will be composed of a 4'x 54' pier with 50% fiberglass
grated surface and 50% composite decking, a 4'x 40' 100% grated aluminum ramp, and an
8'x24' float with 50% fiberglass grated surface and composite decking. The structure is
supported by (4) 8" diameter galvanized steel piling associated with the pier section and (4) 8"
diameter galvanized steel pilling to secure the float in place. Total constructed length is 115',
with 110' of overwater coverage (see Figure 4). Float piling will be equipped with (2) 8" stub
piling as float stops to prevent grounding. The mooring buoy will be secured by helix screw
anchors approximately 330' from the bulkhead along T 1 transect(see Figure 8) at a depth of-
7.7.
General Marine Water Residential Dock Design Guidelines:
1) Residential recreational dock will be designed as follows:
a) A pier width of 4 feet with at least 40% functional grating with 60% open area.
b) Pier support piling to be spaced with maximum span or spacing between support pilings.
A spacing of 20 feet is considered optimal. Steel pilings are 8" to 10" in diameter.
c) Ramp widths will be a maximum of 4 feet and fully grated.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 4
d) A float width no greater than 8'with functional grating installed on 50 percent of the
surface area
e) Float structure length will be no greater than 60 feet.
2) No portion of the dock or float system shall ground or rest on the beach. Pile blocks or stops
will be used to maintain a minimum of 12 inches between the bottom of the dock or float and the
beach grade.
3) Flotation for the structure shall be fully enclosed and contained in a rigid shell that prevents
breakup of loss of the flotation material into the water and is not readily subject to damage by
ultraviolet radiation and abrasion caused by rubbing against dock fixtures or waterborne debris.
Flotation material shall not be constructed of shrink-wrap type plastic, or spray-on foam-type
shell. Flotation material may be contained by the following material: concrete, polyethylene
shells or rubber tires.
4) For floats and piers that are designated to be constructed of treated wood, the specification is
for ACZA treated Douglas fir.
5) If ACZA pilings are used then the wood shall have undergone one or more of the following
BMPs to minimize leaching of contaminants into the.water or the bed(note: see amendment to
Best Management Practices (BMPs)for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments, BMP
Amendment#1, April 17,2002):
a) Aqua-Ammonia Steaming Cycle (AASC);
b)Post Treatment Kiln Drying;
c) Minimum Plant Holding Time ("MPHT"). In addition to recommendations for the ACZA
BMPS-Amendment#1 for"MPHT" treatment, all ACZA treated wood shall be held under
cover a minimum of 3 weeks at a constant temperature that meets, or exceeds 60' F. If the
ambient temperature is less than 60' F, then ACZA treated wood must undergo the Post
Treatment Kiln Drying, noted above.
d) In-Retort Ammonia Removal Plus Plan Holding Time (MPHT), as conditioned in previous
section (c), but held under cover, for a minimum of 1-week, at a constant temperature that
meets or exceeds 600 F.
e) ACZA wood treatment methods shall be verified by providing a signed and dated
certification from a third party.
6) In cases where steel piling is specified, the piling may be coated with an epoxy coating or
hot-dip galvanized.
7) Removal or destruction of overhanging bankline vegetation shall be limited to that necessary
for the construction of the project. Normally there is no removal.
8) Intertidal wetland vascular plants shall not be adversely impacted due to project activities
(e.g., barge shall not ground, equipment shall not operate, and other project activities shall not
occur in intertidal wetland vascular plants). If such vegetation is adversely impacted, it shall be
replaced using proven methodology.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 5
9) Floats shall not ground on surf smelt spawning beds. The pier,ramp, float and associated
moorings shall have been designed and shall have been located to avoid shading of eelgrass
(Zostera spp.).
10) Eelgrass and kelp shall not be adversely impacted due to any project activities (e.g., barge
shall not ground, equipment shall not operate, and other project activities shall not occur in
eelgrass and kelp).
11) All natural habitat features on the beach larger than 12 inches in diameter, including trees,
stumps, logs and large rocks, shall be retained on the beach following construction. These habitat
features may be moved during construction if necessary.
12) Project activities shall be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed.
13) No petroleum products or other deleterious materials shall enter surface waters.
14)Project activities shall not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life.
General Construction and Operating Procedure:
1) Timing of the in-water work, e.g. pile driving will be as specified in Section IV.
2)Where forage fish spawning is documented or reported, additional testing may be requested of
WDFW to vary work windows. Site inspection, notification and scheduling will be per WDFW
procedures.
3)Work on projects will be accomplished per the submitted and approved drawings and
specifications.
4) All manmade debris involved in the construction process will be removed from the site and
disposed in approved upland site.
5) All required in-water construction, including pile driving and installation of pier pile caps, will
be conducted within the permitted work window.
6) Over-water construction may need to be completed after the in-water work window due to the
very limited time frame of the in-water work window. This work may include completion of
the pier deck, and installation of ramp, float and any required utilities. Over-water work will
be conducted under the following procedures:
a) All materials will be moved by hand equipment or small barges that will bring
materials to the site but will not be allowed to ground or in any way be detrimental
to the site.
b) The ramp and float will be constructed at an upland off-site location and installed
as modular units. Most of the pier deck and framing materials will be pre-cut off-
site.
c) All over-water remaining construction completed with hand tools and small
relatively quiet power tools, i.e. skill saw, '/2" electric drill, etc.
d) Typical construction times to complete a residential dock will be 7 to 14 days.
7) All possible precautionary measure will be taken to contain material, material wastes or any
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 6
other foreign material on project site.
C.Action Area:
The action area should include the area within a one-mile radius of the project location. This area
includes potential turbidity effects from pile driving (25' around each piling), as well as noise
effects on species in the area. The action area should include an area for boat usage. Obviously,
defining such an area is somewhat arbitrary, because no one can anticipate the extent of boat
usage around this PRF. However, for the purpose of this habitat management plan, the action
area for boat usage will be defined as one mile from the PRF in all waterward directions, even
though boat usage may extend beyond this area.
II. HABITAT AND SPECIES INFORMATION
A. Habitat description
This site is described as residential parcel. The site is located on the shoreline of Case Inlet with
Grapeview Loop Rd to the west and other residential parcels to the north and south (see Figures
5 and 6). The habitat in this area is relatively intact with a single family residence and. Priority
habitat types occurring in and near the project area are marine intertidal and estuarine areas
(WDFW 2011). This area is located within WRIA 14. Please see Figures 9-11 for pictures of this
site.
B. Species description
Priority listed species located within the vicinity of the project and action area includes Surf
Smelt and Bald Eagles (WDFW 2011). Within WRIA 14 Winter Steelhead is present and
federally listed as a threaten species (Salmon Conservation Reporting Engine—SCoRE).
Near the project area, the Puget Sound chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is listed under the
Endangered Species Act as a threatened species according to the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS)(Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 56/March 24, 1999/Rules and Regulations).
On May 11, 2007. NMFS also listed the Puget Sound steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss) as a
threatened species under the ESA (Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 91 /Friday,May 11, 2007/
Rules and Regulations). On September 2, 2005, NMFS issued the final rule designating critical
habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast salmon, including the Puget
Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU. The project site is in
an area designated as critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Federal Register/Vol
70, No.170/Friday, September 2, 2005 /Rules and Regulations).
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) in October of 1999. The project site is not located on a shoreline
designated as critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout(Federal Register/Vol. 70, No.
185 /September 26, 2005 /Rules and Regulations).
On April 27, 2010, NOAA listed the distinct population segments (DPSs) of yelloweye and
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 7
canary rockfish as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA) and listed the
Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio as endangered(Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 81 /April 28,
2010
0 0/Final Rule). The Georgia Basin refers to all of Puget Sound, including the area around the
San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia north to the mouth of the Campbell River in British
Columbia. The western boundary of the Georgia Basin runs from east of-Port Angeles to Victoria
in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
On November 15, 2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) as
endangered under ESA (Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 222/November 18, 2005 /Rules and
Regulations). NOAA Fisheries has designated critical habitat for killer whales (Federal Register/
Vol. 71, No. 229/November 29, 2006/Final Rule). "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than
20'relative to a contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water. The project site
is not located in the critical habitat for the Southern Resident killer whale.
NMFS also listed both the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and the Pacific
leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound.
Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) have also been listed as threatened by the
USFWS since 1992.
There is no marbled murrelet designated critical habitat near the project site (Federal Register/
Vol. 61, No. 102/ 1996). There is no designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions or
leatherback sea turtles in Washington and no designated critical habitat for humpback whales at
this time.
1.Puget Sound Chinook: Puget Sound chinook, also called the king salmon, are
distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size. Most chinook in the Puget
Sound are "ocean-type" and migrate to the marine environment during their first year
(Myers et al. 1998). They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence as fry from
March to May at a length of 40 mm, or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts
during May and June of their first year at a length of 60-80 mm. (Healey 1982). Chinook
fry in Washington estuaries feed on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans
(gammarid amphipods, mysids, and cumaceans). As they grow and move into neritic
habitats, they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish, drift insects, and
euphausiids (Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean-type chinook use estuaries as rearing
areas and are the most dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival.
The project site is located in WRIA 14.
According to the Washington State Conservation Commission (2002):
Excluding Skookum Creek the total turns observed in WRIA 14 ranged
from 3 to 121 with an average of 44 fish between the years of 1986 and
2001. This project is located near Sherwood Creek(approximately 1.2
miles north of the project location), which is one of the creeks with highest
utilization by Chinook salmon in WRIA 14. Due to several reasons (can
be found in WRIA 14 report by WSCC 2002) the South Sound Tributaries
Chinook stock is not rated.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 8
According to WDFW priority habitat and species maps, no Puget Sound Chinooks are
present near the project site or the action area. However the project and action areas are
within Puget Sound Chinook critical habitat(WDFW 2013). Please see attachment 1 for
an assessment of impacts of this project to Puget Sound Chinook critical habitat.
