Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2006-00027 Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 5/15/2007 TO BE KEPT IN THE PARCEL. FILE May 15,2007 'PN - 3 Z Z Zy— SO-000 SS Notice of Decision Case: SHR2006-00027 Applicants: A.W.Carter,Jerry and Karen Sweeney; Marvin and Patricia Lund Notice is hereby given that the Applicants,for the above-referenced Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, has been granted the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. The request was approved pursuant to the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,specifically for the construction of a pier, ramp and float over tidal waters. The proposal under went a SEPA Review and was found to be a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance(SEP2006-00176). This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeal may be made to the State of Washington Shorelines Hearing Board or the appropriate administrative agency as regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal process. If you have questions or require clarification on these issues please contact Charles Mead McCoy III,Planner with Mason County at 360.427.9670 ext. 294 or chuckm@co.mason.wa.us 1 3 4 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 5 J.Zachary Lell,Hearing Examiner pro rem 6 RE: Carter,Sweeney and Lund FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 8 Shoreline Substantial Development OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION (SHR2006-00027) 9 10 1. INTRODUCTION 11 The applicants have requested a Shoreline Substantial Development(SSD)permit to construct a joint use pier, ramp and float (PRF) structure along the north shore of 12 Hood Canal. The request is APPROVED contingent upon compliance with the 13 conditions imposed herein. 14 11. ORAL TESTIMONY 15 Pursuant to MCC 15.09.070 and MCC 15.09.080,the Hearing Examiner conducted a 16 public hearing regarding the applicants' proposal on April 10, 2007. The following individuals testified at the public hearing in the order of presentation indicated below: 17 Mason County Staff. Charles Mead McCoy III,Senior Planner,Mason County 18 Applicants: Bill Carter 19 Amy Leitman 20 Public: None 21 Staff Rebuttal Charles Mead McCoy III 22 Applicant Rebuttal: Bill Carter 23 Amy Leitman 24 A verbatim transcript of the April 10, 2007 public hearing is attached hereto as 25 Exhibit G and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. The hearing record was left open until April 17, 2007, for the submission of additional written comments from staff and the public. The hearing record was left open until April 20, 2007,for the submission of additional written rebuttal testimony from the applicants. 112Lb60252DOC;1/13009.900000/E PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev.Permit Findings,Conclusions and Decision - 1 - �L 1 III. EXHIBITS 2 The following exhibits were admitted into the hearing record and are hereby 3 incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full: 4 Exhibit A: Staff Report,Mason County(January 8,2006)1 5 Attachments to Staff Report: 6 1. Biological Evaluation,Marine Surveys&Assessments(September 7 14,2006) g 2. Environmental Checklist(October 6,2006) 9 3. SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsigificance: SEP2006- 10 00160,(December 8,2006) 11 4. Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application(undated) 12 5. Affidavit of Posting Notice(December 11,2006) 13 6. Shoreline Permit Application(October 6,2006) 14 7, Environmental Permit Application(October 19,2006) 15 8. Plot Plan(October 6,2006) 16 9. Structural Diagram(October 6,2006) 17 18 10. Flow Chart,"Dock Pier and Float Impacts"(undated) 19 11. Curriculum Vitae,Charles Mead McCoy III(undated) 20 12. Revised Addendum to Staff Report(April 17,2007)2 21 22 At Mr. McCoy's request, the original staff report was replaced with an updated version at the April 10,2007 public hearing. Unless otherwise indicated,references to the staff report within this 23 decision are to the updated version set forth in Exhibit A. The original staff report is included as Exhibit E. 24 2 Attachment 12 contains a"revised addendum"to the staff report submitted by Mr.McCoy via 25 email message dated April 17,2006. The Hearing Examiner assumes from the underlying context that this submittal was intended to supersede and replace the revised addendum originally entered into the record as Attachment 12 during the April 10,2007 public hearing. The designation of the former document as Attachment 12 reflects this assumption. i JZLM0252.DOC;1/130119.900000/1 PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev.Permit Findings,Conclusions and Decision -2- 13. Email Message,Barbara Nightingale to Chuck McCoy(April 6, 1 2007) 2 14. Letter,Jeff Heinis to Charles Mead McCoy III(December 22, 3 2006) 4 Exhibit B: Applicants'PowerPoint Presentation 5 Exhibit C: Excerpt from"Overwater Structures and NonStructural Piling White 6 Paper",Jones&Stokes/Anchor Environmental LLC(December 2006) 7 Exhibit D: Staff Report with Applicants'Comments Interjected(January 8,2007) 8 Exhibit E: Original Staff Report(January 8,2006)3 9 Exhibit F: Email Messages,Amy Leitman to Charles McCoy III(April 18,2007); 10 Bill Carter to Charles McCoy III(April 19,2007) 11 IV. FINDINGS OF FACT 12 1. Applicants. The applicants are Bill Carter,Jerry and Karen Sweeney,and 13 Marvin and Patricia Lund. The applicants were represented at the April 10, 2007 public hearing by Amy Leitman of Marine Surveys&Assessments. 14 2. Public Hearin¢. The Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing 15 regarding the subject application on April 10,2007. 16 3. Site Description/Proposal. The applicants propose an overwater joint use 17 pier, ramp and float ("PRF") structure on the north shore of Hood Canal at approximately milepost III on North Shore Road. As proposed, the PRF would 18 involve a 6' by 60' fixed grated pier, a 4' by 40' grated aluminum ramp, and three attached,grated 6' by 20'polystyrene floats. The entire structure would be supported 19 by driving 10 ACZA piles. The PRF will not exceed 115' in total length as measured 20 from the Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM)of Hood Canal. 21 The site of the proposed PRF contains three single-family residences on individual parcels owned by applicants Carter(10871 North Shore Rd.),Sweeney(10891 North 22 Shore Rd.)and Lund(10851 North Shore Rd.),respectively, as well as an additional vacant lot owned by applicant Carter (unspecified lot). All four parcels are zoned 23 Rural Residential 5 (RR-5), and are designated as Rural under the Mason County 24 Comprehensive Plan. The Shoreline Master Program designation for the site is Urban. 25 3 See Note 1. (JZL660252.D0C;1/13009.900000/1 PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev.Permit Findings,Conclusions and Decision -3- As proposed,the applicants'PRF would extend from the property line separating the I Sweeney parcel and the vacant Carter parcel. 2 4. Surrounding Area Characteristics. The general area surrounding the 3 project site is characterized by residential construction along the north shore of Hood Canal. Waterfront residences are located immediately east and west of the project 4 site. One private residential PRF is located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area. The predominant method of boat anchorage for private residences along 5 the north shore is the use of moorage-ball buoys. Many anchored floating platforms 6 privately used for recreational purposes are also located along the north shore. 7 V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 8 A. Procedural: 9 1. Authority of Hearin¢ Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(10) authorizes the Hearing Examiner to review applications and issue final decisions regarding shoreline 10 substantial development permit applications. 11 B. Substantive: 12 1. Permit Review Criteria: MCC 15.09.055(a) requires a shoreline 13 substantial development permit for any "substantial development" within the shoreline area. The term "substantial development" is undefined by MCC Title 15, 14 but is apparently intended to encompass any development that does not fall within the 15 permit exemptions enumerated in MCC 15.09.055(a), the most significant of which exempts projects valued at $5,000 or less. The estimated cost of the applicants' 16 proposed PRF exceeds this threshold,and no record evidence suggests that any other exemption applies to this project. As such, construction of the applicants' proposed 17 PRF requires an SSD permit. 18 Pursuant to MCC 15.09.055(f)(2)(c),a shoreline substantial development permit must 19 be consistent with both the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and the policies and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act codified at Chapter 90.58 RCW. 20 The Hearing Examiner construes the Mason County Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") as including the shoreline policies set forth in Chapter IX of the Mason 21 County Comprehensive Plan and the Shoreline Use Regulations contained in Chapter 22 17.50 MCC. The Hearing Examiner further concludes that many of the policies of the Shoreline Management Act are sufficiently incorporated within — and thus 23 addressed by—the applicable policies and regulations of Mason County's SMP and need not be separately addressed as such. 24 The SMP policies and criteria applicable to the applicants' PRF proposal are 25 addressed below: {JZ1AW252.D0Q 1/[3009.900000/t PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev.Permit Findings,Conclusions and Decision -4- SMP Piers and Docks (Policy No. 1): Piers and docks should be designed and I located to minimize obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boaters and 2 fishermen. MCC 7.16.170(b)(1). 3 The applicants' proposed PRF would be located on the north shore of Hood Canal in an area containing relatively few structures of this type. Ordinarily,locating a PRF in 4 this area would fail to "minimize obstruction of views" in violation of the above policy. However, the applicants contend, and staff concurs, that the applicants' 5 proposal for a joint PRF actually comports with this policy by minimizing the future 6 ability to install individual PRFs in the immediate area. Under the applicants' theory, the proposed PRF will be constructed to service each of the four contiguous parcels 7 owned by the applicants, respectively, and will ensure that neither present nor future owners may subsequently install additional PRFs to individually service their 8 parcels. As such, the construction of a single,jointly-owned and collectively-used PRF will, over the long term, minimize view obstruction and user conflicts by 9 permanently reducing the total number of local PRFs that will(or can)be installed in 10 the future. The Examiner finds merit in this position provided that the project is conditioned in manner that conclusively and permanently prevents future construction I I of individual PRFs and other overwater structures on the applicants'parcels. 12 SMP Piers and Docks (Policy No. 2): Cooperative uses of piers and docks are 13 favored,especially in tidal waters. MCC 7.16.170(b)(2). 14 As a joint use PRF collectively applied for by applicants Carter,Sweeney and Lund, the applicants'proposal clearly satisfies the above policy. 15 SMP Piers and Docks (Policy No. 3): The type, design and location of docks and 16 piers should be compatible with the shoreline characteristics, tidal action,aesthetics, 17 adjacent land and water uses. MCC 7.16.170(b)(3). 18 The project site is approximately 100 feet eastward of an existing PRF that is larger than the applicants' proposed structure. The surrounding shoreline area is fully 19 developed, fronted by bulkheads, and contains not only the existing PRF but also several detached floats. Except for the existing PRF, the applicants' proposed 20 structure is arguably incompatible with the aesthetics and physical characteristics of 21 the existing shoreline. 22 Uncontroverted testimony received at the April 20,2007 public hearing suggests that the applicants' PRF would also be largely compatible with tidal action. The absence 23 of any significant discernible scour around nearby piers generally supports this contention. As proposed,the applicants' float will be constructed with float stops to 24 ensure that the float is suspended above the substrate by at least 12"at low tide.And 25 given that the PRF will facilitate recreational use of the shoreline area and water by the occupants of at least four adjacent parcels, the proposal is generally compatible with adjacent land and water uses. I JZL660252.DCC;1113009.900000/► PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev.Permit Findings,Conclusions and Decision -5- I SMP Piers and Docks(Policy No.5): Mooring buoys and floats are preferred over 2 piers and docks. MCC 7.16.170(b)(5). 3 Mooring buoys and floats provide the predominant form of boat moorage on the north shore of Hood Canal, and the above policy reflects a legislative preference for this 4 type of moorage rather than permanent attached structures such as piers and docks. As a permanent structure involving a pier,the applicants' proposed PRF clearly does 5 not comport with this policy. The Examiner notes, however, that MCC 6 7.16.170(b)(5),like MCC 7.16.170(b)(3),is ultimately a policy statement rather than a formal regulation. The Examiner also affords significant respect and deference to 7 staff s recommendation—and the reasons underlying it—to approve the applicants' proposal notwithstanding this policy. S SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 1): The location and design of docks 9 and piers, as well as the subsequent use, shall minimize adverse effects on fish, 10 shellfish, wildlife and water quality. MCC 7.16.170(c)(1). 11 While no evidence was submitted remotely suggesting that PRFs may beneficially impact the marine environment, both the applicants and staff concur that the 12 cumulative adverse impacts of private PRFs upon marine life—particularly juvenile salmonids — are presently uncertain. Some testimony and evidence suggested, 13 however, that many of the adverse impacts commonly associated with large 14 overwater structures may be avoided in the context of small docks by virtue of their comparatively lesser size, as well as through the use of gratings, increased dock 15 height and non-treated wood. 16 Staffs basis for recommending approval of this project is the long-term minimization of adverse impacts by reducing the aggregate amount of artificial shading from PRFs 1 and floats in the immediate vicinity of the project site. This novel "more-is-less" 18 theory is at first glance counterintuitive. However, although this issue is extremely close, the Examiner finds that the criterion set forth in MCC 7.16.170(c)(1) is 19 satisfied under the specific circumstances of the applicants' proposal for two reasons. First,the regulation by its terms only requires that the location,design and subsequent 20 use of a new pier minimize—as opposed to prevent—adverse ecological impacts. 21 Second, the project as conditioned (particularly the use of grating, the mandatory removal of existing floats,and the permanent restrictions against installing new piers 22 or floats on any of the applicants' parcels) will ensure that the cumulative local impact of the applicants' PRF is in fact minimized. 23 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No.2): Docks and piers shall be located, 24 designed and operated to not significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the 25 rights of adjacent property owners, or adjacent uses. Structures shall be located at a minimum of five feet from side property lines. Community use or joint use facilities may be located on the property line. MCC 7.16.170(c)(2). )1ZL660252.DCC:1/13009.900000/) PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev.Permit Findings,Conclusions and Decision -6- The location of the proposed PRF straddles the Carter/Sweeney property boundary, I which is permissible under the above policy in the context of joint use facilities. This 2 criterion is accordingly satisfied. 3 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No.4): No pier, dock, or float or similar device shall have a residential structure constructed upon it. MCC 7.16.170(c)(4). 4 The applicants' proposal clearly satisfies this regulation,as the PRF in question will 5 not include a residential structure. 6 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 7): Maximum overall length of a 7 recreational pier 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 saltwater. . . . 8 The length of any pier or dock facility shall not extend the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 100 feet from OHWM on saltwater.... Joint or community use facilities may 9 be an additional 15 feet in length,and shall not exceed a depth of minus five(-5)feet. to MCC 7.16.170(c)(7). 11 The length of the applicants'proposed PRF is 115 feet as measured from the ordinary high water mark, which satisfies the above standard for joint use facilities. The 12 terminus of the proposed PRF (i.e., the float) is at a depth above the 0.0 of mean lower low water. 13 14 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 8): Only one dock is allowed per lot. MCC 7.16.170(c)(8). 15 The applicants' proposal is for a single PRF structure extending from the 16 Carter/Sweeney parcels. This criterion is accordingly satisfied. 17 SMP Piers and Docks(Use Regulation No.9): The width of recreational piers and 18 docks shall not exceed eight feet. MCC 7.16.170(c)(8). 19 The maximum width of the applicants' proposed pier is six feet, which clearly satisfies the above standard. 20 21 SMP Piers and Docks(Use Regulation No.10): At the end of a dock or pier,afloat may be attached. These floats may either be parallel to the dock or pier, or form a 22 "T"or "L". In tidal water, the float shall not exceed four hundred gross square feet without a boat slip, or six hundred gross square feet with a boat. MCC 23 7.16.170(c)(10). 24 The surface area of the applicants' proposed float is 360 square feet,which complies 25 with MCC 7.16.170(c)(10). IJZL660252.DW;1/13009.9000001 t PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev.Permit Findings,Conclusions and Decision -7- SNIP Piers and Docks(Use Regulation No. 13): The recreational pier shall be no I higher than eleven feet above mean higher high water. Piers and docks shall have at 2 least an eight foot span between pilings. MCC 7.16.170(c)(13). 3 Per the drawings in the biological evaluation attached to the staff report,the height of the proposed pier component of the applicants' PRF is less than 11 feet above mean 4 higher high water. The piling span is at least 20 feet. 5 SMP Piers and Docks(Use Regulation No. 14): The surface of floating structures 6 shall be a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the water. MCC 7.16.170(c)(14). 7 As configured,the surface height of the proposed PRF satisfies this criterion. 