2. Bull Trout: Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern
California(at present they are extinct in California) to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska,
and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea. Bull trout are members
of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from August to
November in streams and migration to the open sea(for anadromous populations) takes
place in the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival.
Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). They live both in fresh and marine waters. Some migrate to
larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater(anadromous) before returning to
smaller streams to spawn. Others (resident bull trout) complete all of their life in the
streams where they were reared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions, and predation
by non-native fish threaten the Coastal-Puget Sound population. The Coastal-Puget
Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout
in the contiguous United States (Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 210/ 1999).
According to the Washington State Conservation Commission (2002):
Bull trout are not known to be present in WRIA 14. Bull trout are typically found
in snowmelt-dominated streams that maintain cold water temperatures year-
round. The rainfall-dominated streams of WRIA 14 do not provide this type of
habitat.
Although it is possible for bull trout to be present in Case Inlet, according to WDFW
priority habitat and species maps, no Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout are present near the
project site or the action area. However the project and action areas are within Bull Trout
critical habitat (WDFW 2013). Please see attachment 2 for an assessment of impacts of
this project to Bull Trout critical habitat.
3.Puget Sound Steelhead: Steelhead is the name given to the anadromous form of the
species O. mykiss. The freshwater residents are called Rainbow trout. Steelhead can
return to the ocean after spawning and migrate to freshwater to spawn again, unlike
Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to two years in freshwater before heading to
the open ocean, where they may stay for two to four years before returning to Washington
streams.
According to the Washington State Conservation Commission (2002):
Within WRIA 14, the stock status was characterized as "unknown'by WDFW in
1992 because the escapement was not monitored. The status remains "unknown'
throughout WRIA 14 and hatchery smolt plants no longer occur.
According to WDFW priority habitat and species maps, no Puget Sound Steelheads are
present near the project site or the action area. However the project and action areas are
within Puget Sound Steelhead critical habitat(WDFW 2013). Please see attachment 1 for
an assessment of impacts of this project to Puget Sound Steelhead critical habitat.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 9
4. Rockfish: Bocaccio rockfish are found more often in South Puget Sound, whereas
Yelloweye are more prevalent in North Puget Sound. All three species of rockfish remain
close to the surface as larvae and pelagic juveniles. As juveniles they settle to benthic
environment. They prefer to settle in rocky reefs,kelp beds,low rock and cobble areas
(Love et al. 2002). Yelloweye juveniles are also found in sponge gardens. As the three
species grow larger they move into deeper waters. Adults are found around rocky reefs
and coarse habitats. Yelloweye rockfish are commonly found at depths from 300'to 590'.
Canary rockfish usually habitat the area between 160' to 820' and Bocaccio rockfish are
usually found between 160' and 820'. All three species are opportunistic feeders, with
their prey dependent on their life stage. Predators of the adults of these species include
P g
marine mammals, salmon, other rockfish, lingcod and sharks (Love et al. 2002). NOAA
has listed the distinct population segments (DPSs) of Yelloweye and canary rockfish as
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and listed the Georgia Basin
DPS of Bocaccio as endangered (Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81 /Wednesday, April
28, 2010/Rules and Regulations.). The Georgia Basin refers to all of Puget Sound,
including the area around the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia north to the
mouth of the Campbell River in British Columbia. This project site is located in NOAA's
recently proposed shallow water critical habitat for juvenile Bocaccio and canary rockfish
(Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 15l/Tuesday, August 6, 2013/Proposed Rules). Please
see attachment Mor an assessment of impacts of this project to the proposed shallow
water critical habitat of Georgia Basin Rockfish.
The effects of this project on adult rockfish are expected to be minimal, if they occur at
all, because adult rockfish are commonly found in much'deeper water than exists at the
project site. If juvenile or pelagic rockfish are present, the direct and indirect effects of
this project are expected to be similar to those discussed in this document for salmon
because juveniles are found closer to shore in shallow waters.
5.Marbled Murrelets: Marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They
spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical
nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the
survival and conservation of the species (WDW 1993). Adult birds are found within or
adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific
herring, surf smelt, other small schooling fish and invertebrates. According the WDFW
PHS maps, there is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no
nests close to the project site.
6.Forage Fish: Migrating salmon utilize baitfish such as Pacific herring (Clupea harengus
pallasi), sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) as
prey resources. These forage fish form a very important trophic link between plankton
resources and a wide variety of predatory marine organisms as well as providing food for
marbled murrelets and bald eagles. WDFW priority species and habitats maps indicate
the occurrence of Surf Smelt near the project site and action area, the activities associated
with the proposed project has the potential to impact this forage fish habitat. Suggestions
for minimizing and mitigating for such impacts are listed in Section IV.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 10
7.Humpback Whales: Due to excessive whaling practices in the past, humpback whales are
rarely seen in Puget Sound, even though in the past they were much more prevalent
(Angell and Balcomb 1982). According to Osborne et al. (1988), there were only three
sightings of humpback whales in Puget Sound from 1976 to 1988. However, more
recently, a juvenile humpback whale was sighted near Johnson Point(NE of Olympia),
with several fresh injuries (Orca Network Sighting Report-July 10, 2006). Another
sighting was made in Dalco Passage between Gig Harbor and Pt. Defiance on June 23,
2011 (Orca Network Sighting Report). Due to the location of the project site being in the
near shore, no Humpback Whales are expected to be impacted.
8. Leatherback Sea Turtle: There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington,
even though they are occasionally seen along the coast (Bowlby et al. 1994). They are
rarely seen in Puget Sound(McAllister, pers. comm.). Again, it seems highly unlikely
that these turtles would be found in Case Inlet or the action area.
9. Southern Resident Killer Whales: The Southern Resident population consists of three
pods: J, K and L. According to Wiles (2004), "While in inland waters during warmer
months, all of the pods concentrate their activity in Haro Strait, Boundary Passage, the
Southern Gulf Islands, the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and several localities
in the southern Georgia Strait."During early autumn, these pods, especially J pod, extend
their movements into Puget Sound to take advantage of the chum and chinook salmon
runs. Resident killer whales spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter
water less than 5 meters deep (Baird 2001). According to information provided by
NMFS, Southern Resident killer whale critical habitat is present in Case Inlet and the
action area(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/criticalhabitat/killerwhale_sr.pdf). Similar
to the Humpback Whales, due to the location of the project site being in the nearshore, no
Killer Whales are expected to be impacted. The project and action area is in the critical
habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whales. Please see attachment 4 for an assessment of
impacts of this project to the critical habitat of Southern Resident Killer Whales.
C. Survey Results:
A SCUBA survey was done September 27 2013, a windy and cloudy day with intermittent sunny
breaks, from approximately 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM at the project site. Amy Leitman and David
Campbell used SCUBA to run 6 transects to identify flora, fauna, substrate types and other
qualitative information relative to the pier, ramp and float, as well as four transects for the
mooring buoy proposed in this project. Water visibility was approximately 15' to 20'. The six
transects (T1-T6) were all parallel and oriented approximately at the same orientation as the
property line. These transects ran east to west and were generally oriented 75' Magnetic North.