8 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 15): All floating structures shall 9 include intermittent supports to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide. MCC 10 7.16.170(c)(15). 11 Intermittent supports are included in the applicants'proposal. 12 SMP Piers and Docks(Use Regulation No. 16): All facilities shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. Abandoned or unsafe docks and piers 13 shall be removed or repaired promptly by the owner. MCC 7.16.170(c)(16). 14 The construction and maintenance requirements set forth in MCC 7.t6.170(c)(16)are 15 included as a condition of project approval. 16 RCW 90.58.020: This policy (Shoreline Management Act policy) is designed to insure the development of these shorelines (of the state) in a manner which, while 17 allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will 18 promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the 19 waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. 20 21 For self-evident reasons, development of permanent overwater structures, including PRFs, is generally inconsistent with this policy. However, viewing the applicants' 22 proposal in light of both the fully developed nature of the surrounding shoreline area (specifically including the existing PRF west of the project site) and the required 23 mitigation conditions imposed by this decision,the Hearing Examiner concludes that the adverse impacts of the proposal are sufficiently reduced. 24 25 RCW 90.58.020(1): Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest. {JZrb60252.DOC;1/13009.900000/F PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev.Permit Findings,Conclusions and Decision -8- As conditioned, applicants' proposal will eliminate the ability of future owners of 1 three of the four parcels at issue to adversely affect the state interest in shoreline 2 preservation through future installation of PRFs and floats. 3 RCW 90.58.020(2): Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. 4 The shoreline area immediately surrounding the project site is substantially developed, and already includes a PRF larger in size than the one proposed by the 5 applicants. While the installation of an additional PRF will not "preserve" the 6 remaining natural character of the shoreline per se, the applicants' project as conditioned herein will involve removal of existing floats and ensure that no similar 7 overwater structures will be installed on the other three parcels owned by the applicants. 8 9 RCW 90.58.020(3): Result in long-term over short-term benefit. 10 As explained above, the long-term benefit of the proposal will take the form of preventing future installation of additional PRFs, floats and similar overwater 11 structures within the immediate vicinity. 12 RCW 90.58.020(4): Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. 13 The specific cumulative impacts of PRFs on aquatic resources and shoreline ecology 14 are presently uncertain. The specific impact of the applicants' proposal upon shoreline resources and ecology is minimized by virtue of the mitigation conditions 15 set forth herein. 16 RCW 90.58.020(5): Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the 17 shorelines. 18 The proposed PRF will not have any impact upon public access to public areas of the shoreline. 19 RCW 90.58.020(6): Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the 20 shoreline. 21 The proposed PRF will have little or no impact upon recreational opportunities for the 22 general public. Once constructed, the PRF will increase shoreline and aquatic recreational opportunities for the applicants as joint users of the facility. 23 MCC 15.09.050(c): The Hearing Examiner shall review proposed development 24 according to the following criteria: 25 1. The conflict development does not con with the p fl� Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8,and 16. JZ Lb60252.Doc:1/f 3009.900000/ PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev.Permit Findings,Conclusions and Decision -9- 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is I in the public interest. 2 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or 3 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. 4 Mr. McCoy testified at the April 10, 2007 that, in staff's view, the applicants' 5 proposal satisfied all relevant code criteria,necessarily including the above standards. 6 No contrary evidence was entered into the record. 7 VI. DECISION 8 The shoreline substantial development permit requested by the applicants is GRANTED subject to the following conditions of approval, each of which is 9 mandatory. The conditions set forth in Section VI(B) of this decision must be 10 completed prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed PRF: 11 A. Design,Construction and Maintenance Conditions. 12 1. The design and construction of the PRF shall be as depicted in Biological 13 Evaluation(Exhibit A:Attachment 1,Figures 2 and 3-pages 20 and 21). 14 2. The design and construction of the PRF shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the MDNS(Exhibit A:Attachment 3). 15 3. The design and construction of the PRF shall comply fully with all applicable 16 federal,state and local regulations. 17 4. The PRF shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition 18 pursuant to MCC 7.16.170(c)(16). 19 B. Enhancement and Restoration Conditions. 20 1. All existing unattached, anchored floats, and moorage buoys presently located 21 within the tideland area or offshore from each of the applicants' waterfront parcels shall be permanently removed. This requirement specifically includes, but is not 22 necessarily limited to,(1)removal of the existing 16'X 24' unattached anchored float from the Carter and Sweeney tidelands/offshore area, and (2) removal of the 23 unattached anchored float from the Lund tidelands/offshore area.° The applicants shall arrange for a site visit by staff to verify such removal. 24 25 4 The latter requirement deviates from the conditions of approval originally recommended by staff, which had omitted from the structure removal mandate the current float situated offshore from the Lund parcel. The Examiner finds that permanent removal of all of the applicants'existing floats is the minimum measure necessary to adequately mitigate the installation of the applicants' larger, I M660252DOC:1/13009.900000/1 PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev.Permit Findings,Conclusions and Decision - 10- 1 2. In order to ensure permanent joint use of the PRF, the parties shall execute and 2 record a permanent, written easement granting each applicant and his/her successors in title reasonable access to and use privileges of the PRF. Said easement shall be 3 appurtenant to the applicants' underlying property,shall run with land,and shall bind and benefit all future owners of the current applicants' waterfront parcels. The 4 easement shall be in a form approved by the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, shall reference this decision, and shall be submitted to the Mason County 5 Planning Director for review,comment and approval prior to execution and recording 6 with the Mason County Auditor's Office. 7 3. A deed restriction permanently prohibiting the future installation of any pier, dock,PRF or unattached, anchored float or moorage buoy beyond the ordinary high 8 water mark shall be recorded against the title of each of the applicants' four waterfront parcels,respectively.The deed restriction shall be in a form approved by 9 the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, shall reference this decision, and 10 shall be submitted to the Mason County Planning Director for review,comment and approval prior to execution and recording with the Mason County Auditor's Office. 11 VII. APPEAL 12 Pursuant to MCC 15.09.055(g), this decision is appealable to the State Shorelines 13 Hearings Board. Any person aggrieved by this decision may initiate an appeal by 14 filing an original and one copy of a request for the same with the Hearings Board within 21 days of receiving this decision. Any such request must be in the form 15 required by the rules for practice and procedure before the State Shorelines Hearings Board. Concurrent with the filing of a request for review with the Hearings Board, 16 the person seeking review shall file a copy of the request for review with the 17 Department of Ecology,the Attorney General and the Hearing Examiner. 18 Hearings Board regulations are set forth in Chapter 461-08 WAC. 19 DATED this Rday of May,2007 20 J.Zachary 1F11 21 Mason County Hearing Examiner pro tem 22 23 permanent PRF and to minimize its aesthetic,ecological and other impacts. As a practical matter,the Examiner notes that installation of the applicants' new PRF,to which the Lunds will enjoy joint use 24 rights,should obviate any continuing need for the existing float. 25 t JZLbW252.DOC;1/13009.9000W i PRF Shoreline Substantial Dev.Permit Findings,Conclusions and Decision - 11 - Addendum to the Staff Report RE: Mason County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SHR2006-00027) All the following conditions will need to be met by the Applicants before issuance of a Final Building Permit Approval for the proposed joint use pier, ramp and float. A. Design Conditions 1. As submitted in attached Biological Evaluation (Figures 2 and 3 - pages 20 and 21, respectively). B. Enhancement and Restoration Conditions 1. An existing unattached, anchored float of dimensions 16'X 24'will be removed from the Carter and Sweeney tidelands. 2. All four parcels have agreed to restrictions on their respective deeds to disallowing unattached, anchored floats to be placed in Hood Canal forward of OHWM on their individual properties(exception for the Lund property is stated below in item 4.) 3. All four parcels have agreed to restrictions on their respective deeds to not allowing for a pier, ramp and float to be placed in Hood Canal forward of the OHWM of their individual properties. The proposed pier, ramp float found in this application and evaluated by this staff report will be jointly used by all properties and should be so stated on all four deeds. 4. The Lund property will be permitted to maintain their existing unattached, anchored float and maintain and replace said float without deed restriction. C. Deed Restriction Conditions 1. These deed restrictions, as presented above, will need to be recorded with Mason County Auditor's Office and a copy submitted to the Planning Department for approval. Respectfully, Charles Mead McCoy III Planner Mason County CASE INDEX Carter,Sweeney and Lund SHR2006-00027 Index# Date Description 1 December 28,2006 Exhibit 1:Staff Report September 14,2006 Attachment 1:Biological Evaluation,Marine Surveys Assessments October 19,2006 Attachment 2:Mason County Environmental Checklist ecember 8,2006 Attachment 3:Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance SEP2006-00027 October 6,2006 Attachment 4:Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application Form December 11,2006 Attachment 5:Affidavit of Posting of Notice of Shoreline Management Permit October 19,2006 Attachment 6:Shoreline Permit Application 8 October 19,2006 Attachment 7:Environmental Permit Application Attachment 8:Plot Plan 10 Attachment 9:Structural Diagram 11 ttachment 10:Dock,Piers and Float Impacts 12IAttachment 11:Curriculum Vitae,Charles Mead McCoy III Mason County Department of Planning Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279 Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360)427-9670 January 8,2006 TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner FROM: Planning Staff—Charles Mead McCoy III RE: Mason County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SHR2006-00027). STAFF REPORT Introduction. This report evaluates a proposal for the construction of a joint pier,ramp and float(PRF)structure in Hood Canal along North Shore Road at approximately milepost 11. The proposed structure will consist of a 6'by 60'fixed grated pier,a 4'by 40'grated aluminum ramp,and three attached floats(i.e.each float being 6'X 20')that consist of fully enclosed in extruded polyethylene,polystyrene flotation. All three floats are to have grating. Ten ACZA piles will be driven to support the entire structure.The entire length of the PRF will not exceed 115'in total length from Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM)of Hood Canal(Attachment 1). I. Applicants:A.W.Carter,Jerry and Karen Sweeny;Marvin and Patricia Lund 11. Agent:Amy Leitman,Marine Surveys and Assessments. III. Date of Complete Application:22 June 2006. IV. Property Location:Site Address and Project Location: 10851,10871, (unspecified lot);10891 NE North Shore Road,Belfair. Section 24,Township 22N, Range 03 W V. Evaluations: Characteristics of the area:the general area is characterized by residential construction along the north shore of Hood Canal.Waterfront residences are immediately east and west of the project site. One private residential pier,ramp,and float(PRF)structure is in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area(Attachment 1). Predominately,the form of anchorage for private residences along the north shore is the use of moorage-ball buoys. Many anchored floating platforms are also in existence along the north shore for recreational use by private residents.The majority of PRFs that do exist along this portion of the north shore of Hood Canal are existing,non-conforming structures under the current structural design requirements found in the Mason County Shoreline Master Program(Chapter 7.16.170). They continue to exist because of their ability to be replaced and maintained in there current non-conforming state. These structures would not be permitted today because of their non-compliant,structural design flaws. The Port of Allyn maintains a Public Boat Ramp and Marina at milepost 4.6 on the North Shore Road,approximately 6 miles NE from the proposed project PRF site. Characteristics of the site:the site contains three single-family residences on individual parcels,and an additional undeveloped lot owned by Mr.Carter,adjacent to his developed home-site parcel. Several other residences exist east and west of the proposed pier,ramp and float location. Mooring ball buoys could be anchored offshore of all four lots,and in combination with an individual,unattached,recreational,float of not to exceed 400 square feet along the shoreline of each lot(Mason County Shoreline Master Program,Chapter 7.16.170). Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. Shoreline Master Program Designation. The Shoreline Master Program designation for the site is Urban. Zoning. All four parcels are zoned Rural Residential 5(RR-5). SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements. The proposal was reviewed under SEPA,(SEP2006-00160,Attachment 2). Please find attached posted and circulated for agency review Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance(Attachment 3). Please find attached Joint Aquatic Resources Permit application form(Attachment 4). Please find attached Affidavit of Posting Notice of Shoreline Management Permit (Attachment 5). Please find Attached Shoreline Management Permit application (SHR2006-00027)(Attachment 6)and Mason County Environmental Permit application (MEP2006-00066)(Attachment 7). No comments were received from agencies. Other Permits. The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit approval. A Hydraulic Project Approval was issued from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW).Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Protection Concurrence,and US Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE)NWP approvals are also necessary. Analysis. Per the Mason County Shoreline Master Program(SMP),this proposal requires a Shoreline Management Permit,Shoreline Substantial Development,due to the cost exceeding$5,000 per Section 7.13.010 and by reference to the Project Classifications matrix,Chapter 7.16. The proposal is for a pier on an Urban-designated shoreline. Piers and Docks Policies are: I.Piers and docks should be designed and located to minimize obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen. behavior are well documented(Ali 195[9], 1962,Brownian et al. 1993;Coughlin and Hawryshyn 1993;Dera and Gordon 1968;Fields and Finger 1954,Hawryshyn and Harosi 1993;Nemeth 1989;Novales-Flamique and Hawryshyn 1996;Puckett and Anderson 1987)."and that "Changes to ambient underwater light environments pose a risk of altering fish migration behavior and increasing mortality risks." Recently received from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Habitat Program, Environmental Services Division, Titled:DRAFT Washington Department offish& Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations,Forage Fish Spawning Habitats(Penttila,2005)addresses some of the concerns of"Overwater Structures"on page 10 of the document,stating "Herring spawning habitat,however, may be significantly impacted by shading from over-water structures,grounding of floats,and accumulation of shell fragments that fall from the structure(Burkle pers. Comm). Studies have shown that there are no species of marine macro-vegetation that can tolerate the footprint of a typical overhead dock or pier,including plant species used by spawning herring(WDFW unpub.Data). Introduction of these fixed overwater structures invariably results in a die-off of vegetation directly beneath and may also show negative impacts on either side." In the Introduction of Recommendations to Minimize Potential Impacts to Sea rrasses from Single-Family Residential Dock Structures in the Pacific Northwest.By Deborah J. Shafer,prepared for U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle District, it was stated: "Although the area of seagrass loss associated with an individual dock can be relatively small,cumulative impacts and fragmentation of seagrass beds may be significant along highly developed shorelines." In conclusion, The City of Bainbridge Island,Department of Planning and Community Development,commissioned a study be done to evaluate potential negative impacts to future projected over-water structure build-out using a modeling approach,and a review of the currently available scientific research literature(Blakely Harbor Cumulative Impact Assessment, Working Draft,February 22,2002). In the view of their report it was stated "any dock will have some light-related impact,but there are no fast and easy answers to accurately estimate them yet. Daytime light reduction with sharp contrasts along shadow edges has been linked to disturbance ofjuvende salmonid migration, resulting in school dispersal,delays,or diversions into deep water."Also stated in the report "Other indirect light impacts include a reduction in primary production(base of the food web)and stress to bottom dwelling marine vegetation(i.e.eelgrass,macroalgae, including kelp),which may include a reduction in size and density or an increase in patchiness. These changes in turn lead to impacts to animal species(juvenile salmonids, crabs, etc.)that depend upon eelgrass and macroalgae as habitat for refuge(protection from predators),spawning,and rearing. (Nightingale&Simenstad,2001)" 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 use or joint use facilities may be located on the property line. Per the submitted site plan by the Applicant the structure will not interfere with the rights of adjacent property owners(the possible exception to this Regulation is the potential negative cumulative impacts associated with this proposed project). This proposal is for a joint use facility and is located on the property line(Attachment 8). 4. No pier,dock,or float or similar device shall have a residential structure constructed upon it. None 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 saltwater or a depth of five feet as measured from ordinary low water on lakes. The length of any pier or dock facility shall do exceed the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 100 feet of OHWM on saltwater and 50 feet on fresh water shorelines. Joint or community use facilities may be an additional 15 feet in length,and shall not exceed a depth of minus five(-5)feet. When sufficient depth to serve a vessel is not found at these depths,a recreational float,with one boat slip,may be located at a depth sufficient to serve the vessel,but not exceeding minus eight(-8)feet as measured from mean lower low water,on marine shores,and ordinary low water on lake shores. The pier,ramp and float(PRF)as proposed at a total length of 115',which is the maximum allowed length for a joint pier or dock facility from OHWM on saltwater (Attachment 9). The terminus of the pier(afloat)is above the 0.0'of mean lower low water. 9.The width of recreational piers and docks shall not exceed eight feet. The maximum proposed width of any portion of the proposed pier,ramp and float is 6 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 float shall not exceed 700 gross square feet with a joint-use ownership,without a boat slip. The combined float surface area is 360 square feet. 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. Pier height is at least 2'above mean higher high water. The span between pilings appears to be at the least 20 feet and well in excess of the minimum of 8 feet as required. 14.The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the water. As configured. 15.All floating structures shall include intermittent supports to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide. As configured. Applicable guidelines for Shorelines of Statewide Significance in the following order of preference are: #1: Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; As stated in the comments received by Kim Van Zwalenburg, Washington Department of Ecology in the case of Fladseth and Sebastian(SEP2004-00103) "I have concerns about this proposal in an area with few docks. Hood Canal is a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and the proliferation of docks is an issue on this water body." Staff submits that these comments are as applicable in this case as they were in assessing the cumulative negative impacts of piers and docks along the same Shoreline of Statewide Significance. The north shore of Hood Canal has not seen the magnitude of proliferation of individual/joint residential piers and docks that has become commonplace along the south shore(146 on the south shore compared to 37 on the north shore,Shoreline Alterations in Hood Canal and the Eastern Strait of Juan De Fuca, Technical Report 03- 1.Point No Point Treaty Council,March 2003). As noted in previous stafJ`'reports to the Hearing Examiner,the south shore has been significantly altered by the high-density of piers and docks along its shoreline. The question posed is whether we,the people of the State of Washington,want to establish through precedent the incremental increase of these types of over-water structures along the north shore as well.It is almost certain that this type of development would progress toward another high-density area of piers and docks along the north shore like that of the already significantly altered south shore riparian marine environment. #2: Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; Pier,ramp and float structures do not preserve the natural character of the shoreline. #3: Result in long term over short term benefit; In Staffs opinion,the long-term benefits of a more natural appearing shoreline outweigh the short-term individual benefits incurred. The future build-out anticipated by allowing the incremental permitting of individual piers and docks on the north shore has the impact of diminishing the overall character of the shoreline. #4: Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; The ecological concerns were previously stated in Applicable Pier and Dock Use Regulations(1),with particular emphasis given to juvenile salmonid behavioral alterations and survival. As an addition to the earlier argument with regard to juvenile salmonid survival or mortality,I have attached a representational flow diagram that illustrates the interconnectedness of alteration in ambient light intensity caused by "Dock,Pier and Float Impacts"(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001)(Attachment 10). In two recent Decisions by the Hearing Examiner(i.e. Oldright(SHR2006-00001)and McCauley(SHR2006-00002))denials were based partially, if not primarily,upon the potential for cumulative negative ecological impacts to the Hood Canal nearshore environment. #5: Increase recreational opportunity for the public in the shoreline; Private,residential,piers and docks, whether they be individual or joint,do not generally complement the general public recreational interests. The interference with access to residences along the water,as well as,to beach-walking and to recreational boaters is a concern. #6: Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. No apparent conflict foreseen. Conclusions:Based upon these policies and regulations,the project appears to be inconsistent with most of the Shoreline Master Program Policies,Use Regulations and Shorelines of Statewide Significance Preferences regarding piers and docks.Staff recommends denial. If Hearing Examiner approval is given for the proposed project,then Staff would request that the Hearing Examiner require,under an Approval with Conditions,deed restrictions be placed on all four lots concerned with the proposed project forbidding any fixture develop of any additional PRFs,or unattached,anchored,floats from being allowed or approved for any of the parcels afore mentioned. And be so restricted before the County gives final Building Permit approval. Choices of Action. 1. Approval. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted). 4. Deny with prejudice(reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year). 5. Remand to for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section 15.09.090 of Title 15. (4!5/2007)Charles McCoy III-Mason Co summary 04 03 Ol.doC --` page ag e 1 April 3,2007 The following is a brief summary of the information contained in the Biological Evaluation for the Carter, Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project. The proposed structure will have an overwater area of 860 ft'and will extend 11S into Hood Canal.It will be shared by three families.The pier will have 53%of its area grated.The ramp will be 100%grated.The floats will have 33%of their area grated.Float stops and stub pilings will prevent the floats from grounding out at low tides. It will be located on the North Shore in a documented surf smelt spawning area.However,only two pilings will be driven in surf smelt spawning habitat.These two pilings will be galvanized steel to minimize impacts to spawning substrate.Non-toxic wood or wood-like material will be used for decking.There is a paucity of — macroalgae at this site and no eelgrass. Because of the grating installed in the structure,it is expected that the structure will have minimal impacts on the listed fish species,Hood Canal summer-run chum,Puget Sound chinook and bull trout.To further minimize any negative impacts on the benthic environment,an existing 384 ft'float structure will be removed from the site. A Carter, Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Fier,Ramp and Float Project Army Corps of Engineers Reference 4 Ological Evaluation September 14,2006 For: Bill Carter,Jeff Sweeney and Marvin Lund Mail to: Bill Carter 10871 Northshore Road Belfair,WA 98528 Prepared by: Marine Surveys Ft Assessrnents 521 Snagstead Way Port Townsend,WA 98368 Phone:(360)385-4073,Fax:(360)385-1724 E-mail:sea@cablespeed.com List of Figures and Attachments Figure Number Page 1. Project location.................................................................................19 2. Site plan..............................................................................................20 3. Plan and elevation views.................................................................21 4. Marbled murrelet summer aerial survey map...............................22 5. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map..................................23 6. Documented forage fish spawning areas.....................................24 Aflachment Number Page 1. SCUBA survey transect map............................................................25 2. Photographs of the site...............................................................26-27 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list...................................28-29 4. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment..............................................30-33 5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer-run Chum.......................34-35 6. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal-Puget SoundBull Trout............................................................................36-37 Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•2 Carter, Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project Biological Evaluation I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Location: Section 24,Township 22N,Range 03W 10891 and 10871 North Shore Road Belfair,WA 98528 Latitude:N 47*22.725'Longitude:W 123*00.821' The project location is seen in Figure 1. B. Project Description: The proposed project involves the construction of a new,joint-use,pier,ramp and float(PRF)structure in Hood Canal(Figures 1,2 and 3).The proposed structure will consist of a 6'by 60'fixed pier with grating covering 53%of its area,a 4'by 40'fully grated aluminum ramp leading to a 6'wide by 20'long ramp float with two-foot wide grating installed down the middle.Two 6'by 20'floats will be attached at right angles to either side of the ramp float,forming a"T."Both of these floats will have two-foot wide grating installed down their middle.Float stops will be installed to suspend the floats 12"off the substrate at low tides (Figure 3).The tidal elevation at the waterward end of the float will be approximately-3.8'.The pier,ramp and ramp float will be oriented within approximately 45'of true north.The structure will extend 115'from an existing concrete bulkhead into Hood Canal.Plastic strips will be installed between the pilings and the floats to prevent chafing. Photographs of the site are seen in Attachment 2. The Douglas fir pilings,treated with ACZA(Chemonite)1.5#retention,will be towed to the site.The 10" diameter pilings will be driven with a barge-mounted 2,000 lb drop hammer.Set-up time for each piling is approximately 20 to 30 minutes,while actual driving time is about the same,depending on the conditions. This work is always done during daylight hours at high tide,with the barge floating,not resting on the substrate.The most landward pilings will be driven first,those farther out will be driven as the tide goes out. All framing materials for the pier and floats will be ACZA treated.All fastenings and hardware will be hot dipped galvanized.The flotation will consist of polystyrene fully enclosed in extruded polyethylene resin tubes.Floatation will be placed so that it does not obstruct the float grating. All treated lumber used for this project will meet or exceed the standards established in"Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments"developed by the Western Wood Preservers Institute,revised July 1996 and amended April 17,2002. Best Management Practices(BMP)guidelines as enumerated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)in the Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA)will be followed during this project. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project-3 C.Action Area: The action area should include the area within a one-mile radius of the proposed PRF location.This action area includes the area(25'surrounding each piling)in which potential turbidity plumes generated by pile driving may impact the listed fish species.The action area will also include the area in which pile-driving noise may affect nesting and wintering eagles,marbled murrelets and the listed fish species. II.SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION A.Species Information: In the project area,there are two salmon species,Hood Canal summer-run chum(Oncorhynchus keta)and Puget Sound chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened species according to the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)(Federal Register,Vol.64,Nos.56 and 57).NMFS also listed the Steller sea lion(Eumetopias jubatus)as threatened and both the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)and the Pacific leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea)as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound.Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus)were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)in October of 1999.Bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)and marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1978 and 1992,respectively. 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 the designated area for the Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer-run ESUs(Federal Register,Vol 70,No.]70,Friday,September 2,2005 Rules and Regulations). 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).On June 9,2006,NOAA Fisheries proposed to designate critical habitat for killer whales.There are no confirmed sightings of Southern Resident killer whales inside Hood Canal.(Federal Register/Vol.71,No. 115/Thursday,June 15,2006/ Proposed Rules).Therefore,Hood Canal is not included in the proposed critical habitat areas. On March 29,2006.NMFS proposed listing the Puget Sound steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss)as a threatened species under the ESA(Federal Register/Vol.71,No.60/Wednesday,March 29,2006/ Proposed Rules). According to the USFWS,no special management protection for critical habitat has been designated for the bald eagle at this time.There is no marbled murrelet designated critical habitat near the project site(Federal Register,Vol.61,No. 102, 1996).USFWS has designated critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout.The project site is on the shoreline designated as critical habitat in Hood Canal(Federal Register,Vol. 70,No. 185,September 26,2005).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. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•4 Hood Canal Summer-run Chum:Chum salmon have the widest natural geographic and spawning distribution of any Pacific salmon(Groot and Margolis 1991),and historically may have been the most abundant of all the salmon species(Heave 1961).In the Puget Sound area the spawning grounds are situated near coastal rivers and lowland streams.Summer,fall and winter runs are present.Fall-run chum are most prevalent,but summer runs are found in the Hood Canal,the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in southern Puget Sound(WDFW 1994).In the Hood Canal,the summer-run stocks spawn from early- September to mid-October,while spawning of the fall-run stocks begins about the third week in October and may continue into January(WDFW 1994). Juvenile chum in Washington begin migration downstream in late January and continue through May, although there is considerable variability in the onset of migration due to the large number of cues influencing migration(Simenstad et al. 1982 and Salo 1991).The migration to the estuarine environment usually happens immediately after emergence(Simenstad 1998),but juveniles have been reported to remain in freshwater streams for up to a month(Salo and Noble 1953 and Bostick 1955). Chum and ocean-type chinook spend more time in the estuarine environment than other species of salmon(Dorsey et al. 1978 and Healey 1982).Residence time in the Hood Canal ranges from 4 to 32 days with an average residence of 24 days(Simenstad 1998).Juvenile chum consume benthic organisms found in and around eelgrass beds(harpacticoid copepods,gammarid amphipods and isopods),but change their diet to drift insects and plankton such as calanoid copepods,larvaceans,and hyperiid amphipods as their size increases to 50-60 mm.(Simenstad et al. 1982).Eelgrass beds are probably the main migration corridors for juveniles,providing both forage opportunities and refuge from predation(Simenstad et al. 1982). As the spring and early summer season progress and plankton blooms and forage opportunities increase, the migration rate slows(Bax 1983),Simenstad and Salo(1982)found that as the food resources started to decrease in mid to late summer,juvenile chum tended to move offshore,suggesting a relationship between out migration and prey availability. Summer chum escapements in Hood Canal have generally experienced a continuous decline for the past 30 years.However,beginning in 2003,escapements began to increase.In 2004,the escapements were the highest recorded during the period that total spawner numbers have been estimated(1974-2004) (WDFW and Point No Point Treaty Council 2005). Puget Sound Chinook:Puget Sound chinook,also called the king salmon,are distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size.Most chinook in the Puget Sound are"ocean-type"and migrate to the marine environment during their first year(Myers et al. 1998).They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence as fry from March to May at a length of 40 mm.,or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June of their first year at a length of 60-80 mm.(Healey 1982). Chinook fry in Washington estuaries feed on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans(gammarid amphipods,mysids,and cumaceans).As they grow and move into neritic habitats,they feed on decapod larvae,larval and juvenile fish,drift insects,and euphausiids(Simenstad et al. 1982).These ocean-type chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the most dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival. Summer/fall-run chinook have spawned in the Skokomish,Union,Tahuya,Duckabush,Dosewallips and Hamma Hamma Rivers in the past-all of these rivers empty into the Hood Canal.The Skokomish chinook stock is currently rated"Depressed"due to the low returns of natural spawners(WDFW 2002). According to the WDFW A large number of the naturally spawning chinook in the Skokomish are derived from hatchery strays from Hoodsport and George Adams hatcheries(WDFW 1994).Chinook of hatchery origin have been released in the Tahuya and Union rivers,and the genetic impacts are unknown.These fish are considered a stock of mixed origin(a stock whose individuals originated from commingled native and non-native parents)with composite production(a stock sustained by both wild and artificial production)(Myers et al. 1998 and WDFW 1994). Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•5 The Mid-Hood Canal chinook spawn in the Hamma Hamma,Duckabush and Dosewallips rivers.This stock status is listed as"Critical"due to chronically low escapements(WDFW 2002). Bull Trout:Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California(at present they are extinct in California)to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska,and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea.Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea(for anadromous populations)takes place in the spring.Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival.Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).They live both in fresh and marine waters.Some migrate to larger rivers (fluvial),lakes(adfluvial),or saltwater(anadromous)before returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others(resident bull trout)complete all of their life in the streams where they were reared.Habitat degradation,dams and diversions,and predation by non-native fish threaten the Coastal-Puget Sound population.The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout in the contiguous United States(Federal Register,Vol.64,No.210, 1999). There are three bull trout subpopulations in the Skokomish River Basin.There is an isolated population in Lake Cushman(due to the construction of a dam on the North Fork Skokomish River),a second subpopulation occurs in the South Fork-lower North Fork Skokomish River,and a third subpopulation occurs in the upper North Fork Skokomish River above Staircase Falls(Staircase Falls is assumed to be a barrier to migration of the Lake Cushman stock into the upper North Fork Skokomish).The first two populations are considered"depressed"(with fewer than 500 spawners in each population),and the third population is considered"unknown"because of insufficient information(Federal Register,Vol. 64,No.210, 1999). Bald Eagle:In 1973,the Endangered Species Act passed and the bald eagle was listed as threatened in Washington State.Currently,there are about six hundred nesting pairs of bald eagles in Washington. Each winter several hundred additional eagles take up temporary residence on rivers and streams to feed on the spawned out carcasses of salmon.Eagles are generally riparian,associated with coasts,rivers and lakes.Nest selection includes three key elements:(1)proximity to water,and a clear flight path to the water,(2)they usually prefer to find the largest tree in the area,and(3)an open view of the surrounding area.An otherwise suitable site may not be used if there is excessive human activity in the area.Birds are their primary food source,but eagles are opportunistic and will take a variety of fish,small mammals,sea urchins,clams,crabs and carrion.In Washington State,most nest-building activity occurs in January and February.Egg laying occurs in March or early April and eaglets hatch after a 35- day incubation period(Stalmaster 1987).They remain in the nest for 10-12 weeks before attempting their first flights in mid-July.They may remain in the area for another month before dispersal (Anderson et al. 1986). There are no active eagle nests within a mile of the site and there are no eagle winter concentration areas near the site(Nordstrom,pers.comm.). Marbled Murrelets:Marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family.They spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting.In the critical nesting areas,fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species (WDW 1993).Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance,sea perch,Pacific herring,surf smelt,other small schooling fish and invertebrates.There is no critical habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the project site. Annual aerial surveys for marbled murrelets(Marine Bird and Mammal Component of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program,WDFW)indicate that marbled murrelets have been noted in this part of the Hood Canal in the winter(Figure 5),but have not been observed in the summer in the area(Figure 4). Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 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. There are documented surf smelt spawning areas at the site(Figure 6-WDFW 2005). Surf smelt require sand/gravel substrates in the upper intertidal zone(tidal elevation of 7'up to 1'above the MHHWL)on which to deposit their eggs.Egg deposition occurs between September 15 and March I in the Hood Canal area. The nearest Pacific herring spawning areas are located approximately 5,200'across Hood Canal from the site.Herring usually spawn from January 15 to April 1 on Zostera marina,Gracilariopsis and other macroalgae. The nearest documented sand lance spawning beaches are approximately 3,500'southwest of the site (Figure 6-WDFW 2005).Spawning takes place primarily on fine-grained sand substrates,although spawning can occur on sand-gravel substrates as well as gravel up to 3 cm in diameter.Spawning can take place on sheltered beaches,current-swept beaches on tidal passages and on exposed wave-swept beaches.They deposit their adhesive eggs in the upper intertidal zone(the area between+S'MLLW and MHHW).Sand lance spawn from October 15 to March 1. Steller Sea Lions:Steller sea lions are found on the west coast from California to Alaska.Breeding colonies do not exist on the Washington coast but may be found in British Columbia and Oregon (Osborne et al. 1988).There are no documented haulouts or rookeries in the Hood Canal area(Jeffries et al.2000),although sea lions are seen in the Puget Sound in the winter(October-May)where their visits are transitory. Humpback Whales:Due to excessive whaling practices in the past,humpback whales are rarely seen in Puget Sound,even though in the past they were much more prevalent(Angell and Balcomb 1982). According to Osborne et al.(1988),there were only three sightings of humpback whales in Puget Sound from 1976 to 1988.However,just 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 recent sighting was made near the San Juan Islands on August 31,2006(Orca Network Sighting Report -September 03,2006).However,it is highly unlikely they would be present near the Hood Canal project area(Jeffries,pers.comm.). Leatherback Sea Turtle:There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington,even though they are occasionally seen along the coast(Bowlby et al. 1994).They are rarely seen in Puget Sound (McAllister,pers.comm.).Again,it seems highly unlikely that these turtles would be found in the Hood Canal near the project site. Southern Resident Killer Whales:The Southern Resident population consists of three pods:J,K and L. According to Wiles(2004),"While in inland waters during warmer months,all of the pods concentrate their activity in Haro Strait,Boundary Passage,the Southern Gulf Islands,the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and several localities in the southern Georgia Strait."During early autumn,these pods, especially J pod,extend their movements into Puget Sound to take advantage of the chum and chinook salmon runs.Resident killer whales spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter water less than 5 meters deep(Baird 2001). There have been no confirmed sightings of Southern Resident killer whales in Hood Canal.Therefore,it seems unlikely that the proposed project will have any impacts on this species. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•7 Puget Sound Steelhead:According to the WDFW(1994),"In Hood Canal,three wild summer steelhead stocks and eight wild winter steelhead stocks have been identified.Wild summer steel head in the Skokomish,Duckabush,and Dosewallips rivers and wild steelhead in the Dewatto,Tahuya,Union, Skokomish,Hamma Hamma,Duckabush and Dosewallips rivers and Quilcene/Dabob bays tributaries are identified as wild stocks." The summer steelhead run timing is from May through October and the winter run timing is from December through May. Populations of Puget Sound steelhead in the Hood Canal generally average less than 100 spawners per year(Federal Register/Vol.71,No.60/Wednesday,March 29,2006/Proposed Rules). B. Survey Results: A SCUBA survey was done June 27,2006,a sunny day,from approximately 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM at the project site.Amy Leitman and Clea Barenburg used SCUBA to run six transects to identify flora,fauna, substrate types and other qualitative information relative to the Biological Evaluation.Water visibility was poor,about five feet.The shoreline at the site is oriented in a generally northeast-southwest direction (approximately 50°-230°true);the Carter and Lund property is located to the northeast of the Sweeney property.The proposed joint-use pier would be located along common property line between the Sweeney and Carter property.A concrete bulkhead approximately 2'4"high extends along the shoreline of the Carter property;a concrete bulkhead approximately 3'6"high extends along the Sweeney property shoreline. Other features noted within the survey area include an approximately 6'by 24'swim float,a concrete boat ramp,and two concrete mooring buoy anchors,each approximately T/2'x T/2'x 2'.The MHHW line is a little over one vertical foot above the toe of the Carter bulkhead. The six transects(TI—T6)ran generally northwest to southeast(315°-135'true)and were all nearly perpendicular to,and were measured from,the interface of the bulkhead and the beach(the "bulkhead/beach interface").All transects were 25'apart and extended 180'seaward from the bulkhead/beach interface.T3 was located on the common property line,T1 was 50'southwest of T3 and T6 was 75'northeast of T3,for a total survey area distance of 125'as measured along the shoreline.The SCUBA survey transect and habitat map(Attachment I)shows the location of each transect. Surface Substrate:Beginning at the bulkhead/beach interface and continuing seaward along all six transects,the substrate was a mix of pea gravel,gravel and Crassostrea gigas(Pacific oyster)shell.By approximately 65'from the bulkhead/beach interface the substrates along all the transects had become primarily gravel and cobble.Oysters were found on the substrates by about 90'along T 1 and T2,and by about 50'along the other four transects.Balanus glandula(barnacles)were noted between approximately 70'and 120'along T3 and T4 and were found with oysters on the substrates of T5 and T6 about 100'from the bulkhead/beach interface.Along T3 and T4,sand and broken shell were found along with the gravel and cobble of the substrates beginning approximately 110'from the bulkhead/beach interface;rock was added to the mix by about 120'along those transects.The substrate was a mix of sand,rock and gravel by 180'along T 1 and T2;sand and shell by 170'along T3 and T4; and sand and rock by 150'along T5 and T6,all measured from the bulkhead/beach interface.A concrete block was noted about 165'along T2. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•8 Substrate Slope:All six transects were parallel,180'long and measured from the bulkhead/beach interface.The tidal elevation showing the slope contour was measured along T3;the other transects had similar contours.Along T3,the water's edge was 64'from the bulkhead/beach interface at 3:20 PM; measurements were taken 70'from the bulkhead/beach interface and at 10-foot intervals thereafter.The corrected tidal elevations along T3 were: Distance Along Transect 3 Tidal Elevation MLLW 70' +0.9' 80, -0.1' 90, -1.1' 100' -2.6' 110, -3.5' 120' -4.0' 130' -4.5' 140' -5.5' 150' -6.5' 160' -7.4' 170' -9.4' 180, -10.4' Macroalgae:The following species of macroalgae were observed within the survey area. Enteromorpha intestinalis:Sea hair was observed covering about 10%of the area l 10'along T 1.Small amounts of this alga,covering less than 2%of the area,were observed between 70'and 120'along T3,T4 and T5,all as measured from the bulkhead/beach interface. Sargassum sp.:This brown alga was noted from about 170'through 180'along Tl,and between about 120'and the ends of the transects along T3—T6,all as measured from the bulkhead/beach interface. Scytosiphon sp.:This alga was noted near the end of each transect.It was found between about 170'and 180'along T1 and T2;between approximately 150'and 170'along T3 and T4;and between 160'and 180'along T5 and T6. L lva fenestrata:Sea lettuce was noted covering about 1%of the area 170'along T1,increasing to about 5%coverage by 180'from the bulkhead/beach interface.Sea lettuce was also noted at 180'along T2 but covered less than 5%of the area.At the end of T5,between about 170'and 180'from the bulkhead/beach interface,this alga covered less than 1%of the area. Microalgae:Patches of a diatom mat were observed on the sand 180'from the bulkhead/beach interface along T5. Eelgrass: No eelgrass(Zostera sp.)was noted in the survey area. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•9 Invertebrate Species:Several species of invertebrates were noted in the survey area,including:Balanus glandula(barnacle),Cancer gracilis(graceful crab),Cancer magister(Dungeness crab),Cancer productus(red rock crab),Crassostrea gigas(Pacific oyster),Dermasterias imbricata(leather star), Pisaster ochraceus(ochre star)and Polinices lewisii(moon snail). Vertebrate Species:The only vertebrates noted in the survey area were Syngnathus leptorhynchus (pipefish). C.Environmental Baseline: Listed below are some of the parameters that are identified in the Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Handbook as critical for the listed salmon. Habitat Elements:In the marine environment,one component that is very important for ocean going salmon is the forage habitat.Maintenance of available prey species,and in tum,their habitat requirements are critical.Eelgrass beds are well-documented forage areas for juvenile salmon (Simenstad and Salo 1982).It has been shown that the dominant prey species for outmigrating smaller juvenile chum salmon consist of benthic organisms such as harpacticoid copepods and gammarid amphipods(Simenstad et al. 1982)usually associated with eelgrass beds.As noted above,no eelgrass was found at the site. Water Quality:For poikilothermic organisms,including salmon,whose body temperature is determined by the ambient water,temperature is a critical environmental factor.Numerous biological and physical mechanisms,such as digestion rate,metabolic rate,appetite,predatory-prey interactions,growth rate, and cues for migration just to name a few,are inextricably linked with the temperature of the water where they live.It seems unlikely that the construction of the PRF will cause measurable temperature changes in the area. Sediment/turbidity episodes have also been identified as critical to the incubating eggs of salmon. Without proper aeration,the eggs have the potential of suffocating.However,there is no spawning habitat in the project area for the listed salmon. Watershed Condition:According to Schwartz,et al.(1991),the project site is located at a divergence zone of two drift cells.One drift cell extends to the southwest for a short distance and has a southerly drift direction.The other drift cell extends approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast with a northeastward drift direction. III. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided.The proposed project has been described and the action area defined.A habitat survey has been provided.When reviewing all the data,the potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the listed species and their critical habitat should be considered. A. Direct Effects: When considering the direct effects of the proposed project,one must determine if the proposed project will immediately reduce or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat.The potential,direct impacts caused by the construction process include increased noise and turbidity due to pile driving. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Romp and Float Project• 10 Pile driving noise:Feist et al.(1992)reported that salmonids could be expected to hear pile driving noise approximately 2,000'from the source.Based on the studies at the Everett Homeport,these researchers concluded that pile driving did alter the distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and chum salmon. Noise from pile driving may mask the approach of predators.The impacts of pile driving noise depend upon the number of fish present in the area,the distance of the fish from the site and the duration of the pile driving process.Pile driving noise at this site will probably have short-term impacts on the listed fish species.The pile driver will be in operation for approximately six hours and pile driving will take place during an approved work window(discussed below),which will minimize contact with the listed fish. Marbled murrelets spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting.In the critical nesting areas,fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species(WDW 1993).There are no critical nesting habitats or nests within close range of the project.No murrelets have be observed in the area in the summer.It seems unlikely that the brief pile-driving phase will impact any 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 turbidity and noise on migrating salmonids,bull trout and spawning surf smelt,pile driving should take place during the work window from July 16 to September 14.Work during this period will reduce the possibility of contact with these species. Due to the scarcity of Steller sea lions,humpback whales,Southern Resident killer whales and leatherback sea turtles in the action area,it is concluded that the proposed project construction and its presence will have no effect on these four species. B.Indirect Effects: Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time.For this project,indirect effects might include alteration of nearshore juvenile salmon migratory pathways,increase in salmonid predation, reduction in prey resources and refugia due to shading of the epibenthic substrate by the structure and increased boat use. Migratory pathway alteration:It is generally accepted that overwater structures can alter migration behavior of juvenile salmon(though the effects may vary depending on the design and orientation of the structure,degree of shading,and the presence of artificial light),and reduce salmon prey resources and refugia by shading aquatic plant life(Simenstad et al. 1999;Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b). However,the significance of these effects is not clear.As Simenstad et al.state,"We found no studies that described empirical evidence supporting or refuting that modification of juvenile salmon behavior in shoreline habitats was reflected in changes in survival."Nightingale and Simenstad state,"Presently, although we know that under some conditions small juvenile salmon will delay or otherwise alter their shoreline movements when encountering an overwater structure,the conditions under which this behavioral modification is significant to the fishes'fitness and survival is relatively unknown." A study by Williams et al.