The transects were arranged from north to south (T1 to T6) and were generally separate from
each other by 1Oft with the exception of T1 and T6 which were separated from T2 and T5 by
15ft respectively. The four mooring buoy transects (B 1-B4) extended waterward from T1, were
approximately 100'in length and oriented in a cross shape with the location of the proposed
mooring buoy in the middle The attached habitat survey map (Figure 8.) shows the location of
each transect and our findings.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 11
i
Macroalgae and Substrate
T1
Distance in feet along Tidal Fauna and Flora
transect from beginning Elevation
g g Substrate and Other (estimated percent of
(Bulkhead) (Corrected to Features Noted area covered/square
MLLW in meter)
Bearing 75' feet)
0 10.3 Cobble Barren
13 9.8 Sa
me Same
25 9.3 Same Same
35 8.3 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Same, Barnacles
50 7.3 Same Same, Periwinkles
60 6.3 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Shell Same
62 5.3 Same Same
65 4.3 Same Same
80 3.3 Same Same
90 2.3 Same Same
100 1.3 Same Mastoc us 5%
120 -0.7 Same Same
Cobble, Pea Gravel,
127 -1.7 Rock Same
135 -2 7 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Same
Rock&Boulder
145 -3.7 Same Same
155 -4.7 Same Same
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 12
T2
Distance in feet along Tidal Fauna and Flora
transect from beginning Elevation
g g Substrate and Other (estimated percent of
(Bulkhead) (Corrected to Features Noted area covered/square
Bearing 75° MLLW infeet) meter)
0 10.7 Cobble Barren
15 10.5 Same Same
25 9.7 Same Same
35 8.7 Cobble, Pea Gravel Same, Barnacles
48 7.7 Same Same, Periwinkles
60 6.7 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Shell Same
62 5.7 Same Same
65 4.7 Same Same
80 3.7 Same Same
90 2.7 Same Same
100 1.7 Same Mastoc us 5%
120 -0.3 Same Same
127 -1.3 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Same
Rock
135 -2 3 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Same
Rock& Boulder
145 -3.3 Same Same
155 -4.3 Same Same
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 13
T3
Distance in feet along Tidal Fauna and Flora
transect from beginning Elevation Substrate and Other
(Bulkhead) (Corrected (estimated percent of
to MLLW in Features Noted area covered/square
Bearing 75' feet) meter)
0 10.9 Cobble, Pea Gravel Barren
5 10.4 Same Same
15 9.9 Same Same
Same, Barnacles,
25 8.9 Same Periwinkles
35 7.9 Same Same
50 6.9 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Shell Same
55 5.9 Same Same
65 4.9 Same Same
75 3.9 Same Same
80 2.9 Same Mastoc us 5%
90 1.9 Same Mastoc us 5%
100 -0.1 Same Mastocarpus, Piaster
Seastar
Cobble, Pea Gravel, Oysters, Barnacles
113 -1.1 Rock
Periwinkles
120 -2 1 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Same
Sand, Shell hash
130 -3.1 Same Same
140 -4.1 Same Same
Same, Barnacles,
150 -5.1 Same
Piaster Seastar
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 14
T4
Distance in feet along Tidal Fauna and Flora
transect from beginning Elevation Substrate and Other
(Bulkhead) (Corrected (estimated percent of
to MLLW in Features Noted area covered/square
Bearing 75' feet) meter)
0 11.1 Cobble Barren
12 10.1 Same Same
20 9.1 Same Same
33 8.1 Cobble, Pea Gravel,
Same, Barnacles,
Periwinkles
40 7.1 Same Same
50 6.1 Cobble, Pea Gravel, shell Same
60 5.1 Same Same
70 4.1 Same Same
80 3.1 Same Same
87 2.1 Same Same
94 1.1 Same Mastoc us 5%
100 0.1 Oyster Bags, cobble, Pea Same
Gravel
Cobble, Pea Gravel,
112 -0.9 Rock Periwinkles,barnacles
120 -1.9 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Same
Rock& Boulder
130 -2 9 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Same
Rock, Sand
140 -3.9 Oster Bags, Cobble Same
Oyster bags, Cobble, Same, Barnacles,
150 -4.9 Boulder
Piaster Seastar
T5
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 15
Distance in feet along Tidal Fauna and Flora
transect from beginning Elevation Substrate and Other (estimated percent of
(Bulkhead) (Corrected Features Noted area covered/square
to MLLW in meter)
Bearing 75' feet)
0 11.3 Cobble Barren
13 10.3 cobble Same
22 9.3 cobble Same
34 8.3 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Same, Barnacles,Periwinkles
40 7.3 Same Same
50 6.3 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Shell Same
60 5.3 Same Same
70 4.3 Same Same
80 3.3 Same Same
87 2.3 Same Same
94 1.3 Same Mastoc us 5%
100 0.3 Oyster Bags, Cobble, Pea Same
Gravel
Cobble, Pea Gravel, Same, Periwinkles,
112 -0.7 Rock Barnacles
120 -1 7 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Same
Rock& Boulder
130 _2.7 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Same
Rock
140 -3.7 Oster Bags, Cobble Same
Same, Barnacles,
150 -4.7 Same
Pisaster Seastar
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 16
T6
Distance in feet along Tidal Fauna and Flora
transect from beginning Elevation Substrate and Other
(Bulkhead) (Corrected (estimated percent of
to MLLW in Features Noted area covered/square
Bearing 75' feet) meter)
0 11.4 Cobble Barren
10 10.4 Same Same
20 9.4 Same Same
32 8.4 Cobble, Pea Gravel Same
Same, Barnacles,
40 7.4 Same Periwinkles
50 6.4 Cobble, Pea Gravel, Shell Same
60 5.4 Same Same
70 4.4 Same Same
80 3.4 Same Same
85 2.4 Same Same
92 1.4 Same Mastoc us 3%
Oyster Bags, Cobble,
100 0.4 Same
Pea Gravel
Cobble, Pea Gravel, Same, Periwinkles,
110 -0.6 Rock Barnacles
120 -1.6 Same Same
130 -2.6 Same Same
140 -3.6 Oster Bags, Cobble Same
Barnacles,
150 -4.6 Same
Pisaster Seastar
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 17
Mooring Buoy Transects
10' from Northern Property line,as far as possible from entrance to cove,out from T1 +
20'
MB1 (Eastward)
Distance in feet along Tidal Fauna and Flora
transect from beginning Elevation Substrate and Other (estimated percent of
(120'of T1) (Corrected to
MLLW.in Features Noted area covered/square
Bearing 75° feet) meter)
0 -0.7
Cobble, Rock, Shell Mastocarpus 5%,
Hash, Sand Cancer gracilis
65 -3.7 Same 20% Ulva
80 -6.7 Sand Same
100 -7.7 Sand Same
MB2 (continuing east)
Distance in feet along Tidal Fauna and Flora
transect from beginning Elevation
(Location of Proposed (Corrected to Substrate and Other (estimated percent of
Mooring Buoy) MLLW in Features Noted area covered/square
Bearing 75°
feet) meter)
0 -7.7 Sand 20% Ulva
30 -9.7 Sand/Mud Barren
60 -12.7 Sand/Mud Same
100 -15.7 Sand/Mud, Diatoms Same
120 -17.7 Same Same
Marine Surveys &Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 18
MB 3 (southward)
Distance in feet along
transect from beginning Tidal Fauna and Flora
(Location of Proposed Elevation Substrate and Other
MooringBuoy) Bearing (Corrected to (estimated percent of
MLLW in Features Noted area covered/square
165°
meter)
feet)
0 -7.7 Sand/Mud,Diatoms 20% Ulva
30 -9.7 Same Barren
60 -10.7 Same Same
100 -12.7 Same Same
MB 4 (Northward)
Distance in feet along
transect from beginning Tidal Fauna and Flora
(Location of Proposed Elevation
Mooring Buoy) (Corrected to Substrate and Other (estimated percent of
MLLW in Features Noted area covered/square
Bearing 345° feet) meter)
0 -7.7 Sand/Mud, Diatoms 30% Ulva
30 -10.7 Same 25% Ulva
60 -12.7 Same Same
100 -14.7 Same Same
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 19
III. EFFECTS ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
A. Direct Effects:
The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided. The proposed
project has been described and the action area defined. A habitat survey has been
provided. When reviewing all the data, the potential direct and indirect effects of the
proposed action,on the listed species and their critical habitat should be considered.
Pile driving noise: Feist et al. (1992) reported that salmonids could be expected to hear
pile driving noise approximately 2,000'from the source. Based on the studies at the
Everett Homeport, these researchers concluded that pile driving did alter the
distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and chum salmon. It is also possible that
noise from pile driving will mask the approach of predators. The reported Everett
Homeport results may not be entirely applicable to the proposed project, because a
vibratory pile driver will be used in the proposed project- a diesel powered
compression hammer was used in the Everett study. As stated in the Feist report, "It
would be reasonable to say that juvenile salmonids might respond differently to the
sounds of a vibratory hammer, compared to that of a diesel compression hammer."
Marbled murrelets spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for
nesting. In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a
significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species (WDW 1993).
There are no critical nesting habitats within close range of the project and no nests
(Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 102, 1996). Annual aerial surveys for marbled
murrelets (Figures 5 and 6) indicate that few murrelets have been seen near the
Bainbridge Island project area during either the summer or winter. Therefore, the
construction of the proposed PRF should cause no significant impacts on marbled
murrelets.
Turbidity: Increased turbidity caused by pile driving could have adverse effects on
salmon and bull trout. The impact level depends on duration of exposure,
concentration of turbidity, the life stage during the increased exposure and the options
available for the fish to avoid the plumes. The effects can be discussed in terms of
lethal, sublethal or behavioral (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001a and Simenstad,
editor, 1988). For this project, turbidity effects are expected to be localized and brief.
The area where turbidity impacts may affect the listed fish has been defined by the
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) as a 25'radius around each piling.
To minimize the adverse effects of increased noise and/or increased turbidity on
migrating salmonids, bull trout and possible Pacific herring spawning activity, pile
driving should take place during the work window from July 16 to January 14. Work
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 20
during this period will reduce the possibility of contact with these species.
Due to the scarcity of Steller sea lions, humpback whales, leatherback sea turtles and
Southern Resident killer whales in the action area, it is concluded that the proposed
project construction and its presence will have no effect on these three species.
B. Indirect Effects:
Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. For this project, indirect
effects might include alteration of nearshore juvenile salmon migratory pathways,
increase in salmonid predation,reduction in prey resources and refugia due to shading or
crushing of the epibenthic substrate by the structure and increased boat use.
Migratory pathway alteration: It is generally accepted that overwater structures can
alter migration behavior of juvenile salmon (though the effects may vary depending
on the design and orientation of the structure, degree of shading, and the presence of
artificial light), and reduce salmon prey resources and refugia by shading aquatic
plant life (Simenstad et al. 1999; Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b). However, the
significance of these effects is not clear. As Simenstad et al. state, "We found no
studies that described empirical evidence supporting or refuting that modification of
juvenile salmon behavior in shoreline habitats was reflected in changes in survival."
Nightingale and Simenstad (2001b) state, "Presently, although we know that under
some conditions small juvenile salmon will delay or otherwise alter their shoreline
movements when encountering an overwater structure, the conditions under which
this behavioral modification is significant to the fishes' fitness and survival is
relatively unknown."
As study by Williams et al. (2003) found that, "Salmon fry were observed in all
nearshore habitats during each transect sampling period (day and night). The fry were
observed under a wide range of PAR values (0.0 µcool m-2 s-1 to 2370 µmol m-2 s-
1). Fry were observed both outside the terminal (Mukilteo ferry terminal) and
underneath the terminal at all times, and shadows produced by the 10-m-wide
terminal structure did not appear to act as barriers to fry movement at this location."
There is no question that underwater structures may alter migration patterns—that is
not in dispute. As seen in the study by Williams and in many other studies (see the
recent literature review by Weitkamp - 2003), there are studies that indicate that
salmon migration is not affected by the presence of overwater structures. Of course,
there are other studies indicating migration patterns are altered by overwater
structures.
The issue is that no one has shown that these migration changes lead to increased
mortality or decreased fitness. None of the studies that report changes in salmonid
migration patterns caused by overwater structures have reported that these changes
have a negative impact on salmonids - see the quotes above from Simenstad et al.
1999 and Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 21
Nevertheless, the Services (NMFS and USFWS)have chosen to accept the hypothesis
that overwater structures will have negative impacts on salmonids, even though there
is no current scientific research proving that this hypothesis is true. Their impact
minimization recommendations are based on this assumption.
Increased predation: At this time, there is no evidence of docks aggregating salmonid
predators in the Puget Sound(Ratte & Salo 1985; Cardwell et al. 1980; Nightingale
and Simenstad 2001b). Dock associated structures, such as breakwaters, may serve as
marine mammal haulout areas,but there is no scientific literature that states that these
mammals are particularly targeting small outmigrating juveniles. It might be assumed
that birds would be interested in small migrating juveniles, but there is no evidence
that docks provide an aggregation site for predatory birds (Taylor and Willey 1997).
Therefore, it cannot be stated, based on existing research, that the predation rates of
juvenile salmonids will be altered due to the presence of the structure.
Shading and grounding impacts: Shading caused by overwater structures can reduce
or eliminate eelgrass, macroalgae and other epibenthic organisms resulting in reduced
prey and refugia resources for salmon and bull trout. It should be noted that there is a
paucity of macroalgae at this site (see Attachment 1).
The following design parameters will lessen the structure's shading impacts:
-The float will have 52% functional grating installed(the grating will have 60% open
area).
-The pier is 4' wide and will have 40% functional grating installed.
-The ramp will be 100% grated.
-The PRF will be oriented with 2° of true north.
-Float stops will prevent any float grounding.
Boating impacts: Boating activity can cause damage to the aquatic habitat due to prop
scour and increased turbidity.
In several studies, aquatic vegetation and benthic organisms were found to be absent
or greatly reduced in areas where boat traffic was high and the propellers were within
one foot of the bottom(Chumra and Ross 1978; Ogilvie 1981). Langler(1950) found
that propellers within approximately 14" of the bottom removed all plants and silt
within a swath approximately 5' wide. Conversely, boat use over deeper water can
actually stimulate aquatic plant growth by increasing the dissolved carbon dioxide
and increasing water circulation (Warrington 1999).
It is assumed that most boating activity adjacent to the float will be at slow speeds. As
seen in the Habitat Map (Attachment 1), all of the macroalgae present at the site is
located well landward of the float. Boat traffic in this area will probably be rare.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 22
Pollution from exhaust can have indirect adverse effects on the listed fish. Warrington
(1999) concluded from his study of the literature that, "There is no significant effect
of outboard exhaust on zooplankton, phytoplankton,periphyton or other aquatic
invertebrates in the bulk water." However,he also concluded that there are no
acceptable works on exhaust effects on salmonids.
C.Interrelated/Interdependent Effects:
Completion of this project will not promote future construction or other activities that
would not otherwise occur without its completion. Therefore, no additional interrelated or
interdependent actions that could affect species regulated under ESA will occur because
of this project.
D. Take Analysis:
The ESA (Section 3) defines "take" as to "harass,harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap,
capture, collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." The USFWS further defines
"harm" as "significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury
to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding,
or sheltering." It is likely that no"take" will result from this project.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 23
IV. MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES TO MINIMIZE OR AVOID
IMPACTS
In order to minimize any direct effects on the listed species caused by this project,pile driving
should take place during the work window between July 16 and January 14.•Additional design
parameters and conservation measures will minimize indirect adverse effects of the project. They
include:
1. Installation of 100% functional grating in the float.
2. Installation of 100% grating in the ramp.
3. Installation of 50% functional grating in the pier
4. Orientation of floatation so that it does not obstruct the grating.
5. Use of steel pilings instead of ACZA-treated wood pilings.
6. Mitigation: According to the Army Corps of Engineers RGP-6 (February, 2005), 6
mitigation points will be required for this project. (Habitat Category C for joint-use
structures). The proposed structure will have an approximate overwater area of 552-ft2.
The pier is designed with 100% functional grating or 216 ft2 of pier grating, while it's only
required to have 40% functional grating or 87 ft2 of pier grating. The additional 129 ft2 of pier
grating will produce the following number of points
(129/9)*3points =43 Mitigation Points (MMO#4).
Furthermore because this project is located in a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area
(FWHCA) and within FEMA Floodplain Zone A, a mitigation and monitoring plan is include in
addition to the mitigation in dock design described above. The mitigation and monitoring plan
involves the removal of non-native and invasive plants and replanting of native vegetation at the
project site, and can be seen in Section VI.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 24
V.DETERMINATION OF EFFECT:
After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys, the determination of effect is:
1. Puget Sound chinook - "No effect"
2. Bull trout- "No effect"
3.Puget Sound steelhead- `-`May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
4. Bocaccio, Yelloweye and Canary rockfish —"No effect"
5. Marbled murrelet—"No effect"
6. Pacific herring—"May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
7. Humpback whale - "No effect"
8. Leatherback sea turtle - "No effect"
9. Southern Resident killer whale - "No effect"
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 25
VI. MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) lists 4 forms of mitigation for
construction impacts in the regulatory floodplain; in order of preference, these are avoidance
(staying out of the floodplain), minimization (avoiding the most important habitats, in this case
the shoreline and riparian buffer zones), restoration (restoring or improving conditions on-site),
and compensation (improving habitats outside of the project site) (FEMA 2010). While the
current project, by its nature as a shoreline development, cannot avoid the floodplain, it can
successfully minimize impact and restore on-site habitat.
Like all mitigation, any project that has the potential to impact functions and values of an
important aquatic habitat, that project needs to provide for compensation and mitigation. In this
project, no values and functions are anticipated to be impacted; however, mitigation is proposed
to improve the current conditions on the site. In looking at long term management strategies to
maintain the improved conditions, we looked to the Federal Compensatory Mitigation for Losses
of Aquatic Resources Final Rule (2008):
Compensation for impacts to aquatic resources in coastal watersheds(watersheds that
include a tidal water body)should also be located in a coastal watershed where
practicable. In general, the required compensatory mitigation should be located within
the same watershed as the impact site, and should be located where it is most likely to
successfully replace lost functions and services, taking into account such watershed scale
features as aquatic habitat diversity, habitat connectivity, relationships to hydrologic
sources (including the availability of water rights), trends in land use, ecological
benefits, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. When compensating for impacts to
marine resources, the location of the compensatory mitigation site should be chosen to
replace lost functions and services within the same marine ecological system (e.g., reef
complex, littoral drift cell). Compensation for impacts to aquatic resources in coastal
watersheds(watersheds that include a tidal water body)should also be located in a
coastal watershed where practicable.
A. Site Vegetation
Existing vegetation on top of bluff adjacent to shoreline: Douglas Fir(Pseudotsuga
menziessi), Western Red Cedar(Thuja plicata), Pacific Madrone(Arbutus menziessii), Salal
(Gaultheria shallon), Evergreen Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), Dull Oregon Grape (Mahonia
nervosa), and Sword Fern (Polystichum munitum). Non-native invasive species include: English
Ivy (Hedera helix), Evergreen Blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), and Scotch Broom(Cytisus
scorparius).
B.Proposed Mitigation Plan
Mitigation is required for this site as the proposed structure will be built within a FWCHA and
FEMA floodplain zone A. The proposed mitigation is the removal of existing non-native
invasive species in the shoreline buffer along the top of the bluff in the southeastern corner of
parcel# 12232-10-01100. The plants to be removed are the English Ivy (Hedera helix),
Evergreen Blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), and the Scotch Broom(Cytisus scorparius), which are
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 26
all listed as Class C Weeds on the WA State Noxious Weed List. In addition to removing
invasive species, native plants will be installed along the top of the bluff on parcels 12232-10-
01100 and 12232-10-01090 to improve the functions and value of the marine riparian band on
this portion of the shoreline. The plant species include: Nootka Rose (Rosa nutkana), Common
Snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus), Oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), Evergreen Huckleberry
(Vaccinium ovatum), Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), Salal (Gaultheria shallon) and Sword
Fern (Polystichum munitum).
The plants selected for this site are all native plants that can tolerate salt spray from a marine
environment. They were selected to improve the overall value of the functions in this critical
area. Soil stability, nutrient input and wildlife habitat were all important factors. Following is a
table showing the plant species and numbers for the planting area. Plants should be selected from
a regional native plant nursery. Substitutions to the plants in the list below should be chosen
from a list of approved native marine riparian plants.
Plant List
Quantity Common Name Botanical Name Size Spacing
3 Nootka Rose Rosa nutkana 1 gal 6'
2 Snowberry Symphoricarpus albus 1 gal 6'
3 Ocean Spray Holodiscus discolor 1 gal 6'
3 Evergreen Huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum 1 gal 6'
1 Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia 1 gal 6'
To be determined at time of planting Salal Gaultheria shallon 3.5" 3'-5'
To be determined at time of planting Salal Gaultheria shallon 3.5" 2'
8 Sword Fern Pol stichum munitum 1 gal Random
Plants should be installed in late fall or early spring following the construction work. During
these times plants are semi-dormant and soils are easier to work. Plants will be laid out by hand
generally following the spacing specified on the planting plan map (Figure 12). Photos of the
areas targeted for mitigation can be seen in Figures 13-16.