(2003)found that,"Salmon fry were observed in all nearshore habitats during each transect sampling period(day and night).The fry were observed under a wide range of PAR values(0.0 µmol m-2 s-1 to 2370 µmol m-2 s-1).Fry were observed both outside the terminal (Mukilteo ferry terminal)and underneath the terminal at all times,and shadows produced by the I0-m- wide terminal structure did not appear to act as barriers to fry movement at this location." Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Romp and Float Project• 1 t 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. 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 crushing impacts:Shading caused by overwater structures and float grounding can reduce or eliminate eelgrass,macroalgae and other epibenthic organisms. The following design parameters will lessen both shading and crushing impacts on the benthic environment: •The floats will have 33%grating installed. •The pier will have 52%grating installed. •The ramp will be fully grated. •The pier,ramp and ramp float will be oriented within approximately 45'of true north. •Stub pilings and float stops will suspend the float at least 12"above the seabed during low tides. Boating impacts:Boating activity can cause damage to the aquatic habitat due to prop scour and increased turbidity.In several studies,aquatic vegetation and benthic organisms were found to be absent or greatly reduced in areas where boat traffic was high and the propellers were within one foot of the bottom(Chumra and Ross 1978;Ogilvie 1981).Langley(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). Almost no macroalgae was present at this site and no eelgrass.Therefore,it seems unlikely that boating activity will cause significant scouring impacts. 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. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 12 Fuel spills are another potential source of pollution.Crude oil and petroleum produce behavioral changes in fish at low concentrations,with physiological impacts occurring at higher concentrations (Warrington 1999).Warrington concludes that salmonids may face toxic conditions in areas with heavy marina concentrations due to petroleum pollution.The project site is not located near a marina.If refueling takes place at a marine fueling station,and not at the proposed dock structure,the possibility of fuel spills at the site is remote.If refueling takes place at the proposed structure,the possibility of fuel spills is also remote.Hand carried fuel tanks are usually filled at a service station,sealed with their cap and taken to the boat.Once in the boat,the fuel line from the engine is connected to the fuel tank. The fuel tank cap remains secured;hence,there is little chance for a fuel spill. Concerns have been expressed about impacts on Pacific herring in their holding areas caused by boating activity.Herring tend to congregate in holding areas 34 weeks prior to spawning.Penttila(pers. comm.)has stated that herring remain near the seabed during daylight hours and only move close to the surface at night(within 10 fathoms).Based on these observations,it seems unlikely that boating activity would have any significant impact on Pacific herring in the holding area. C.Interrelated/Interdependent Effects: Completion of this project will not promote future construction or other activities that would not otherwise occur without its completion.Therefore,no additional interrelated or interdependent actions that could affect species regulated under ESA will occur because of this project. D.Take Analysis: The ESA defines"take"as to"harass,harm,pursue,hunt,shoot,wound,trap,capture,collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct."The USFWS further defines"harm"as"significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding,feeding,or sheltering."It is likely that no"take"will result from this project. E.Conservation Measures: Pile driving will take place between July16 and September 14.Pile driving during this time will minimize direct impacts on migrating salmon,bull trout and spawning surf smelt. Over-water work may have to be undertaken outside of the work window.This over-water work may consist of installing precut pier decking and the installation of floats and ramp that have been constructed off-site.Pier stringers are typically attached to the pilings from a barge during the pile-driving phase. Typically,pier decking is cut to length on shore and screwed or nailed to the pier stringers beginning at the landward end of the pier.There is no possibility of debris falling into the water.The ramp and floats are towed to the site by a small workboat and secured to the pilings and pier using hand tools.This process usually takes one to two days.The construction process will be brief and will produce no more noise or turbidity than normal boat activity on Hood Canal. Additional conservation measures will minimize adverse effects of the project.They include: 1.The pier will have grating over 52%of its area 2.The ramp will be fully grated. 3.The floats will have grating over 33%of their area. 3.The pier,ramp and ramp float will be oriented within approximately 45°of true north. 4.Stub pilings and float stops will suspend the floats at least 12"above the seabed during extreme low tides. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 13 5.The PRF is a joint-use structure for three families. A copy of the joint-use and deed restriction needs to be submitted to the Corps of Engineers.The following is a sample of language to be included in the BE that would be acceptable to the Corps: Deed Restriction:A copy of this permit,permit drawings,mitigation plantings,final authorization letter,and joint-use agreement shall be recorded and proof provided to the Corps,within 60 days after final Corps authorization,to ensure that subsequent property owners are aware of the construction,use and mitigation requirements.As this authorization is for a joint-use pier,all co-applicants must voluntarily agree to build no additional overwater structures on their property,except for the maintenance or modification of the joint-use overwater structure.This voluntary agreement and the documentation described above must be recorded on the deeds of all involved parties. 6.Mitigation:According to the Army Corps of Engineers RGP-6(February,2005), 10 mitigation points will be required for this 860-ft'joint-use PRF project(Habitat Category Q.The applicants have agreed to the following mitigation measure: Remove a single moorage float(16'x 24'=384 ft')from the site: 384 ft2/9=43. 43 x 2=86 Mitigation Points(MMO#7). F. Determination of Effect: After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys,the determination of effect is: 1.Puget Sound chinook-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 2.Hood Canal summer-run chum-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 3.Bull trout-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 4.Bald eagle-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 5.Marbled murrelet-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 6.Puget Sound steelhead—a.Determination while species is proposed:"no jeopardy to the continued existence of the species" b.Determination if the species is listed:"may affect,not likely to adversely affect" This is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species and their critical habitat are expected to be beneficial,discountable or insignificant.Limiting pile-driving work to the approved work window will reduce direct impacts on the listed species.There will be no grounding impacts on the benthic environment. Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized by the conservation measures discussed above.The availability of forage fish for bull trout,salmon,marbled murrelets and eagles will not be impacted. 7.Steller sea lion-"No effect" 8.Humpback whale-"No effect" 9.Leatherback sea turtle-"No effect" 10.Southern Resident killer whale "No effect" These species are not expected to occur in the Action Area. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 14 References In addition to the literature review,several people contributed information to this study.Regional scientific knowledge aided the understanding of important ecological systems within the project area.The individuals referenced are listed below. Egan,Ron.WDFW.Marine Resources Division.Fish Biologist,Olympia,WA. Jeffries,Steve.WDFW,Senior Research Scientist,Marine Mammal Investigation Division,Olympia, WA. Johnson,Thom.WDFW,Fish and Wildlife Biologist,Fish Management Division,Port Townsend,WA. McAllister,Kelly.WDFW,Regional Habitat Biologist,Olympia,WA. Nordstrom,Noelle.WDFW,Fish and Wildlife Biologist,Olympia,WA. Nysewander,Dave.WDFW,Project Leader,Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program.Marine Birds and Mammal Biologist,Olympia,WA. Penttila,Daniel.WDFW,Marine Resources Division,Fish Biologist,La Conner,WA. Literature Anderson,B.,J.Frost,K.McAllister D.Pinco and P.Crocker-Davis. 1986.Bald eag les in Washington. Wash Wildl. 36(4): 13-20. Angell,T.and K.C.Balcomb III. 1982.Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound.Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press,Seattle,WA, 146 pp. Baird,R.W.2001.Status of killer whales,Orcinus orca,in Canada.Canadian Field-Naturalist 115:676-701 Bax,N.J. 1983.The early marine migration of juvenile chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta)through Hood Canal-its variability and consequences.Ph.D.thesis.UW,Seattle,WA. 196 pp. Beall,E.P. 1972.The use of predator-prey tests to assess the quality of chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta) fry.M.S.thesis.UW,Seattle,WA. Bernthal,C.Coordinator. 1999.Hood Canal/Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum Habitat .Recovery Plan.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Olympia,WA. Bostick,W.E. 1955.Duwamish River seining studies.In:Puget Sound stream studies,pp.5-6.Wash.Dep. Fish.Olympia,WA. Bowlby,D.E.,G.A.Green and M.L.Bonnell. 1994.Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of Washington and Oregon.Northwestern Naturalist 75:33-35. Cardwell R.D.,S.J.Olsen,M.I.Carr and E.W.Sanborn. 1980.Biotic,water quality and hydrologic characteristics of Skyline Marina in 1978.TechRep.54,Washington Dept.of Fisheries. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 15 Chumra,G.L.and N.W.Ross. 1978.The environmental impacts of marinas and their boats.A literature review with management implications,Marine Advisory Service,University of Rhode Island. Narragansett,RI. Dorcey,A.H.J.,T.G.Northcote and D.V.Ward. 1978.Are the Fraser River marshes essential to salmon? Westwater Research Center,Lecture 1,University of British Columbia,Vancouver,BC. Federal Register/Vol.61,No. 102/May 24, 1996/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol.64,No.56/March 24,1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol.64,No.57/March 25, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol.64,No.210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol 70,No.170/Friday,September 2,2005/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol 70,No.185/Monday,September 26,2005/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register,Vol.70,No.222/November 18,2005/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol.71,No.60/Wednesday,March 29,2006/Proposed Rules Feist,Blake E.,J.J.Anderson and R.Miyamota. 1992.Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha)and chum(O.keta)salmon behavior and distribution.FRI-UW-9603,Fish. Res.Inst.,UW,Seattle,WA. Groot,C.and L.Margolis(eds.). 1991.Life history of Pacific salmon, UBC Press,Vancouver,British Columbia. Healey,M.C. 1982.Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries:the life support system,pp.315-341.In:V.S. Kennedy(ed.),Estuarine comparisons.Academic Press,New York,NY. Jeffries,Steven J.,Patrick J.Gearin,Harriet R.Huber,Don L.Saul and Darrell A.Pruett.2000.Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Wildlife Science Division,Olympia,WA, 150 pp. Johnson,Orlay W.,W.Stewart Grant,Robert G.Kope,Kathleen Neely,F.William Waknitz,and Robin S. Waples. 1997.Status review of chum salmon from Washington,Oregon,and California.U.S.Dept.of Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo.NMFS-NWFSC-32, 280 pp. Langler,K.F.,A.S.Hazzard,W.E.Hazen and W.A.Tompkins. 1950.Outboard motors in relation to fish behavior,fish production and angling success.Transactions of the 15th Annual North American Wildlife Conference.pp.280-303. Myers,J.M.,R.G.Kope,G.J.Bryant,D.Teel,L.J.Lierheimer,T.C.Wainwright,W.S.Grand,F.W. Waknitz,K.Neely,S.T.Lindley,and R.S.Waples. 1998.Status review of chinook salmon from Washington,Idaho,Oregon,and California.U.S.Dept.of Commerce,NOAA Tech Memo.NMFS- NWFSC-35,443 pp. Neave,F.1961.Pacific salmon:ocean stocks and fishery developments.Pac.Sci. Congr.Proc. 1957(10): pp.59-62. Nightingale,Barbara and Charles Simenstad.2001 a.Dredging activities:marine issues.Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Washington Department of Ecology,and Washington State Department of Transportation,Olympia,WA, 144 pp. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 16 Nightingale,Barbara and Charles Simenstad.2001b.Overwater structures:marine issues.Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Washington Department of Ecology,and Washington State Department of Transportation,Olympia,WA,177 pp. Ogilvie,M.A. 1981.The mute swan in Britain, 1978.Bird Study.28:87-106. Osborne,R.,J.Calambokidis and E.M.Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound. Island Publishers,Anacortes,WA, 191 pp. Osborne,R.W.2003.Southern resident killer whale sighting compilation 1990-2003.The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor,WA 98250. Ralph,C.John,Sherri J.Miller,Linda L.Long,Brian P.O'Donnell,Michelle McKenzie and Kim Hollinger. 1997.Annual Report.Marbled murrelet and landbird research.Redwood Sciences Laboratory,U.S.D.A.Forest Service. Ratte,L.and E.O.Salo. 1985.Under-pier ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon in Commencement Bay. Report to Port of Tacoma,FRI-UW-8508,Fish.Res.Inst.UW,Seattle,WA. Rieman,B.E.and J.D.McIntyre. 1993.Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout.Gen. Tech,Rpt.U.S.Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station,Ogden,UT.38 pp. Salo,E.O.and R.E.Noble. 1953.Chum salmon upstream migration.Minter Creek Biological Station Prog.Rep. (Sept.-Oct. 1953).Wash.Dept.Fish.,Olympia,WA. Salo,E.O. 1991.Life history of chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta).In:C.Groot and L.Margolis(eds.). Pacific Salmon life histories. UBC Press,Vancouver,British Colombia. Schwartz,Maurice L.et al. 1991.Net shore-drift in Washington state: Volume 4,Hood Canal region. Washington Department of Ecology,Olympia,WA. Simenstad,C.A.and E.O.Salo. 1982.Foraging success as a determinant of estuarine and nearshore carrying capacity of juvenile chum salmon(Oncorhynchus keta)in Hood Canal,Washington,pp.21- 371.In:B.R.Melteff and R.A.Veve(eds.),Proceedings of the North Pacific Aquaculture Symposium, Alaska Sea Grant Rpt.82-2. Simenstad,C.A.,K.L.Fresh and E.O.Salo. 1982.The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon:an unappreciated function.Pp.343-364.In:V.S. Kennedy,(ed.),Estuarine comparisons.Academic Press,New York,NY. Simenstad,C.A.,(ed.). 1988.Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes,Workshop proceedings,Washington Sea Grant,Seattle WA,September 8-9, 1988. Simenstad,Charles A.,Coordinator. 1998.Estuarine landscape impacts on Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca summer chum salmon and recommended actions.University of Washington,Seattle,WA. Simenstad,C.A.,B.J.Nightingale,R.M.Thom and D.K.Shreffler. 1999.Impacts of ferry terminals on juvenile salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines.Phase 1:Synthesis of state of knowledge. Report to WSDOT/TJSDOT Research Report T9903,Task A2, 116 pp.+appendices. Stalmaster,M.V. 1987.The Bald Eagle.Universe Books,New York,NY,227 pp. Taylor,W.S.and W. S.Willey. 1997.Port of Seattle fish migration study.Pier 64165 short-stay moorage facility:qualitative fish and avian predator observations.Prepared for Beck Consultants,Inc.Draft report to the Port of Seattle. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 17 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle District,RGP-6:Maintenance,Modification and Construction of Residential Overwater Structures in Inland Marine Waters within the State of Washington.February 14, 2005. Warrington,P.D. 1999.Impacts of outboard motors on the aquatic environment. www.nalms.org/bclss/impactsrecreationboat.htm Washington Department of Wildlife(WDW). 1993.Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington.Unpubl.Rep.Wash.Dept.Wildl.,Olympia,WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and °Steethead Stock Inventory,Appendix One,Puget Sound Stocks,Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Volume,Olympia, Watson,J.W.and Elizabeth A.Rodrick. 1998.Bald Eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)in Volume IV: Birds.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Olympia,WA. WDFW 2005.Marine Finfish,Shellfish,and Baseline GIS Coverages,Published Map Files,and the Map version of Tech Report 79.Plus Marine Protected Areas.Published in April,2005 Weitkamp,Don E.September 2003.Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats.Review Draft. Parametrix,Inc.Kirkland,WA. Wiles,G.J.2004.Washington State status report for the killer whale.Washington Department Fish and Wildlife,Olympia. 106 pp. Williams,G.D.,R.M.Thom,D.K.Shreffler,J.A.Southard,L.K.O'Rourke,S.L.Sergeant,V.1. Cullinan,R.Moursund,and M.Stamey.Assessing Overwater Structure-Related Predation Risk on Juvenile Salmon:Field Observations and Recommended Protocols.September 2003.Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation Under a Related Services Agreement With the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 18 ,- r � f � ���� 1� � ;��� :� � tTitJ\"\\.t; '� � +i.: �r ��ti,;ram_�V� F`-�.,,.0 a�r- -� >> �,. , ;;; rf ;. �. , �� �J.J�- �` . � , . � � � �' i `ter�) ��� �Y ��_^_- �� �,�� r v. -1� f`'�tr--� a •��I. �J ��-�� r�� ;�i� �'�,+�,+ .�-- � � ..�� � •;�,, - -- - - - - Figure 2.Site Plan NORTHSHORE ROAD GALANDO 10891 SWEENEY 10871 10651 CARTER CARTER LUND -� � {9' EXISTTN6 RAMP � PROPOSED PIER, 70' RAMP AND FLOAT- EXISTING PIER 115'LONG AND FLOAT EXISTING I&BV 24' ARM BO FLOAT TO BE Q REMOVED A5 MITMATION EXISTING FLOAT rl EBB HOOD CANAL FLOW Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 20 ur r j 11' 0 �!I T_ O cp fl 4' 6' 01 fD m O tAl f G X 4' STUB PILE N TN GRATING (ONE OF THREE) 53%TOTAL GRATED AREA R 7 ON PIER 20. A p T Q N � o Oo' G p O O � t 6'X 69 PIER LD � N N 4'X 40 FULLY GRATED RAMP A .