The plants will be installed by digging a one to two foot hole, loosening the soil, placing plant in
ground after loosening soil around root ball. The hole must be deep enough to ensure that roots
are straight,but not so deep as to bury plants too far above the root collar. Once the plant is in
place the hole will be backfilled and tamped lightly. Mulch should be applied 3" deep around
plants, being careful not to touch stem of plant.
No extraordinary measures are proposed at this time to protect the installed plants other than
mulching, weeding and watering. Substitutions might be necessary for species or individuals that
cannot be found at local nurseries. All plant substitutions will be approved by the project
biologist prior to installation to ensure their suitability for the site.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 27
C. Performance Standards
Performance standards are measurable criteria for determining if the goals and objectives of the
mitigation project are being achieved. If the,proposed benchmarks are not achieved by
comparing the surveys to the mitigation goals, then contingency plans will need to be
implemented.
Performance Standard# 1 (survival rate): Immediately after planting, all plants will
be counted and documented. At the end of each growing season (late Aug- early Sept)
plots will be visited and a count of surviving plants will be documented. The percent
survival for the plots will be calculated by dividing the total number of plants after
planting b the total number of surviving plants at the end of the season. Photo stations
P g Y g
for each replanting site will be determined and a photograph of each transplant location
will be taken on an annual basis. Individual plants that die must be replaced with native
species in order to meet the survival performance standards.
Performance Standard#2 (percent cover): The percent cover standard will be
monitored by looking at each monitoring unit of the enhanced areas from above and
estimating the area covered by the individual species. The percent cover within an area
can be quantified as a total greater than 100% because plants (in tree, high/low shrub and
herbaceous layers) overlap in cover.
Performance Standard#3 (invasive removal): All areas where invasive plants were
removed will be surveyed visually and categorized with photo stations. This is to ensure
that 0% (none) of the targeted Invasive species (English Ivy, English Holly, Morning
Glory and Himalayan Blackberry) will be present and have not reestablished within each
monitoring year.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 28
D. Monitoring Plan
An as-built drawing and report will be submitted to Mason County DCD as documentation of the
implementation of the approved planting plan within one month of installation. Once approved,
the monitoring proposal is to maintain and monitor the survival of the native plants installed as
well as removal of the invasive plants for five years.
The plan will include vegetation description and photo documentation from established photo
stations. A panoramic photo of the entire mitigation site will also be provided. Monitoring will
take place over a period of five years at the end of the growing season (late August or early
September) of each monitoring year. The performance standards will be monitored by measuring
plots in zones within the planting area that will be established and mapped after planting occurs,
on the as-built plan. There will be photo points for each plot and they will be referenced on the
as-built plan. Each year the photo points that are established at each site will be used for
comparison. Photos will be taken at all points for all years as visual documentation of the
performance standards progress, or lack of.
In addition to photos at designated points, photos documentation must include a panoramic view
of the entire planting area. Submitted photos must be formatted on standard 8 '/2"by 11"paper,
dated with the date the photo was taken, and clearly labeled with the direction from which the
photo was taken. The photo location points must be identified on an appropriate drawing.
Collected data and photos will be compiled into an annual Riparian Planting report each year and
submitted to the Mason County DCD by December of each monitoring year for five years. Each
annual monitoring report shall include written and photographic documentation on plant
mortality and replanting efforts and must document whether the performance standards are being
met. Monitoring results will determine whether or not contingency measures will be needed.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 29
Performance Standards#1 & 2
Year 1: Achieve 100% survival success of replanted natives into mitigation areas
Year 2: Achieve 100% survival success at end of second year into mitigation areas
Year 3: Achieve 90% survival success at end of third year into mitigation areas
Year 4: Achieve 90% survival success at end of fourth year into mitigation areas
Year 5: Achieve 90% survival success at end of fifth year into mitigation areas
Performance Standard#3
Year 1: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 2: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 3: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 4: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
Year 5: Achieve 100% removal of targeting invasive species from mitigation areas
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 30
E.Maintenance and Contingency
Maintenance shall occur at least twice during the growing season to ensure the survival of all
native species within the mitigation area, including volunteer natives. Watering by hand or
sprinkler may be necessary during year number one until the plants are established. Water
requirements will depend on the timing of planting with the seasons and weather conditions.
Once plants are established, extra watering may not be necessary. Hand weeding will be
necessary around all plants that are being monitored for survival and coverage.
If the 90% survival rate is not met by the end of any monitoring year, plants lost to mortality will
be replaced to achieve the percentage cover performance standard described above. Prior to
replacement, an appropriate assessment will be performed to determine if the survival was
affected by species/site selection, animal damage, or some other factor. Subsequent contingency
actions must be designed to respond directly to the stressor(s), which are increasing mortality of
planted native species. If a particular species is shown not to endure site conditions then another,
more appropriate species will be selected. If excessive damage is observed, protective measures
will be introduced. Monitoring years may be added if significant re-planting becomes necessary.
Monitoring on an annual basis for five years will occur with photographs to determine the
survival rate of the transplanted area. If 100% success is achieved before reaching the five-year
mark, monitoring will continue without extra replanting efforts. Within the five year time period,
transplanting will occur on an annual basis to replace any plants that are lost until 100% success
is achieved.
Marine Surveys &Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 31
References
Angell, T. and K. C. Balcomb III. 1982. Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget
Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, 146 pp.
Bowlby, D. E., G. A. Green and M. L. Bonnell. 1994. Observations of leatherback turtles
offshore of Washington and Oregon.Northwestern Naturalist 75:33-35.
Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 102 / May 24, 1996/Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 56/March 24, 1999 /Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 210/ November 1, 1999/ Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 123 /June 28, 2005/Rules and Regulations
Federal Register/Vol 70, No.170/September 2, 2005/Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 222/November 18, 2005 /Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 229/November 29, 2006/Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 91 /May 11, 2007/Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 81 /April 28, 2010/Rules and Regulations.
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 151/August 6, 2013/Proposed Rules.
Healey, M. C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries: the life support system, pp. 315 - 341.
In: V.S. Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 32
Hruby, T., 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington—Revised.
Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-025.
Jeffries, Steven J., Patrick J. Gearin, Harriet R. Huber, Don L. Saul and Darrell A. Pruett. 2000.
Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division, Olympia,WA, 150 pp.
Love, M.S., M.M. Yoklavich, and L. Thorsteinson. 2002. The rockfishes of the Northeast
Pacific. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S.
Grand, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of
chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC- 35, 443 pp.
Nightingale, Barbara and Charles Simenstad. 2001a. Dredging activities: marine issues.
Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Washington Department of
Ecology, and Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 144 pp.
Osborne, R.,J. Calambokidis and E. M. Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater
Puget Sound. Island Publishers, Anacortes, WA, 191 pp.
Peterson, Charles H., Darren HM Hickerson, and Gina Grissom Johnson. "Short-term
consequences of nourishment and bulldozing on the dominant large invertebrates of a
sandy beach." Journal of Coastal Research (2000): 368-378.
Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation
of Bull Trout.Gen. Tech. Rpt. U. S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station,
Ogden, UT. 38 pp.
Simenstad, C. A., (ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes,Workshop
proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988.
Simenstad, C.A., K.L. Fresh and E.O. Salo. 1982. The role of Puget Sound and Washington
coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function, pp. 343-
Marine Surveys &Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 33
364. In V.S. Kennedy (ed.). Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Tait, James F. and Gary B. Griggs. 1991. Beach response to the presence of a seawall,
comparison of field observations. Contact Report CERC-91-1, U. S. Army Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Washington Department of Wildlife (WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet
Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington. Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia,
WA.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2011. Priority Habitats and Species
report for Case Inlet. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/. Olympia,
Washington.
Washington State Conservation Commission. Salmon Habitat Limiting Factors. Water Resources
Inventory Area 14, Kennedy-Goldsborough Basin (2002).
Wiles, G. J. 2004. Washington State status report for the killer whale. Washington Department
Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 106 pp.
WSDE (Washington State Department of Ecology). 2012. Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program.
Olympia, WA. 1035 pp. htlp://www.ecy.wa.goy/i)rograms/wq/stormwater/manual.html
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 34
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
%AA
r
x
t
Legend
* ProjcctLocatiozr A /t
+ j 1
h 1
4 t'�r'T
CCRPS REFERRENCE: PARCEL ID3,'ONVNER PROPOSED PROJECT:
APPLICANT:Peter Orser 12232-10 1100:Peter Orser Pier,Ramp,and Float with Nboring
65CO E G apeview Loop Road. 650)E Grapeview Loop Road. Buoy
Grapeview.WA 98546 Grapeview.WA 98546
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: SITE ADDRESS: Sheet of
DA7E:010/14
12232-10-01080. 650)E Grape-view Locp Roai
David Henry,Guiles et aL Grapeview,WA 98546 Coordinate System:
16916 1u Ave SE WA State?lane South(Ft)
Bothell, WA 98012 Is Case Inlet Near.Grapeview Tidal datum:feet NILLW
Cotnty.Mason State:WA Scale:N/A
12232-10-91110:
Harold&Shirley, Mist et al.
PO BOX 1516
AIl.nL WA 98524
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 35
Figure 2. Parcel Boundaries
Legend
• � � • ��� `�� � l�*., ip$3'�, � Project Location
•fw 'i
� ��
CORPS REFERRENCE: PARCEL IDs/OWNER: PROPOSED PROJECT:
APPLICANT:Peter Orser 12232-10-01100 :Peter Orser Pier,Ramp,and Float with Mooring
6500 E Grapeview Loop Road. 6500 E Grapeview Loop Road. Buoy
Grapeview,WA 98546 Grapeview,WA 98546
ADJACENT PROPERTY"OWNERS: SITE ADDRESS: Sheet of
DATE: 01/23/14
12232-10-01080: 6500 E Grapeview Loop Road.
David Henry,Guiles et al. Grapeview,WA 98546 Coordinate System:
16916 In Ave SE WA State Plane South(Ft)
Bothell,WA 98012 hi:Case Inlet Near.Grapeview Tidal datum:feet MLLW
County:Mason State:WA Scale:N/A
12232-10-91110:
Harold&Shirley,Mist et al.
PO BOX 1516
Allyn,WA 98524
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 36
Figure 3. Site Plan
— dh
6
0
f;-
w
PETERS LAURA ORSER
6510 E.6R=% EW RD -
ALLYN.WA 985M
I223Z—p-01090 _
s, TN
L
LOCATION
OF HElSX SCREW
L' ~ APPROX.ANCHOR
FROM SHORE
-----------
tr e
PETER 6 LAURA ORSER••
6500 E 6RAPEVLEW LOOP RO ALLYN.WA 9W4 ,'� PROPOSED STRUCTURE
12232-10_-01100 a
~ LLL
LL
RESIDENCE ROCK BULIWEAD
li 29 �.
10 50 Nl
L J6'
12.
-fj
WROLD 6 SHIRLEY YLIST E T AL
PO BOX 1516
ALLYN.WA 90525
12232-10-91110
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 37
Figure 4. Plan View of Proposed Pier, Ramp, and Float
TN
4' BY 40' B� BY 24'FLOAT.
4' BY 54' ALUM,PIER ALUM RAMP 50%FUNCTIONAL
100%GRATED 1007,GRATEV GRATING
grjo.141.V-t/
vrrx•u: v,—i�
45ALV. STEEL FLOAT —aaaww
PIER PILINGS STOPS
B"OR l0•DTA. 4 GALV, STEEL
PER BUILDER FLOAT PILINGS
8'OR 10"DI A.
E=THS STAIRS PER BUILDER
TC REA61
T
-- 54' �34'—�-24'
4' 8'
115'
0' 10' 50,
E:aSr_r.t rku: 5' 25'
NOTE; THESE PLANS NOT
FOR CONSTRUCTION
PURPOSES
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 38
Figure 5. Aerial View of Project Location
' Legend
aY * Project Location
1
4 -
k
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 39
Figureof Project Location
010512-155910
Marine Surveys & Assessments
A
Habitat Management • Project
Pg.
g 40
Figure 7. Surf Smelt Spawning Habitat at Project Location
Legend
* Project Location
Documented
Surf Smelt
Spawning Habitat
• i
Y
r
r'
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 41
Figure 8. Orser Habitat Survey Map
MR 2
TE=
-17.T
MACROALGAE AND 0' 25' 75'
ESTIMATED PERCENT
AREA COVERED 10' 59 100'
PER SQUARE METER:
M=Mastocarpus
U=Ulva 20 U
Proposed helix
anchor location
TE=-7.T
M M 4 25 U 30 U 20 U
EE=
-14.7' I -127
20 U
T
155 _
-4.7 _
140 - 5 M
5M 5M
BegiMBng of 120 - 5 M 5 M
I -0.7 5 M
100 _
1.3 —
80
3.3 —
60
6.3 —
15' 10'
40 —
20 —
Distonce and
tidal elevation
(MLLW)in
feet along 10.3 — BASELINE/BULKHEAD
T1
T 1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
PL
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 42
Figure 9. Site Picture: Bulkhead and Upper Beach Facing North
Arl-
...... .....
'r
k
i
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 43
Figure 10. Site Picture: Bulkhead and Upper Beach Facing West
a
D1 r e
s
i p
r 77
r
1 r �
:
i —
1 t
� D
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 44
Figure 11. Site Picture: Upper Beach and Bulkhead Facing South
�.... f;
v
h
r
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 45
Figure 12. Proposed Mitigation Planting Plan
PLANTING KEY
=REMOVAL OF IVY,BLACKBERRY 6 SCOTCH BROOM
EXZ5rD45 NA TI'VE PLANT5 / A PLANTING OF SALAL ON Y CENTERS
TO REN.AIN: / (TOTAL#TO BE DETERMINED AT TIME
OF PLANTING)
CD=MADRONA-SPREA_DINS
=SALAL PLANTING AREA ON 3'•B CENTERS.
(TOTAL#t r B DEPLA QMJ?TING) D AT"ME
s DOVSLA5 FIR
AND REPLACIE6 WITH
SWORD FERN 0 =OCEAN SPRAY(3)
dM =EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERV(3)
=SERVICE BERRY(1)
NOOTKA ROSE(3)
$NOW BERRY(2)
=SWORD FERN(10)
I CAMN
I
DECK NEW HOUSE
PATIO ACH �/�J
ACE S_ 0
TOP OF BANK
EXI5TING CONICAL MADRONA
IAtAY BE REMOVED AND A,
REPLACED WITH NEW I .
SWORD FEAP4 PL
PL. Tow OF 9MC.
d
CASE INLET
PL_
N --90-
1" = 25.5'
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 46
Figure1 Planting Area
tr
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 47
r
I
• 1
r
r
• y
Figure 14. Ivy and Scotch Broom
ISLA
r !+f 3^
_ - , ' ,_ , .Jam'• �-� - _�,.�
�F AA As
.\
j k 4t
Figure 15. Ivy and Black Berry
ST
QAk
"`IJ r �~Try •�.7�-..:.,��' � ��'�y�+�`-.' �,
�4 ► P L. • ,M , .
M � � �
JV
t'
a- r
ti
M •. „' y l_
\!
JL
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 48
r
i
i
� e
Ltd.Y,
Figure 16. Southern Planting Area
Marine Surveys i • Project
P.
Attachment 1.Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat
for Puget Sound Chinook and Puget Sound Steelhead
Project description: Joint-use pier,ramp, and float, mooring buoy
Applicant: Peter Orser
COE reference: Unknown at this time
NMFS reference: Unknown at this time
The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of salmon and
steelhead are:
(1) Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate
supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the project is in the marine environment
Effects to PCE: None
(2) Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and
maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility; water
quality and forage supporting juvenile development; and natural cover such as shade,
submerged and overhanging large wood, logjams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation,
large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the project is in the marine environment
Effects to PCE: None
(3) Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality
conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic
vegetation, large rocks and boulders, side channels, and undercut banks supporting
juvenile and adult mobility and survival.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the project is in the marine environment
Effects to PCE: None
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 50
(4)Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality, water quantity and salinity
conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and
saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic
vegetation, large rocks and boulders, and side channels, and juvenile and adult forage,
including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions:
There is very little macroalgae at the site, additionally no eelgrass is present. The site is
located in a documented surf smelt spawning area. There is some riparian vegetation
along the shoreline.
Effects to PCE: The project will have little or no impact on little macroalgae at the site
There is no eelgrass. According to Salmon Scape,there is documented surf smelt spawning
substrate at the site.There is no documented herring spawning activity at the site. There is no
submerged large wood at the site. There is no woody debris on the beach.There are no side
channels at the site. There is some riparian vegetation along the bulkhead.
(5)Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions
and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation;
and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood, aquatic vegetation,
large rocks and boulder and side channels.
Existing Conditions: See 4 above
Effects to PCE: See 4 above
(6) Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic
invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation.
Existing Conditions: Does not apply - the site is in a nearshore marine environment
Effects to PCE: None
Determination of Effect: May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 51
Attachment 2.Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal -Puget Sound
Bull Trout
Project description: Joint-use pier, ramp, and float, mooring buoy
Applicant: Peter Orser
COE reference: Unknown at this time
NMFS reference: Unknown at this time
The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of bull trout
(Salvelinus confluentus) are:
(1)Water temperatures that support bull trout use. Bull trout have been documented in
streams with temperatures from 32 to 72 °F (0 to 22 °C)but are found more frequently in
temperatures ranging from 36 to 59 °F(2 to 15 °C). These temperature ranges may vary
depending on bull trout life history stage and form, geography, elevation, diurnal and
seasonal variation, shade, such as that provided by riparian habitat, and local groundwater
influence. Stream reaches that preclude bull trout use are specifically excluded from
designation.
Existing Conditions: The project is in a marine environment
Effects to PCE: Not applicable
2 Complex stream channels with features such as wood debris side channels pools,
( ) P Y >
and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, velocities, and in-stream structures.
Existing Conditions: See 1 above
Effects to PCE: See 1 above
(3) Substrates of sufficient amount, size and composition to ensure success of egg and
embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the year and juvenile survival.
This should include a minimal amount of fine substrate less than 0.25 in (0.63 cm) in
diameter.
Existing Conditions: See 1 above
Effects to PCE: See 1 above
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 52
(4) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic
ranges or, if regulated, currently operate under a biological opinion that addresses bull
trout, or a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations by
minimizingdaily and day-to-day fluctuations and minimizing departures from the natural
Y Y Y g P
cycle of flow levels corresponding with seasonal variation: This rule finds that reservoirs
currently operating under a biological opinion that addresses bull trout provides
management for PCEs as currently operated.
Existing Conditions: See 1 above
Effects to PCE: See 1 above.
(5) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water to contribute to water
quality and quantity as a cold-water source.
Existing Conditions: See 1 above
Effects to PCE: The project will have no impacts on springs, seeps, groundwater
sources or subsurface water at the site.
(6) Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments
between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats, including intermittent
or seasonal barriers induced by high water temperatures or low flows.
Existing Conditions: There is no existing overwater structure at the site. There is little ,
macroalgae and no eelgrass adjacent to the proposed structure. There is no overhanging
vegetation at the site. There is documented forage fish spawning at the site.
Effects to PCE: Effects to PCE are expected to be temporary and minimal, if work is
done within suggested windows for forage fish spawning.