-II- Q MHW 10.8' 3 7 FLOATS Q T O (3) MILW 0.0' DATUM- "O 0 FLOAT STOPS n' ON TWO LANDWARD TIDAL ELEVATION FLOATPILES 1.e N Figure 4.Marbled murrelet aerial survey map - summer I , ..� tt ., X__ ellingham s { v+ v aria ML vemon t � I I Port An e j Marbled Murrelet Observations (On and Off Transect) Summer 92-99 Aerial Surveys verett PSAMP,WDFW 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 ✓ `l �. KILOMETERS p Areas Sampled �( 1-2 birds "+ Bremerton ❑ 3-4 birds r Seattle r ® 5-6 birds F 7-8 birds +/ �F Project site 9-11 birds _ Y'i' T � Tacoma LI f� y� J 44 ice' Olympia Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•22 Figure 5.Marbled murrelet aerial survey map-winter + Ilingham qn Y r+ R \� v oria JCS` Mt.Vernon r� Part Angeles V d Marbled Murrelet Observations (On Transect) d Winter 93-99 Aerial Surveys Everett PSAMP,WDFW 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 r KILOMETERS ` ID Areas Sampled �� Bremerton 0 1-2 birds + ❑ 3-4 birds Seattle ® 5-6 birds s 7-8 birds II i 9-10 birds Project site y 11-24 birds d, t '• "` R' Shelton11 "^ Tacoma 4 Olympia Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 23 Figure 6. Documented forage fish spawning areas 1' SUR.FlIkEL 1 r'.: BEACH �` \ PR6iECT SITE PACIFIC HERRING ti HOLDING AREA SAND LANCES SPAWNING +` BEACH ti PACIFIC HEMNG SPAWNING AREA (YELLOW AREA) �h !f E 't Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•24 Attachment 1.SCUBA survey transect map SWEENEY I CARTER Tl T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 DISTANCE FROM SUBSTRATE ON BUCLKHEALD�ADND DEPTH ON T3 25' PEAGRAVEL COBBLE OYSTER SHELL 26 NY PEAGRAVEL COBBLE _ 75' 0.4 100 2.6 E 10 SAND — 116 3 6 BROKEN SHELL GRAVEL 125' COBBLE — -42' MACROALG'E PRESENT AT DENSITIES GREATER THAN 5% E=Enteromorpha 150' F=Fucus — -6.5 Sargassum and osiphon were present.a lower densities FI SAND OYSTER SHELL F 5 _ 180 TN 1 -10.4 HOOD CANAL Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 25 A 3 t _ y _ _ - .t'� ems.• i _ .e r ` } 11 W t., ^s' •`_',;� `' � u� ��-ill '�, yW I 3 Looking northeast from the site at the Carter boat ramp Moorage float that will be removed as mitigation Cotter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•27 Attachment 3. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service species list October 22,2003 LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT;CANDIDATE SPECIES;AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN WESTERN WASHINGTON AS PREPARED BY THE U.S.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WESTERN WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised October 8,2004) MASON COUNTY LISTED Wintering bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)occur in the county from about October 31 through March 31. There is one bald eagle wintering concentration located in the county along the Lower Hamma River. There are 30 bald eagle nesting territories located in the county.Nesting activities occur from about January 1 through August 15. There are four communal winter night roosts located in the county. Bull trout(Salvelinus conjluentus)occur in the county. Marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)occur in the county.Nesting murrelets occur from April I through September 15. Northern spotted owls(Stria occidentalis caurina)occur in the county throughout the year. Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2 Effect of the project on listed species'primary food stocks,prey species and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project activities and implementation(e.g., increased noise levels, increased human activity and/or access, loss or degradation of habitat)that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Romp and Float Project•28 DESIGNATED Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl has been designated in Mason County. Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet has been designated in Mason County. PROPOSED Critical habitat for the bull trout(Coastal-Puget Sound distinct population segment)has been proposed in Mason County. CANDIDATE Fisher(Martes pennanti)(West Coast distinct population segment) Mazama pocket gopher(Thomomys mazama)(includes ssp.couchi,glacialis,louiei, melanops,pugetensis, tacomensis,tumuli,yelmensis) Streaked horned lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata) Whulge(Edith's)checkerspot(Euphydryas editha taylori) SPECIES CONCERN California wolverine(Gulo gulo luteus) Cascades frog(Rana cascadae) Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) Long-eared myotis(Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis(Myotis volans) Northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter(Enhydra lutris kenyont) Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus cooper:) Olympic torrent salamander(Rhyacotriton olympicus) Pacific lamprey(Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon(Falco peregrinus) River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog(Ascaphus truei) Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vandykei) Western toad(Bufo boreal) Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project • 29 Attachment 4.Essential Fish Habitat Assessment A. Background The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act(MSA),as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996(Public law 104-267),requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat(EFH)for the relevant species.According to the MSA,EFH means"those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,breeding,feeding,or growth to maturity."For the Pacific West Coast,the Pacific Fisheries Management Council(Council)has designated EFH for federally managed groundfish(PFMC 1998a),coastal pelagic(PFMC 1998b)and Pacific salmon fisheries(PFMC 1999).Species of fish in the three groups present in the Puget Sound at various times in their life-history phases are seen in the table at the end of the Assessment. The purpose of the EFH Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed project on the EFH for the relevant species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid,minimize of otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH. B.Identification of EFH The designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the mean high water line,and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths,along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California,seaward to the boundary of the U.S.exclusive economic zone(370.4 km)(PFMC 1998a,1998b).The designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for salmon species extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone(370.4 km)offshore of Washington,Oregon and California north of Point Conception to the Canadian border(PFMC, 1999). C.Proposed Action The details of the proposed project are presented in Project Description section of the attached BE.The project consists of construction of a new,joint-use,pier,ramp and float structure extending into Hood Canal. D. Effects of the Proposed Action The effects of this project on designated EFH are likely to be similar to the effects described in detail in the Effects Analysis section of the attached BE.The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH designated for groundfish,coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook,coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)due to noise and turbidity impacts from pile driving. E. EFH Conservation Measures The conservation measures and BMP's mentioned in the attached BE will be implemented to minimize any possible adverse effects to EFH. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•30 F.Conclusion The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH for groundfish,coastal pelagics and Pacific salmon,but will not adversely affect EFH for groundfish,coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)in the long term. G.Additional References PFMC(Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999.Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A:Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat,Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon(August 1999). PFMC, 1998a.Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan(October,1998). PFMC, 1998b.The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan:Amendment 8(December, 1998). Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•31 Species of fishes, and life-stages with designated EFH in the waters of Puget Sound. (?=uncertain) Species Adult Spawning/ Juvenile Larvae Eggs/ Mating Paturition Groundfrsh Spiny fish X X Big Skate X X X X Califomia Skate X Lon nose Skate X X Raffish X X Lin cod X X X X Cabezon X Kelp Greenling X Pacific Cod X X X X Pacific Whiting Hake X X Sablefish X X X X Black Rockfish X X Bocaccio X ? X ? Brown Rockfish Canary rockfish ? ? X China Rockfish X X Copper Rockfish X X ? Darkblotched Rockfish X X Greensbiped Rockfish X X Pacific Ocean Perch X X Quillback Rockfish X X ? Redbanded Rockfish X Redstriped Rockfish ? Rosethorn Rockfish X X Rosy Rockfish ? Rou he a Rockfish X ? Sharpchin Rockfish X ? Shorts pine Rockfish X X Stri etail Rockfish X Tiger Rockfish X X Vermillion Rockfish X ? X Yellowe a rockfish X Yellowtail Rockfish X ? X Arrowtooth Flounder X X Butter Sole X X Curlfin Sole X Dover Sole X Ix I X Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•32 English Sole X X X X X Flathead Sole X X X X Pacific Sanddab X X Petrale Sole X X Rex Sole X X X X Rock Sole X X X Sand Sole X X Starry Flounder X X X Coastal Pelagic Species Northem Anchovy X X X X Pacific Sardine X X X X Pacific Mackerel X X X X Market Squid X ? Pacific Salmon Coho Salmon X X Chinook Salmon X X Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•33 Attachment 5.Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook and Hood Canal Summer-run Chum Project description:Construction of a new,joint-use,pier,ramp and float structure in Hood Canal. Applicant:Bill Carter,Jeff Sweeney and Marvin Lund 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 flood lain connective to form and maintain physical P connectivity p ys cal 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 (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. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 34 Existing Conditions:There was almost no macroalgae at the site and no eelgrass(see Habitat Survey and Attachment 1 in the BE).There is no submerged large wood or overhanging vegetation.There are documented surf smelt spawning beaches at the site.There are no large rocks,boulders or side channels at the site. Effects to PCE:Pile driving will produce brief and localized increased turbidity within 25'of each piling. The project will have no impacts on water quantity,salinity conditions or water temperature.Work windows will prevent impacts to salmon and bull trout. Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized by installed grating in the structure. Grounding impacts will not occur because of the use of float stops and a stub piling.Based on the best available science,it is not clear at this time whether or not the presence of the structure will have negative impacts on migration and overall mortality of the listed fish species.See the above-mentioned section in the BE for a more detailed discussion of this issue. (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" Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•35 Attachment 6. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal- Puget Sound Bull Trout COE reference: Unknown at this time Applicant:Bill Carter,Jeff Sweeney and Marvin Lund Primary Constituent Elements From 50 CFR Part 17,70 FR 562212-311 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,diumal 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-Hood Canal. Effects to PCE:Not applicable (2)Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris,side channels,pools,and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths,velocities,and instream 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 (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 bul I trout,or a hydrograph that demonstrates the ability to support bull trout populations by minimizing daily and day-to-day fluctuations and minimizing departures from the natural 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. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Romp and Float Project• 36 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 l 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: As noted in the Habitat Survey in the BE,there was a paucity of macroalgae at the site.There is no submerged wood and no overhanging vegetation.There are previously documented surf smelt spawning areas at the site.There are no large rocks,boulders or side channels at the site. Effects to PCE: The potential,direct impacts on foraging and migratory habitat caused by the construction process include increased noise and turbidity due to pile driving.Pile driving will take place during a period when bull trout are least likely to be in the area,thereby minimizing noise and turbidity impacts on forage and migration habitat. (7)An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin,aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. Existing Conditions: See 6 above. Effects to PCE: The indirect effects include reduction in prey resources(primarily forage fish).Again,pile driving will take place outside of the spawning period for forage fish,thereby removing any short or long- term impacts on these bull trout prey species. (8)Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal reproduction,growth and survival are not inhibited. Existing Conditions: See 6 Above Effects to PCE:There will be a brief period of increased turbidity due to pile driving,which is not expected to produce significant impacts on bull trout habitat. Determination of Effect:no destruction or adverse modification Conservation Measures:Conservation measures are seen in the Biological Evaluation for this project. Carter,Sweeney and Lund Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project• 37 VEGETATION: The following questions are designed to determine if the project will affect riparian vegetation,thereby,adversely impacting salmon. 1. Will the project involve a removal of any vegetation from the stream banks: YES NO If yes, please describe the existing conditions, and the amount and type of vegetation to be removed. 2. If any vegetation is removed,do you plan to re-plant? YES NO If yes,what types of plants will you use? -5- AMY R.LEITMAN MARINE SURVEYS&ASSESMENTS 521 SNAGSTEAD WAY PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368 Tel.360.385-4073•Fax.360.385-1724 email .seA@cablespeed.com JUN August 10,2007 ; Mason County Building Department 426 W.Cedar P.O.Box 186 Shelton,WA 98584 Hello, Please find enclosed a building permit application,associated drawings,required copies,and a fee check for the Carter joint use pier,ramp and float project.The check includes the$155.00 Planning Department Review fee and$293.70 for the Plan Check fee(65%of the Building Permit fee).The Building Permit fee will be paid when permit is issued. Respec fully, Amy R.Lei an MASON CO. ENVIROMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND PARCEL NUMBER : 1° Name of proposed project, if applicable: J�r M'T L,15 Pi EYl teA-rvAt' r, FLt)A- Name of 2. Na applicant: I i31 L-L CAerI,R t=� CycFFEg�, 0 I AWC-P 5WE.9j,joi! jr3 MARVId E Pttr►1041 LamD 3. Address and phone number of aD plicant and contact person: -0 J lOed-1-t !VWJ115HORZ Ra BELFAIY, WA `7$5-ZX ; (JC16) 3�f:- 5-11t 1 a 5 S`i C K'F: ;'Fm ora'T PL. In/ 5 A V-V , W/A `IDS 19 ri # 3 1 D$51 N E N0R'of S H0Rt jeO. 3 E'-LFA 1 R v✓A 98 5�$ Con 1-p,f - ,. AMY LErrfviArJ- gatSraA�jr�tED��,�/ay Po�2i'7�Wr/SFi�t7;wok 9 �310� 4. Date checklist prepared: 33S 3 Oc-rv(,���r2 �c�U(v 5. Agency requesting checklist: m ft-5o i-1 COurA i 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Icn ,J I E Pr-C.ivlBC- 7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal: If yes, explain. N� 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. ,(31 D L off,-j C A l_ E-VA L i.-t rj'-171)r/ 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SUgSIYtl-r�tAl_ 1�t%VFu'VM�i�'I, l;NU►�Qr�►vtE��i?�l_PFi2rvtt`r, B�t�LDi�a�PK�r��!- MPt501,j Coc,tj-oi y1; I-fPA -- WDr'ul ' 5ECr ld - LAS&C-Cv - 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project ?0 A / - r'ect description.) � c.FU F 17 5 I S � � a' - P J p ) TNL, f t S I /�l F�21 /Iry (� ! LO/�T �7�u1c� u�24. 76 6E 51,WCD 3 j }--; kA'z PfzoPg1?'Tl17--li , 1-JE STfiZvrc FUPC Uli LL C4,NS151- or A 6'xko� I=IXCD PI E' CDrv$T(21.k1 Cu OF CiM61-AS Floe , 537,) oj= hCZrA WILL i3e&e,4-Tebj ' 1 .1 , /�- � x y� �u��� G►�Ai�D s��l.� N tr vtrti1 (CAMP � �-��� � 1�R�-f F-LUA1S (/�L�C� Xao JMA-v FbsL7M A " �T AT W/VTV-k'IN1)P1b F-ruO OF, `jTP\.k('AkP-. . r—Lo4f5 ta,.4S15T rr 1'o l-LY j P Ex7rr'l A DE.D FLi L.Y E TH Y L fr-I F / Pv L OTYr1IF-pJ r— rLU{}-r(1-VeOr Ar D ALL 14AvF- - i,10 .. Fool-- w1 DC' C40A 'T ir 6- Dawr.t '714e CFauil'. Ti-4 a l► F a Ai-4 i� .3 SiL13 PI IE �, WILL LUC D91 V0n1 'Tb StAp"Ie S7T2"Clt UPe . E>)"&\�r1 <3 FiiC TP-P76- F-CO writ) 14-Ceiq (CNL�ry�drr r ). Si/Zvicitt 'M 13s�:- L,451e.D `-Fbp fieEc9r.A.11I00 , f5t."L' i3X) VtrCi40Di'iI(JNALD A-ILS 12. What is the location of the proposal? Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 10 cU T J V /0 jN0 9Tl-) RCA-D 13E L F-A 19, i v1 A SON coo/vf-rr wA `I c3 01 �w'�y , S CC Tcd410 03 W. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. EARTH: a. General description of the site (circle one):. Fla`, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? J 0 C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. eFA WAVCv L, Co�3i3LF� 51ip4D , C=-PAVE-L. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity: If so, describe. Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 2 e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. N 1q f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use: If so, generally describe. No g. About yvhat percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constructions (for example, asphalt or buildings)? N /A h'. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: N 1A 2. AIR: a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. ff41q&C.. 7z) 6ire- /OiGH-r 14AVE RACL, EM155101k15 OaR)1\4G Col'iSrguci7oIJ - ONcF. '�j_9fT P1. Md ADD iT-1014AL b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? if so, generally describe. N Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 3 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 3 WATER: a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. i 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. r� �A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 0 Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 4 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. rl 0 b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. � U 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example; domestic sewage, industrial, containing the following chemicals..., agricultural, etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. c. Water runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this flow into other waters? If so, describe. �1 J A 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters: If so, generally describe. Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 5 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4. PLANTS: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: .deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoi+, other S FF_ t3, e.) other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? N C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 6 5. ANIMALS a.� Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk eron eagl songbir ' other i11AKI�l.F- D MQ2K F t T. Mammals: eer,)bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass salmo�i trout, herring other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. CH ►tg80k_ i Hwb CAoA-(-- CHLAM 5ALfAoiq, MAt V5k AXLcg9 Q-�.'EX, &AL-D CAGA-E 't, 6ut_LTj?ov1 T. ( 5EE 1310L06-ICflL C VAUA A- 1()"\l) C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yt Z,5, -5 M IGP&T e_ A-WoG l-loo b CA rj-q--L - / d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES: a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. tiJ JA b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties: If so, generally describe. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: '10 IN Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 7 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. .r- hl -_/ L Jhl LL f- Bonn moofek: b 06A=1.. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 0 A 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: K e-O P 130 '7- WL;V0_ MA I r,1 T A b. Noise. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? r' IA 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. 5 NUF'1 T F-IQvv\ Co Co-c i c ur.:l EA Y U CI+T- /-buje-S . 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: NoNE- 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? .�iNGLF. Mason County Environmental Checklist page 8 I b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. C. Describe any structures on the site. 'To � 'Z k't._ 1 LSE � ��15', . 57 C d. Will an structures be demolished? If so what? Y , A Wo9A& f=CoA--T- Wii.I_. i e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? k.1 r-A k-,-r-10 W 0 , 1 II g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Maser Program designation of the site? LA CE54r-1 5JJ 2 E L I PJ „ � II h. Has an art of the site been classified v' area? If so specify. . b fled as an "environmentally sensitive a ec YP Y � P Y rc 5 ,.1, �-1-bo� c�- aL.- C 5 0-.rc i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? t,-i /A k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: !� t A Mason County Environmental Checklist Paee 9 I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: COMPL 141-iC t_. In-11711 LocA L S1 A'�F �' F7FDF_d0+-L. 6VCLtL(01 oil 5. WDFW "' (3eSr /►'1/i,"-)AGE-M EAT- 9. HOUSING: �'C�c Dc U ��C'ON1PL���-'1tt_ a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N fn C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N )A 10. AESTHETICS: a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? q,)" A-r3vve b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NO ra F_ c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: ti 0'tJ Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 10 11 . LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? N lA b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? O C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal: N /A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: P 1A 12. RECREATION: What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? a. g pp Y �oF�rtNG-r $�✓,-1�1M.���ICs �' �'ISIt�J�IC. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No/ OjgL,( i�rl Ham►-1CF/�rr.r i t�� �'FC����i����./� � b(S*C.3. c, Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Mason County Environmental Checklist Page I l 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION: a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally,describe. . Ut tj 14 r_10 w-o b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site, c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 14. TRANSPORTATION: a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the existing street system? Show on site plans, if any. N �r� C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 1A d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). >JjA Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 12 e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. N /A f. How many vehicular taps per day would be generated by the completed project: If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. N lA g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15. PUBLIC SERVICES: a. Would the project result in an increased need for public service (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: N � b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: 1� JA Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 13 16. UTILITIES: a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: elect ricify;,natural gas( v tee efuse service telephone, sanitary sewe septic sys -eTn,, other: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. fJ 1A Signature: The above answers are true and complete to the best oa my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date submitted: !b /('q &1"r'CO Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 14 ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST Applicant Information Project Information Name R 2 151 FF E Y"I LygQ Name kRJ/4,1-Lk5E P11FIR, RAmp C Ft v,4f' Phone L2 i LL C! I-F.iZ Location /D t O Description This worksheet was designed to help project proponents, and govenunent agencies, identify when a project needs further analysis regarding adverse effects on ESA (Endangered Species Act) listed salmonids. Salmonids are salmon, trout and chars, e.g. bull trout. For our purposes, "ESA Listed Saimonids" is defined as fish species listed as endangered, threatened or being considered for listing. If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the water shed where your project will be located, your project has the potential for affecting them, and you need to comply with the ESA. The questions in this section will*help determine if the ESA listings will impact your proj ect. .The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and Wildlife (DF)V) regional office can provide information for the following two questions. I. Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed in which your project will be located? YES _ NO Please describe. 2. Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed? YES NO Uncertain Please describe. f�UD CA-ptq-L 5-L4A4rv44F_VrZ CHuw1 t-14GE7' S�a,tn1D C'rti��LtXc F3LALk. k.e-oLALT-, ( 5C V- 8: C-) If you answered "yes" to either of the above questions, you should complete the remainder of this checklist April 2003 - 1 - PROJECT SPECIFICES: The questions in this section are specific to the project and vicinity. 1. Name of watershed: 80C L) 2. Name of nearest waterbody: (}t:U D CANAL 3. What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of water: o tq Fy A 1-�, (" . Often a buffer between the project and a stream can reduce the chance of a negative impact to fish. 4. What is the current land use beiveen the project and the potentially affected water body (parking lets,farmland, etc.)? S/ri&-E. FP-M l L Y/ R'C-SI De_—jQCQ_ V VA<-/fir!J LA-J4h. 5. Is the project above a: * natural permanent barrier(waterfall) YES NO * natural temporary barrier(beaver pond) YES NO _y, * man-made barrier (culvert, dam) YES NO * other(explain): c fi i,i VV N F_e Pei e, 'r'rM11 F uo A-' . 6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage? YES NO Don't know 0 /A 7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface (including pavement &roof area)? N �� FISH AUGRATION: The following questions will help determine if this project could interfere with migration of adult and juvenile fish. Both increases and decreases in water flows can affect fish migration. 1. Does the project require the withdrawal of: a. Surface water? YES NO X— Amount Name of surface water body b. Ground water? YES NO Amount From where Depth of well 2. Will any water be rerouted: YES NO If yes, will this require a channel change? 3. Will there be retention or detention ponds? YES NO Y, _ If yes, will this be an infiltration pond or a surface discharge to either a municipal storm water system or a surface water body? If to a surface water discharge,please give the name of the waterbody. 4. Will this project require the building of new roads? YES NO Increased road mileage may affect the timing of water reaching a stream and may impact fish habitat. 5. Are culverts proposed as part of this project? YES NO � C 6. Will topography changes affect the duration/direction of runoff flows? YES NO If yes, describe the changes. 7. Will the project involve any reduction of the floodway or floodplain by filling or other partial blockage of flows? YES NO If yes, how will the loss of flood storage be mitigated by your project? -3 - WATER QUALITY: The following questions will help determine if this project could Adversely impact water quality. Such impacts can cause problems for listed species. Water quality can be made worse by runoff from impervious surfaces,altering water temperature,discharging contaminants,etc. 1. Do you know of any problems with water quality, in any of the streams, within this watershed? YES NO If yes, describe. 2. Will your project either reduce or increase shade along or over a waterbody? YES NO see Removal of shading vegetation or the building of structures such as docks or floats often results in a change in shade. 3. Will the .project increase nutrient loading or have the potential to increase nutrient loading or contaminants (fertilizers, other waste discharges, or=ofi� to the waterbody? If ES NO X . 4. Will turbidity be increased because of construction of the project or during operation of the project? YES X NO i2i LF_ PV_%V LNG DLAP-0-4& Co),JSi 9UC_170r4 (SEP R.e.). In-water or near water work will often increase turbidity. 5. Will your project require long term maintenance, i.e, bridge cleaning, highway salting, and chemical sprays BlU vegetation management, clearing of parking lots? YES NO If yes,please describe. VEGETATION: The following questions are designed to determine if the project will affect riparian vegetation, thereby, adversely impacting salmon. I. Will the project involve the removal of any vegetation from the stream banks: YES NO If yes, please describe the existing conditions, and the amount and type of vegetation to be removed. 2. If any vegetation is removed, do you plan to re-plant? YES NO If yes, what types of plants will you use? -5- AGENCY USE ONLY -. I Agency Reference Daie Received Circulated'Dy (iocaGgovt.or agency.) 1 JOINT AQUATIC RESOURCES PERMIT APPLICATION FORM (JARPA) for use in Washington State) ) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK INK e r Application for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Project per requirements of RCW 77.55.290. You must submit a copy of this completed JARPA application form and the(Fish Habitat Enhancement JARPA Addition)to your local Government Planning Department and Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife Area Habitat Biologist on the same day. NOTE: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS-You must submit any comments on these projects to WDFW within 15 working days Based on the instructions provided,I am sending copies of this application to the following: (check all that apply) Local Government for shoreline:Ig Substantial Development ❑Conditional Use ❑Variance ❑Exemption ❑Revision ❑Floodplain Management ❑Critical Areas Ordinance gj Washington Departmerd of Fish and Wildlife for HPA(Submit 3 copies to WDFW Regan) Washington Department of Ecology for 401 Water Quality Certification(to Regional Office-Federal Permit Unit) ❑ Washington Department of Natural Resources for Aquatic Resources Use Authorization Notification Corps of Engineers for. ❑Section 404,Section 10 permit Coast Guard for General Bridge Act Permit ❑ For Department of Transportation projects only: This project will be designed to meet conditions of the most current Ecology/Department of Transportation Water Quality Implementing Agreement SECTION A-Use for at/permits covered by this application- Be sure to ALSO complete Section C(Signature Bock)for all permit applications. 1.APPLICANTS,' MAILING ADDRESS K.- 0 WORK PHONE E-MAIL ADDR SS HOME PHONE 1 FAX If C an agent is acting for the applicant during the permit process,complete#2 Be sure agent signs Section C(Signature Block)for all permit applications 2.AUTHORIZED AGENT I/JE a ' AZEWMEJ, LEIiiMAJIJ _. MAILING ADDRESS / at 5tiAG5TE/� A Poll i ���VJ'JSfD v✓A N4oy WORKPHONE( - LESS EA .�S.RELATIONSHIP OF APPLICANT TO PROPERTY:BO(NNER ❑PURCHASER ❑LESSEE ❑OTHER: NAME,ADDRESS,AND PHONE NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNER(S).IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT: �PPt►cAr� 1 : TF.FFJ:rzY KAAW 5W2&.JW-a5,89 C�xSTr�tt�Pt•WSFr1iTLE/Wit 98199 /fPPLtcAr+T#3; MAQv i rJ Pik i K1c1R �idN a- lOg 51 NE n�:K>tt5:tok�Rt� 3Et Fm�r RI WA 95Sa$ .LOCATION(STREET ADDRESS,INCLUDING CITY,COUNTY AND ZIP CODE,WHERE PROPOSED ACTIVITY EXISTS OR WILL OCCUR) /0%9r }`f /Jo4T 5J+0XF_.?C A� -6FLFAI/21 M1�56_i(Ot11.1 i Yr t./A oZ� LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH JURISDICTION(CITY OR COUNTY) Jr _%rj GQu)4_ ATERBODY YOU ARE WORKING IN /*I>D /', N NIL eUTARY OF A# THIS WATT PARR)ON THE 30:i(�LIST?YES NO EY 4 1 S P,4�,9 YES,WFAT PARAMEZF71(SYI ;!/ww%,.eay.Wa. uv! ved wns.htnil vmIsm FOR3o3d sT '/.SECTION SECTION TOWNSHIP'RANGE GOVERNMENT LOT SH04ELINc DESIGNATION sw aall"! 10- UK 13+4 1LATITUDE&LONGITUDE: I .PVT t ` i ONING MSIGNATION ^�p AX PARCEL NO: lN•l lowR s-rREAM 7YPc IF nKNOWN 3 4 -50 ooc�5 33 -5c NIA - 1 IARPA R-.j.,r 71n^r—I.nr tr—Cr..t.nfQ-aee.inotn.,fir'Sao n-FPP;t Aemm..nra ir—1­ 1-6r.n 2(.n:d(17-7n;"�,•R[tnro!?_rind; l .o-SCRIBE Tr4E CLNRRENr USE OF TH=PROPERTY,AND STRUCTJRcS=XISTIW ON THE PROPERr.HAVE YOU COMPLETED ANY PORTION OF THE c'ROoOSFD ACTIVITY ON THIS PROPERTY? :3 YES 8r10 FOR ANY PORTION OF THE PROPOSE-A_71VI'Y`ALREADY CCMPLETES ON THIS PROprR7',INDICA-c Me�ONTh`AN YEAR OF COM?�._—,ION S . /NCTLC YY.! vlI L V �JI I)C4�C.C� Z ti/il AY i 1 {JT Y' IS THE PROPERTY AGRICV_TJRAL;AND?❑YES EVRO ARE YOU A USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPAN 7 7 ❑YES 7s. DESCRIBE THE:PROPOSED WORK THAT NEEDS AQUATIC PERMITS,C, .L T,PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR ALL WORK WATERWARD OF THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OR LINE,INCLUDING TYPES OF EQUIPMENT TO BE USED.IF APPLYING FOR A SHORELINE PERMIT,DESCRIBE ILL WORK WITHIN AND BEYOND 200TEE7 OF THE ORDINARY MGY.WA7.R MARK IF YOU HAVE PROVIDED ATTACHED MATERIALS TO DESCRIBE YOUR PROJECT,YOU STILL MUST SUMMAR E THE PROPOSED WORK HEE�RE�,ATTACH{ A SEPARATE SHEET IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IB NE:DE[i. � JJ:Z•�n�l r I y/ 7I Q/ ,0 . �Q4l 5TR A(.1 4R rj�], /f $� 5 HEED 3 Y Faun mi n Psoz rI F-S• Yi N E 5;jzA c_, uR E !uY�f i't.-Lf lan,s►sr a F i4 ram'x� FIkED 9" Cnl�r 'Rilc;� OF DOL6LA-s ne, 51`% or—ARE*WTL.L$r.CRATED; A le Y. qo 1 GeA TF.D Al-umi Ltm RAMP; A ND 74REZ FLoAj- ��(� 'xao) naflT' F�►� A " 'T• A-►WAMOM D FND o1F�5--,90C PC. FLo+ CONSiSrOF Fltt- y ErIC.ioSEt'S 1n4 E:)4patDF_b 1��YE.TNYt-FavE, POL-YSTYRCWE, r-tcA-TAT7o4, AND A0- HAVE 7WC-Fj T—w►()Cc-RA-,,Nc i}tR Siu►3 Pit.ES lN►L1 Br, Diz tV TO S�f k'1' STAwcrul2E • Pi�5 AlQ_ WuC-t*5 ap- il'Zv.►T;PZ WITH A-CZA CHI.A1ram)) AND w'iLL 3ED2IV;-� WIi14 Pr ottni�D a!ocw F��� U P 14An�,1Y ek SET- g.e.)�flgDiiio.-4ALA�5 3l�rzc»-A,� PREPARATION OF DRAVANGS:SEE SAMPLE DRAWINGS AND GUIDANCE FOR COMPLETING THE DRAWINGS.ONE SET OF ONGINAL OR GOOD OUALRYREPRODUCIBLE DRAWINGS U BE ATTACHED.NOTE:APPLICANTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE,BUT THESE DO NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR DRAWINGS.THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND COAST GUARD REQUIRE DRAWINGS ON&Y/2 X If NCH SHEETS.LARGER DRAWINGS MAYBE REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES. 7b. DESCRIBE THE:PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED WORK AND WHY YOU WANT OR HEED TO PERFORM IT AT THE SITE.PLEASE EXPLAIN ANY SPECIFIC NEDS THAT HAVE INFLUENCED THE DESIGN. PRDtA.SE D WDfzlc 15 ;a 11VCR9ASF_7HZ PppDr2Ti t l,t I,—iris P-42 Of-"W 3TEe air -tci►�i. 7c. DESCRIBE THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CHARACTERISTIC USES OF THE WATER BODY.THESE USES WAY MUJEFE FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE,WATER QUAl1TY,WATER SUPPLY, RECREATION,end AESTHETICS.IDENTIFY PROPOSED ACTIONS TO AVOID,MINIMIZE,AND MITIGATE DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS,AND PROVIDE PROPER PROTECTION OF FISH AN�D1Y�� AQUATIC LIFE IDENTIFY WHICH GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS YOU HAVE USED.ATTACHA SEPARATE SHEET IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS NEEDED.771E LAkELY 7-D 8c-DETQIMEr{►`AL 7a ANy OF AC nth} &7F_RIS r_LASES DF i 1S W`/jt+TF1'- BOD�. �M P+°FcTS TO T'r5ci =' F�(�'lJ�il T 1L LJ WILL t�E A41114l/LI AL. , G 4r,IrICr WI LL (O VS9 A-r"ba+1 on dF TO-5,-►2ttcTuoe_ Tb �DucE s4+t)j jC. PI ieS WLU-3z Dawrr+ W►TN} A F"A,—nvIEr PILE DIZI.Vice USn\* A-WeP i AMAACcxeTEG4NIG_UE DA0NC, iid-WA--T—e WOfZk v✓)F4DC W5-ESTABU514ED Br(7�w_ wDFw, -71+E FLo,+T DESIGN COMPLIES W Mi W br-W CRIT'E40ZI A Fo12 WA-T>._,+_ G?.tAAL)r1 FQATATj,y,j WtvL_ aEE tfC9-m l-1Ei-LTL.y �,acA ki,,-1t-�� ;r RZoP�s © �it,Es AaE. Act C l+EMbtstsE)TREATIZb. A-LL T9X-_AT1=0 `LkS Z.D WILL MEET- 09 l;_; CCE.9_b -nor. STArdDA,2t75 ESI-Ft3 t.S HE > IP 'I l3ZSTMANAC£M9j%l—, port T7 C E5 (eo,'mNUED) d FOR IN WATER CONSTRUCTION WORK,WILL YOUR PROJECT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR TURBIDITY WAC IT3.20IA-"U? 2"ES ❑NO (SEE USEFULDEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS) 8.WILL THE PROJECT BE CONSTRUCTED IN STAGES? 0 YES PROPOSED STARTING DATE: A5 �j60r4 AS jPeRmt VS AeC- 155vtE._D t,✓jL F.S�Prt3LISH l�✓ty2lc_I.t/NDc�u/. ESTIMATED DURATION OF ACT1VIr: L�'C t�✓E iGc� .CHECK IF ANY TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT STRUCTURES WILL BE PLACED: M-WATERWARD OF THE ORDINARY HIGH WA"F_R MARK OR LINE FOR FRESH OR TIDAL WATER.;ANDPJR MW IERWARDOF MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATERLINE IN TIDAL WATEPS 10.WILL FILL MATERIAL(ROCK(FILL,BULKH SAD,OR OTH_R MAi-RIA_)BE PLACED. C WAT_=RWARO OF THE ORDNARY HIGH WATER MARK OR LWE FOR PREBH WATEPM7 IF YES,VOLUME(CUBIC YARDS) TAR=A (ACRES) G WATERWARD OF TT-MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER FOR TIOAL WA ERS? IF YES,VOLUME(CUBIC YARDS) Ara'-4 (ACRE TARPA P_,;­1 7/n7 r'n„tarH the C:sn.nfQTaeh;notn„('rFnn.of Pnrm;�Ass�cranrr.mr tAT.at vrrc;nn aAn,en7.7n;�nr annrol7_nra� �. 