(7)An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic
macroinvertebrates, and forage fish.
Existing Conditions: See 6 above.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 53
Effects to PCE: There is documented surf smelt spawning area at the site.
(8)Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction,
growth and survival are not inhibited.
Existing Conditions: See 1 Above
Effects to PCE: See 1 above
Conservation Measures: Work within forage fish work windows.
Determination of Effect: May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 54
Attachment 3. Assessment of Impacts to Proposed Critical Habitat for Georgia Basin
(Bocaccio,Canary and Yelloweye) Rockfish.
Project description: Joint-use pier,ramp, and float, mooring buoy
Applicant: Peter Orser
COE reference: Unknown at this time
NMFS reference: Unknown at this time
Impacts of Overwater Structures:
As noted above,the main reason for the decrease in the abundance of these three rockfish has been the
historic overfishing of these populations.This overfishing has reduced not only the number of these fish
in Puget Sound,but also has reduced the proportion of larger females, which harms the overall
productivity of these populations.
Adult bocaccio,canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish are typically associated with rocky habitats.
According to Palsson et al. (2009),such habitat is extremely limited in Puget Sound,with only 10 square
km of such habitat in Puget Sound Proper(i.e., south of Admiralty Inlet),and 207 square km2 in Northern
Puget Sound.
Adult yelloweye rockfish are commonly found in waters 300'to 590'in depth.Canary rockfish usually in
habitat the area between 160'to 820'and bocaccio rockfish are usually found between 160'and 820'
(Federal Register, 2009). Therefore, it seems likely that the adults are not impacted by construction of
overwater structures.
Because juveniles settle in more shallow water than adults, impacts to juveniles would be limited to the
brief noise associated with pile driving. These impacts would only occur if the juveniles happened to be in
the area. As noted above,YOY bocaccio and canary rockfish have not been detected in Puget Sound
recently and yelloweye have only been detected at depths of 60'or deeper.Therefore,it seems unlikely
that pile driving noise impacts will actually occur.
The existence of pier,ramp and float structures might provide a long term positive impact on juvenile
rockfish as mentioned above. The study by Love et al(2006)showed that drilling rigs provided a habitat
for juvenile rockfish. It is possible that pier and dock structures could provide the same kind of habitat.
Impacts of the proposed project on the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of juvenile bocaccio,canary and yelloweye rockfish:
(1) Quantity, quality, and availability of prey species to support individual growth, survival,
reproduction, and feeding opportunities.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 55
Impacts:
According to the Federal Resister(Federal Resister/Vol 78, No 151 /Tuesday, August 6, 2013 /
Proposed Rules):
Juvenile settlement habitats located in the nearshore with substrates such as sand, rock
and/or cobble compositions that also support kelp (families Chordaceae, Alariaceae,
Lessoniacea, Costariaceae, and Laminaricea) are essential for conservation because these
features enable forage opportunities and refuge from predators and enable behavioral and
physiological changes needed for juveniles to occupy deeper adult habitats.
As noted in the Habitat Report for this project, there is a paucity of macroalgae at this site, which
could be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, it is unlikely that juvenile rockfish would
even be present in the area.
(2) water quality and sufficient levels of dissolved oxygen to support growth, survival,
reproduction, and feeding opportunities.
Impacts: Construction activities may have temporary turbidity impacts on water quality. It is
likely that the juveniles would avoid the area during these temporary increased turbidity
conditions.
The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of Georgia
Basin (Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye) Rockfish are:
(1) Spawning and rearing sites
Existing Conditions: There is no habitat suitable for Georgia Basin Rockfish spawning
or rearing in the action area(see further information below).
Effects to PCE: Not applicable
(2)Forage sites and prey habitat.
Existing Conditions: Although there are no suitable forage sites (kelp beds) for Georgia
Basin Rockfish in the action area(see further information below), there is potential or
documented forage fish spawning habitat in the action area.
Effects to PCE: Construction activities may temporary impact forage fish spawning
habitat due to localized and short-term siltation. However this impact can be mitigated
and minimized by following the suggested work windows and best management practices
(see Biological Evaluation).
(3) Habitat.
Existing Conditions: No kelp, kelp beds, or artificial structures that maybe suitable
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 56
habitat for Georgia Basin Rockfish are in the action area(see further information below)
Effects to PCE: Not applicable
(4) Water quality.
Existing Conditions: There are currently no anthropogenic activities in the action area
that may affect the water quality for Georgia Basin Rockfish.
Effects to PCE: Construction activities may temporary impact water quality due to
localized and short-term siltation. Siltation impacts can be mitigated and minimized by
following the suggested best management practices (see Biological Evaluation).
Effects Determination for: Georgia Basin rockfish : "May effect,not likely to adversely affect"
Further Information
Bocaccio Rockfish:
Bocaccio are found from Stepovac Bay on the Alaska Peninsula to Punta Blanca in central Baja
California. They are most common from Oregon to California and were once common on steep walls in
Puget Sound(Love et al. 2002).
Larvae and pelagic juveniles tend to be found close to the surface,occasionally associated with drifting
kelp mats . Bocaccio bear live young and the larvae and pelagic juveniles remain close to the surface and
are occasionally associated with floating kelp beds (Love et al. 2002). Most bocaccio remain pelagic for
3.5 months but some will remain pelagic for up to 5.5 months before settling into littoral zones. They
prefer rock or cobble substrates with kelp beds and/or kelp canopies as well as artificial structures such as
piers and oil platforms. Research by Love et al. (2006)revealed:
In 2003,using a manned research submersible,we conducted fish surveys around eight oil and
gas platforms off southern California as part of an assessment of the potential value of these
structures as fish habitat. From these surveys, we estimated that there was a minimum of 430,000
juvenile bocaccio at these eight structures.We determined this number to be about 20%of the
average number of juvenile Bocaccio that survive annually for the geographic range of the
species.
Another interesting observation made by the researchers was that:
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 57
By comparison,juvenile bocaccio recruitment to nearshore natural nursery grounds, as
determined through regional scuba surveys,was low in the same year. This research demonstrates
that a relatively small amount of artificial nursery habitat may be quite valuable in rebuilding an
overfished species.
According to Palsson et al. (2009),bocaccio rockfish:
......were once caught in localized areas in South Sound(Washington 1977)but they have not
appeared in recent research or recreational catches. Bocaccio were always infrequent in the
recreational fishery, with a few erratic occurrences in North Sound but more consistent,low
occurrences in South Sound. Bocaccio has never been observed during WDFW bottom trawl,
video,or dive surveys in Puget Sound.
In a personal communication(Email,October 7,2010)Palsson(WDFW)stated, "Young of the year
(YOY)bocaccio and canary rockfishes have not been identified in surveys conducted in Puget Sound."
Palsson et al. (2009)also observed that:
Overutilization for commercial and recreational purposes is the leading cause of decline to
yelloweye rockfish,canary rockfish and bocaccio in the Puget Sound/Georgia Basin. The
evidence is clear that historic overfishing has played a major role in the declines of rockfish in the
Puget Sound region.
Yelloweye Rockfish:
Yelloweye rockfish range along the US and Canadian west coast with individuals recorded from northern
g g
Baja California to the Aleutian Islands.The major portion of the abundance is found central California to
Alaska and they are rare in Puget Sound(Love et al. 2002). Yelloweye rockfish juveniles settle primarily
in shallow,high relief zones, crevices and sponge gardens (Love et al. 1991).
There is no consistent trend for the presence of yelloweye in Puget Sound. The frequency of yelloweye
occurring in the recreational rockfish catch data indicated frequencies of less than one percent were seen
in the 1960s,which increased to 3%in the 1990s(Federal Register 2009).
In terms of the depths at which yelloweye have been found in Puget Sound,Palsson noted, (Email,July
26, 2010), "The upper depth limit of yelloweye is less known,but we have only detected them as shallow
as 60'."
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 58
Canary Rockfish:
Canary rockfish range between Punta Colnett,Baja California,and the Western Gulf of Alaska.Within
this range,canary rockfish are most common off the coast of central Oregon.
The larvae and pelagic juveniles of canary rockfish are found in the upper 100 m of the water column
(Love et al. 2002).Estimates of larval duration range from 1-2 months to 3-4 months(Love et al. 2002).
Juveniles prefer to settle in rocky reefs,kelp beds,low rock and cobble areas (Love et al. 2002). During
this settlement they consume on crustaceans(e.g.,harpacticoids)barnacle cyprids, and euphasiid eggs and
larvae. According to information found in the Department of Ecology Washington Coastal Atlas and the
Habitat Survey,there are kelp beds(Laminaria,flat Dermasterias and Costaria) along the project site
shoreline.
According to the Federal Register(2009):
In Puget Sound Proper,canary rockfish occurred at frequencies above 2 percent of the total
rockfish catch in the 1960s and 1970s,but by the late 1990s had declined to about 0.76 percent.
Relying on the estimate of Palsson et al.(2008)of 40,683 rockfish in Puget Sound Proper, a 0.76—
percent frequency rate would mean there are about 300 individual canary rockfish in Puget Sound
Proper.
References:
Federal Register/Vol. 74,No. 77/Thursday,April 23, 2009/Proposed Rules.
Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81 /Wednesday, April 28, 2010/Rules and Regulations.
Love, M. S., M. Carr, and L. Haldorson. 1991. The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles of the genus
Sebastes. Env. Bio. Fish. 30:225-243
Love,M.S.,M.M. Yoklavich, and L.Thorsteinson. 2002.The rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific.
University of California Press,Berkeley,California.
Love,M. S.,D.M Schroeder,W.Lenarz,A MacCall, A. S. Bull and L. Thorsteinson. (2006). Potential
use of offshore marine structures in the rebuilding an overfished rockfish species. bocaccio(Sebastes
paucispinis).Fish. Bull. 104:383-390.
Palsson,W. A.,Tien-Shui Tsou, Greg G. Bargmann, Raymond M. Buckley,Jim E. West,
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 59
Mary Lou Mills,Yuk Wing Cheng, and Robert E. Pacunsk. September 2009.The Biology and
Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound. Fish Management Division,Fish Program,Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Attachment 4.Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Southern Resident Killer
Whale
Project description: Joint-use pier, ramp, and float, mooring buoy
Applicant: Peter Orser
COE reference: Unknown at this time
NMFS reference: Unknown at this time
Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat - Primary Constituent Elements
From 50 CFR Part 226
I
The primary constituent elements (PCE) determined essential to the conservation of Southern
Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) are:
(1)Water quality to support growth and development;
Existing Conditions: The site is in a nearshore marine environment, although the action
area extends into the critical habitat of Southern Resident Killer Whales, potential
impacts would only occur during construction. These impacts are listed in the B.E. and
would be ephemeral.
Effects to PCE: None
(2)Prey species of sufficient quantity, quality, and availability to support individual
growth, reproduction, and development as well as overall population growth;
Existing Conditions: See 1 above.
Effects to PCE: None
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 60
1
I
(3)Passage conditions to allow for migration, resting, and foraging.
NMFS is gathering data to assist it in evaluating sound as a potential PCE.
Existing Conditions: See 1 above.
Effects to PCE: None
Determination of Effect: May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Conservation Measures: If any Southern Resident Killer Whales entered the action area
of approximately 'h mile around the of the proposed overwater structure during
construction, it could be temporarily disturbed. Construction will not be initiated if
Southern Resident Killer Whales are present within the action area. In addition,
construction activities will cease if Southern Resident Killer Whales comes within the
mile action area around the project site.
Marine Surveys & Assessments Habitat Management Plan: Orser PRF Project
Pg. 61
Rich and Leslie Begert
529 11"'Ave. W.
Kirkland WA 98033
August 6, 2014
Allan Borden
Mason County
Department of Community Development
PO Box 279
Shelton WA 98584
Re: SHR2014-00012 Notice of Shoreline management permit.
Dear Allan Borden:
We are responding to the notice that we received regarding the application for
development of a 115ft. pier at 6500 E Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview WA.
We own a house at 6580 E Grapeview Loop Road, Grapeview WA for the past 20 years.
We oppose the development of a pier for the following reasons:
1. Negatively impacting the views of the natural landscape of the neighboring
property owners.
2. Interfering with the access to the inlet of the cove.
3. Currently there are no piers in the entire North Bay until the City of Allyn.
Permitting of this pier will lead to additional request for piers-Anthin the North
Bay.
Thank you for providing us notice and the opportunity to respond. Feel free to contact us
directly for any additional questions or clarifications. I can be reached at
richbe��comcast.net or at 206-669-6900.
Sincerel,
Rich Begert
z 2 g
OVIIN PIA'AMA
a..-c'.���AUGAUG ��°�as'� � �,,,�„�. •..,..ter-'`
lt�
RECEIVED
AUG 1 1
RECEIVED
AUG 1 1 2014
,424 WC CEDAR 5Tt
.�.
��
��� 1/
Page 1
Allan Borden - New Proposed Dock in Case Inlet - SHR2014-00012
From: <susan.w.johnsongcomcast.net>
To: "Allan Borden," <ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 8/12/2014 9:46 AM
Subject: New Proposed Dock in Case Inlet - SBR2014-00012 A
4 'c W.. CECAR S7
To: Mason County Department of Community Development
Attn: Allan Borden, ahb(a-)-co.mason.wa.us
From: Susan W Johnson, Property Owner at 6600 E. Grapeview Loop Road, Allyn WA
Re: Shoreline Management Permit SHR2014— 00012
The following are our comments on the proposed installation of a 115 FT dock within Case Inlet
as proposed per the Shoreline Permit noted above:
1. We oppose the installation of a fixed or floating dock out into the waters of Case Inlet per
the Shoreline Permit request.
2. The installation of the dock will impose a navigational hazard to the shoreline on both sides
of the property. Coming out of the small cove to the south and also from the properties to
the north.
3. For decades the local residents have trolled for fish along the shoreline at high tide with
their kids. The installation of this dock will limit that long standing tradition of use and pose
a hazard for boating.
4. There are no other fixed or floating docks connected to the shoreline along this beach.
This new dock will impede the views, use of the shoreline and be a navigational hazard.
5. My family has lived on our property for over 50 years and want to be able to continue to
walk down the beach, along with the numerous other families on the beach, unimpeded by
a large dock that would be impassable.
Please do not grant this permit approval for the sake of all the families on this beach.
Please confirm that you have received this email.
Sincerely,
Susan W. Johnson
Ph. 360-27 -6505 SU M m e-f
ell: 425-417- 8
file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/53E9E26BMasom-nail... 8/12/2014
Page 1 of 2
Allan Borden - Objections to the granting of Permit SLC2014-0012
From: Gregory Rivers <grivers@steelheadadvisors.com>
To: "ahb@co.mason.wa.us" <ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 8/12/2014 11:18 AM
Subject: Objections to the granting of Permit SLC2014-0012
Alan
This email is in response to Peter Orser's permit application to install a 115 ft dock. It is being filed on behalf of
Kristen Waugh and the Waugh Family who have held summer residence at 6600 E Grapeview Loop Road for over 60
years. While we want to respect Peter's right to do what he wants on his land, we would like to raise a few items to
the shoreline commission to consider before ruling on the permit. Specifically,the presence of a 115ft dock off
either property owned by Mr. Orser would:
• Possibly make it difficult or impossible at certain tide levels for children along the northern beach to walk
south along the beach to one of the most very popular land/water feature in the area,which is the passage
way between the adjacent spit and shoreline where kids explore the mud flats, observe various sea life,wade
across the outgoing or incoming tide, and expire the back lagoon.
• Eliminate the ability to troll for salmon and cutthroat trout during the tide changes—this area just north of the
mouth of the water passage between the spit and shoreline is one of the most productive fishing spots along
the shore line from 6900 to 6400 Grapeview Loop Road.
• Require kids in kayaks to navigate up to 80 feet away from shoreline to get to the spit and lagoon.
• Introduce what we believe is an eye sore for all the people along the beach that have enjoyed the pristine
natural view of the lagoon, spit and water passageway—now we will see at low tide a dry dock with possibly a
dry boat and at higher tides a very large man made mass in the forefront of that pristine view.
• Introduce a hazard for any non motorized vessel coming into and out of the lagoon since the very strong
outgoing current pushes any vessel down the shoreline and into the dock's path.
Finally, here is no other dock along the mile of beach outside the lagoon which has established a tradition for
seasonal neighbors and tourist coming out of Allyn and Fair Harbor Marina by boat and kayak to cruise the coast at
high tide and at night—this dock could become a danger for those who would be unsuspecting of the structure.
We hope Peter can find satisfaction in mooring his boat through the use of a buoy and not a dock. And we trust the
Shoreline Commission will take into consideration fully the environmental,social, historical and public safety
implications of introducing the proposed structure.
Thank you for your time in reading this. We are sorry we can not attend the hearing in person as we have two little
children to attend to.
Best regards
Greg, Kristen, Braelyn and Abigail Rivers (Waugh)
Gregory Rivers
file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5 3 E9F 802Masonmail... 8/12/2014
Page 2 of 2
Managing Director
0:415-474-7206 1 M:415-290-3776
g_rivers@steelheadadvisors.com www.steelheadadvisors.com
Steelhead Advisors uc
500 Washington Street,Suite 325 1 San Francisco,CA 94118
file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/53E9F802Masonmail... 8/12/2014
- t
1 • 4•� rY a,,i�7 ^ed•��Mr�
� '� '• �, •�- - ✓:ors•
22 R1 -'�
29 .f
:g y
! .r` •I • i ., ,
•y
,- -6 .v
, .
c-t
• T22 R1
`r 32
NJ�" •
( "p'& Iou AN@FK M.W. o o.@ Ia@08Um emrignmy
,a.,"�.. ..s. l �'_ r �Wi� v � .tiP+�� jd����� .l �` fir•
^iMt�R�� % _�:�t. •yam ,�?�ti.,--'
--•,,.,�,- :3,,y"m'.- .,jam
4
,Ft �� /' .� s' ,•. err. '�` ,y
d2o,4�oo9�e Goc��h earth
Go�) earth feeth= �1
000
Sle Soo
�_a d'; -"C'•r. �� , -- � 4 � � �'�° "r'3-�' .R vV'�'r ^'�i"la ...- � � max'-;"���...°.. +.��.a-""j
• t'
_ fAny
.mr
4.
r
Google-earth
Google earth feet l000
meters 500
Ipp-
Iq view 560 c r qr>q
P
N,
I
.777
T22 R1
32
•
♦ _ ri
1
I;.
LL
. +r •fy
T22 RI +
29
,Y sir
ary 4MOMS
10
^ T22 R1 mot+►
'✓ c 32 +r
ca50 m:E4 o -o� -o
J@, oo WPwo o'�o
" ' ��;� .+'4 •� D o _
,,�•. # _
Ir OT
VC
Y ` 4.11 ,
,.T
1 i� � � ..
Goo
»2014 •
Google earth feet 1000
meters 1500 '
view
j'✓�'•y'^T y Fes;t.4•'� +'-'-'
�cr»1s,
r.
e �
r
� e
Google earth feet 1000
meters 1500
Ipp-
view 5av Ot of P nyasa4