71.WILL MATERIAL BE PLACED IN WETLANDS? u YES SRO IF YES: A IMPACTED AREAINACP,ES: B.HAS A DELINEATION SEEN C OMPLE D7 IF YES,PLEASE SL9M17 LYTH APPLICATION. Cl YES G NO C.HAS A WE7 LAN REPOT.BEEN PREPARED?IF YES,PEASE SLeMi-WITH APPUCA70N. ❑YES NO D.TYPE AND COMPOSITION OF FILL MATERIAL,--.G.,SAND,ETC.): E.MATRLIAL SOURCE.: F.LIST ALL SOIL SERIES(TYPE OF SOIL)LOCATED AT THE PROJECT SITE,&INDICATE IF THEY.ARE ON THE COUNTY'S UST OF HYDFtIC SOILS.SOILS INFORMATION CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE(MRCS): G. WILL PROPOSED ACTIVITY CAUSE FLOODING OR OfWNING OF WETANDS? Cl YES ❑NO IF YES,IMPACTED AREA IS_ACRES OFDRAINED WETLANDS. NOTE:H yow Pmjaot vAH impact grwr than%of an acre of wotland,submf,a mitigation plan w the Corte and Ecology for approval along with the JAR A form .NOTE a 401—gVa[y—Ift -wtg b.-m-.dM1am Ecoogy in addilorr 10 en appmved milgat n plan i yd pmjp-i impech wetlands Uat an: e)9n—then.%eoe N srs. b)tidal wetlands o u tYnds adja ntfo bdel wetr.Pl——if fhe JARPA bmi and mibgetipn plan I.Ecology fa en individual 401 cadifteton f a)w b)apples. 12.STORMWATER COMPLIANCE FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS ONLY: N/A T'FIS PROJECT IS(OR WILL BE?DESIGNED TO MEET ECOLOGYS MOST CURRENT STORMWATER MANUAL,OR AN ECOLOGY APPROVED LOCAL STORMWATER MANUAL 0 YES 0 NO IF YES-WHICH MANUAL WILL YOUR PROJECT BE DESIGNED TO MEET NO-FOR CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 401 AND 404 PERMITS ONLY-PLEASE SUBMITTO ECOLOGY FOR APPROVAL,ALONG WITH THIS JARPA APPLICATION,DOCUMENTATION THAT DEMONSTRATES THE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM YOUR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY WILL COMPLY WITH i)-1E WATER QUALITY STANDARDS,WAC 173MI(A) 13.WILL EXCAVATION OR'OREDGING BE REQUIRED IN WATER OR WETLANDS? ❑YES IF YES: A VOLUME (CUBIC YARDS)(AREA (ACRES) B.COMPOSITION OF MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED: C.DISPOSAL SITE FOR EXCAVATED MATERIAL: D.METHOD OF DREDGING: 14.HAS THE STATE FNVIR AL POJJCY ACT(SE A)BEEN COMPLETED? ❑YES p'FO SERA LEAD AGENCY: Cbl l SERA DECISION:DNS,MONS,EIS,ADOPTION,EXEMPTION DECISION DATE(END OF COMMENT PERIOD): SUBMIT A COPY OF YOUR SEPA DECISION IETTER TO WDFW AS REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETE APPLICATION 15.LIST OTHER APPU CATIONS,APPROVALS,OR CERTIFICATIONS FROM OTHER FEDERAL,STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES FOR ANY STRUCTURES,CONSTRUCTION,DISCHARGES,OR OTHER CTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION Q.E.,PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL,HEALTH DISTRICT APPROVAL,BUILDING PERMIT,$EPA REVIEW,FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY SSION UCENSE(F"ERC),FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION,ETC.)ALSO INDICATE WHETHER WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND INDICATE ALL EXISTING WORK ON DRAWINGS. NOTE:FOR USE WITH CORPS NATIONWDE PERMITS,IDENTIFY WHETHER YOUR PROJECT HAS OR WILL NEED AN NPDES PERMIT FOR DISCHARGING WASTEWATER ANDIOR STORMWATEF TIDE OF APPROVAL ISSUING AGENCY IDENTIFICATION OLET DATE OF APPLICATION DATE APPROVED CMPED p l oo CC+u,�tl✓ NO. l- �r1G •• tI iti l���✓ 6.HAS ANY AGENCY❑ ED APFROVAL FOR THE ACTIVITY YOU`RE APPLYING FOR OR FOR ANY ACTIVITY DIRECTLY RELATED TO TFRE ACTIVITY DESCRIBED HEREIM 0 YES J2rN0 IF Y-ES,EXPLAIN: TLRPA RP.:ie^rl 7/(17 T'nmznr fl,.C:a...,fVi/n 7,;.,orn„f7ff;r.nr T>rrmtr A���a..rr£n ia»Er-�n-�;.,>, ;F(l7dLt i_7(f;7 n*RFVI/O7?_it(td; SECTION B-Use for Shoreline and Corps of Engineers permits onIL. 17a TOTAL COST OF PR0,ECT.T-IIS MEANS THE FAIR MARKS VALUE OF TrE PROJE�,INC`_UDING MAT_RIA:S-.ABOP.,MACH N_REN`rALS.ETC.Ir aq,CICeL 17b. IF A PROJECT OR ANY PORTION OF A PRCJ-eCT RECEIVE S FUNDING FROM AFED:-RAL AGENCY,?!iAT AGENCY IS RESPONS{9_E FD?,ESA OONSULTATION. -:ASS INDICATE!=YOU LL RECEIVE FEDERAL FUN^w^—.4PlD WHAT F�ERA!AGENC,;S PROVIa'NG TFK,`SE=JNJS. SEE INSTRUCT IONS FOR INFORMATION ON ESA^ ORAL FUNDINIG Z YES 0IVO IF YES,PLEASELIST THE FEDERAL AGENCY 8.LOCAL GOVERNM-ENT WITH JURISDICTION: M Raj-► CoL.u\t ' S.FOR CORPS,COAST GUARD,AND DNR PERMITS.PROVIDE NAMES,A.DZ�?ESSES,AND T-L=?HONE NUMBERS OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS.LESSEES,ETC... PLEASE NOT_r S.HOREUNE MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE MAY REQUIRE AODIT ZONAL NOTICE—CONSULT YOUR LOCAL GOVERAIMX NAME i ACDRESS I PHONE NUMBER I�OI'k � DOriNA i E tEib 15(r5 iL't►F"i FtF_I-"ftNr. C,ti�t4 F/RGRFSi�J+'A le _ IT, Cr A k. 1 W alJ..Y_- 5 < I ' I SECTION C-This section MUST be completed for any permit covered by this application 0.APPUCATIO14 IS HEREBY MADE FOR A PERMIT OR PERMITS TO AUTHORIZE THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED HEREIN.I CERTIFYTHAT I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE NFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION,AND THATTO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF,SUCH INFORMATION IS TRUE,COMPLETE,AND CCURATE.I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT 1 POSSESS THE AUTHORITY TO UNDERTAKE THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES.I HEREBY GRANT TO THE AGENCIES TO WHICH HIS APPLICATION IS MADE,THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LOCATION TO INSPECT THE PROPOSED,IN-PROGRESS OR COMPLETED WORK I AGREE TO START WORKONLY AFTER ALL NECESSARY PERMITS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT TE et lez- SIGNATURE OF ZrIiAORQED AGENT DATE I HEREBY DESIGNATE Am i L FW- rT tJ I IMA rI NE 5M9VF_S r�IJS F.�•Si1'�KII//,� DATE TO ACT AS MY AGENT IN MATTERS RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION FOR PERMR(S).I UNDERSTAND THAt IF A FEDERAL PERMIT IS ISSUED, I MUST SIGN THE PERAU. J�///� -// r IGNATURE OF APPLICANTDATE SIGMA OF LA R(EX PT PUBLIC ENTITY LANDOWNERS,E.G.DNR) THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BVFTHEfAPPUCANT ANO THE AGENT,IF AN AUTHORIZED AGENT IS DESIGNATED, 18 US.0§10DI pmvfdes that Whoever.in any manner within the jurisdiction of arty department or agency of the Unted States ImowfnglylalsKes,conceals,or covers up by any trick,scheme,or denim a material fact or makes any false,fictitious,or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false wrifing or document knowing same to contain any false,fictitious,or fraudWem statement or entry,shall be fined not more than$10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. i COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL 311.E Nature of the existing shoreline (Describe type of shoreline such as marine,stream,lake lagoon,ma sh bog swamp- flood villain,floodway,delta,type of beach,such as accretion erosion high bank,low bank,o-dike,material such as card,gravel, mud,clay. lock.nprap,and extent.and type of bulkheading,if any) Y$ In the event that any of the proposed buildings or strUCtures will exceed a height of thirty-five feet above the average grade "slaver,indicate the aporcivmate location of and number of resid I'=i units,existing and potential that will have an obstructed vieww C_ If the application involves a conditional use or variance,set forth in full that portion of the master program which provides that the proDesed use may be a conditional use or,in the case o`a variance from which the variance Is being sought These Agencies are Equal Opportunity and AffirtTative Action employers. For special accommodation needs,please contact the appropriate agency in the instrvetions. TGRPA Rrnri—A7J()7('--tth•Qrar.ni llir.el,;.roen,.r)fii—ofP—it Agar—fn-la-.at..rrc;nn 4nfAf7_7n:7 n-RMVQ17_M)3'I Q }C ( Corei nib C D) Fz)iq THE. u 54- OF i ec'r3jnF_D In/L'c iD i,4 Ar 6iWn C E.NviRoNmci,4 ,-S " IDEVC-L-CPOD 13% ilfE- L4'rSjFjeN WDoi7 ZIP STi i�L S� . i?CL K r r'A 1 i prl A L- USI-S Lam'1 L•L L.j k_Ll'6r t.3 ICE piEi2 De_S,GrJ Prl1.iX�j rL,2 wNCBSi Fri[rED Tic;j f2A4�-L AL,ot-+G Tt}i�_ be_A{-H . Ati�)TtAE is ZNMPA-e_:T-L.ViLL r3E M;,jo1A.L 45 TH E i5 AN E_*S;(jgG ST�v�c i�.l►2� 761 Tjif W22 7, OF FroPt t:�[b 5T PvILZl-)Z� 4tiD i , tr PApe,2i i r LL-n tt CNN-7 TO Z01C V✓Z5Sj AND nfeer_ Z 414C_ ETA5% " 6F5'T A44,-tA6-CWtZNi "��4�erne�S tn.'e�t. (3e_ e`.xEi;'eiS�J Titfz�•�ce-t--}r.��T it+ECe.�S;�:c�,;;J GF T�'EtS STr�tc TLll��c_- l. Gi2oCi , C. t t_ M/t9-,CL-I S (EDS) fq 71. LIFE, r415)-ogr or r)ACf r-iC 5AL(vtor,, e8C rVF-55, A �'3 Pr M(ER5, 7.114. Er- AL, l YS 57Ar,i,3t ��vi w t�,=ci�,�v�ot� S+L-told jeogA WA, OR, T iD, e A U.5, Dry. Or-- Coti1M FaPCF_ , N oAA TFC.•if MCM.o. NMF5 -Nwl F5C - 35r "3 PP. Nit�►�iir�c i�, aAPa el+ c CHARLFS JMIa , dvr-eWlfT e Si f�nC:iiA2F5 MRt2irli;< i 5S%.•te_S• Su"r r"FA -ib wDFw, t,✓DOE, 5 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF MASON ss. 1, C fu k e + 1�1 do hereby certify that I posted _copies of the attached tl b'TI c-e- 01= f f( A J,,a Nl.�,►` -f,�� )��ran c��r on 9 day of 'D 20 oc; in Z public places as follows: one at 10 8+1 one at `` << k k one at 7��>fz'-LEA ttg- In witness whereof,the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this I I day of 'DP 20 o b By: Address: W A STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF MASON ss.. Subscribed and swom to me this day of ,CJ�1 2006 3 � s *Residing Public e t e of Washington `. o,•'�= at N' Commission Expires . �.. ;. b11/1 p f f l l l l l 11111\\��� NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT Affidavit of Publication PERMIT SHR2006-00027 Notice is hereby given that CARTER/ STATE OF WASHINGTON I SS. LUND,who is the owner of the described COUNTY OF MASON Property,has filed an application for a Shore- line Management Permit for the development of: Julie G.Orme being first duly sworn Sub.Dev. New pier,ramp and float, on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk Site Address:10871&10091 NE NORTH of the SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,a weekly newspaper.That SHORE RD.,BELFAIR said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six Parcel Number:322245000085 months prior to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to,published in Location of Project:APPROX.W MILES the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason WEST OF BELFAIR STATE PARK AND AP- County,Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an PROX 6 MILES E OF TAHUYA ON THE N office maintained at the aforesaid lace of publication of said newspaper.That SHORE RD. P P Within:SW(quarter section)of Section: the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL was on the 9th day of 24Township:22 N Range:3 W,W.M. August, 1941, approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court of said in,Mason County Washington. Mason County. Said development is proposed within Hood Canal and/or its associated wetlands. That the annexed is a true copy of a Notice of Shoreline Memt Permit Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the ap- plication should notify: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P 0 BOX 279 as it was published in regular issues and not in supplement form of said SHELTON,WA 98584 In writing of their interest.The comment newspaper once each week for a period of two Period Is at least 30 days from the final date consecutive weeks,commencingon the of publication given pursuant to WAC 173- 14-020.The final date of publication,posting, or mailing of notice is 12121/2006. 14th day of December 2006 and ending on the Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the hearing. 21st day of December 2006 both dates inclusive, A public hearing will be held on this permit and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of request.Contact this office at(360)427-9670, the said period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the ext.294 for date and time of hearing. A Determination of Nonsignificance was foregoing publication is the sum of$ 86.24 issued on I W8/2006 under WAC 197-11-340. Written comments regarding this determina- tion must be received by 12/2PJ2006. 12/14-21 2t Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21 day of December 20 06 ``�vv*`t` Notity Public in and f t e State of Washigto NOTARY Residi g at S el n,Washington My commission expires 20 pV9e�0 1 : F1 oN_sTA MASON COUNTY 4 M �Ps C DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT O o N Z Planning Division 7 N y P O Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670 1864 SHR2006-00027 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT Notice is hereby given that CARTER/LUND,who is the owner of the described property,has filed an application for a Shoreline Management Permit for the development of: Sub. Dev. New pier, ramp and float. Site Address: g�j lO�q, NE Nbf�7I{ Slbry� RP•I �F�L �IR— r tuber: 322245000085 Location of Project: APPROX. 10 MILES WEST OF BELFAIR STATE PARK AND APPROX 6 MILES E OF TAHUYA ON THE N SHORE RD. Within:SW(quarter section)of Section:24 Township:22 N Range:3 W,W.M. in,Mason County Washington. Said development is proposed within Hood Canal and/or its associated wetlands. Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P O BOX 279 SHELTON,WA 98584 in writing of their interest.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 12/21/2006. Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the hearing. A public hearing will be held on this permit request. Contact this office at(360)427-9670,ext.294 for date and time of hearing. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on 12/8/2006 under WAC 197-11-340. Written comments regarding this determination must be received by 12/22/2006. SHR2006-00027 A, ,` l:" MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Courthouse Amex P.U.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670 SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION PERMIT NO. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT �C SHORELINE VARIANCE DATE RECEIVED SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE SHORELINE EXEMPTION The Washington State Shoreline Management Act(RCW 90.58)requires that substantial developments within designated shorelines of the state comply with its administrative procedures(WAC 173-14)and the provisions of the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program The purpose of this Act and local program is to protect the state's shoreline resources. The program requires that substantial development(any development of which the total cost or fair rnarket value exceeds$5,000.00 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the State be reviewed with the goals,polices,and performance standards established in the Master Program. Answer all questions completely.Attach any additional information that my further describe the proposed development. Incomplete applications will be returned. APPLICANT: / BILL CA'Ri F.Je ADDRESS: to -4-1 N09TK5hWe#;3>. wA (street) C3ELFA-tR, 985a8 (city) (state) TELEPHONE: 504+4- (home) I (business) 1 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: AMY LrlT-iMAt4 (M&z4r,1E SL4QVFV% T ADDRESS: $a l S N AC,`rieA-D WAY A$S ES5rb1 F-M T---.) ('%--r MW115END, WF1 18'3&A (city) (state) (Zip) TELEPHONE: 36�31M-tf.05.� PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: General location(include property address,water body and associated wetlands—identify the name of the shoreline): /65t�i v 10,391 kiog-,-H 51iDPE 12ofFD 13 Far1>�— l1E- NOKTb} He Oe hlnn GA-NA- Legal description(include section,township,and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. Projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude location)-include all parcel numbers: _ St✓I�T , Sec air T3�r1, ,e 03 w 4W6',' %0J 133° 00. sal' OWNERSHIP: Contract Applicant-Y-_Owner eX Lessee Purchaser (Identify) Other Owner: a Erriney c kAmid swEzljer a5s9 crz> r�,JT-Pw.F— w (slreaQ S EfFiTt-E L./A 9$1'77 (city) (state) (Zip) OWNCA147.3 A4,+9v,r4 r P*nztejA- LAANL-) 1"S' NO 1V09TF 5H&9lZ—PD.BeLr-019,WA IY5-18 L\PLANNMOPHARELL&RENEE/SHORELMEPERMIT.APP REWSED:06-25-03 DIiVF.LOPMENT DESCRiPTON Development(identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction methods,principle dimensions,and other pertinent information): 7NE >vl4oPD5F� 6 A /15'P/eie RAMP z F6fOT5 FAA CTIJAZ /-b 13E 5h►4Q�n t 81'Ftt,sR H4oP�:R i'7F s �N'E 5rktnc'ntltE 1✓I ILlryvSl�i of/}to` :7a'G/XF� Piele CoAif/a,Aa D D1=Nw&L*5 Fie.; / 4'X yk' �7Su l�7ED AluMinAl� LMP MJ t7 T HieEE F1 U,+TC (ALL 7ioir a2M iF T Gt 0/N3 Cor-►st T DF L tD Av �eEr/E oKA510 . 1RrEEn! I Lea 51VO PILE) TD 5L4l*b V S 12iAf M . SE a fr) Use(identify current use of property with exist improvements: r 51 N&LF F-4M%L.Y RECI ENC- 'C VACAnli AtJD. Remon for requesting development RF�tZr�,q-fl orJ. ACKOWLEDOEMENT I hereby declare,to the best of my lmowledge and belief,the forgoing information and all attached information is true and correct. (applicant r authorized representative) (date) ............................................................................... TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL Identify and describe existing features of the site and surrounding area: If proposed structures will exceed a height of 35 feet above the existing grade level,indicate the location of any residential units that will have an obstructive view: If a Conditional Use or Variance is requested,make reference to the appropriate section in the Master Program: I:IPLANNMdICHARELL&RENEESHORELMEPERMrr.App REVISED:06-25-03 The Shoreline Permit Application Page 3 PERMIT NO. S 147-7o%--oo ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office,Building 1,second floor. Jeanine Shepherd Garry&Diane Wilson Robert&Donna Tessier 4122 Ashworth Ave.N P.O.Box 1499 1565 Weathervane CT. Seattle,WA 98103 Allyn,WA 98524 Fircrest,WA 98466 Joseph&Barbara Galando Trse James&Dorice Wolfrom Trste Irwin Mortgage Joseph Galando Res Trust Wolfrom Family Trust 8435 N Stemmons Freeway 3124 SW 171"St. 26485 80i Ave.S Dallas,TX 75247 Seattle,WA 98166 Des Moines,WA 98198 Laurie Smiley Et Vir THE SHORELINE PERMIT PROCESS—Page 4 Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant.The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I/WE understand that I/WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgement indicating that I/WE understand that is MY/OUR responsibility. WE must submit the signed page as part of this application in order for it to be considered as complete. —Se /S" 0r1h APPLICANT T 7W i�''''�(�/ 1T1'7. 4L PERMIT NO.r 1. e jolo(J(.Ok EEC'('.' DATE RECEIVED: Ll�+-+�+✓ MASON COUNTY V` .I 9'lUU6 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE ORDINANCE(Chapter 17.01 MCC) 411 N.STH Street/P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 MASON COU_�'LY ENVIRONE T R APPLICATION MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT CONDITIONAL USE❑ VARIANCE❑ The purpose of the Resource Ordinance Is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas and is under the authority of Chapters 36.32,36.70A,39.34.58.17,76.09,84.33,84.34 and 90.58 RCW, PLEASE PRINT 1. ► 1! JF.F IfY c k le SwF 717 "14er 4F 3 A14gVIrJ!'Pilneirl ,, Own 01 HILL CARr�-C Owner Mailing Address:/Okrl NOR3H DtAV-RbAb Site Address:L017-1 a l0Ss`11 n S>l>� a�� city: Ret.ftj9 State:_zip: ce�au City:JJeLFAak sate w zip:!JJW. LiewritleHelder: Phone:Daytirne�, a-.Sot l Address: Fire District#: City: tea: Zip: Signature: r r Legal descrptiorn:wil�r S972. Par elNumbe 32A� Sp _ y Parc ti r Ta1,V 7 �O—�tr—/ 1( ..3 r�Cr w 103-i-;n.lav 3 Directions to Site: _ L ! _- �K /k. r4o A-0D6uitr MTF L•t�A 1 0 f} dN -niz Noterw S nRv r2nAY�. 4. State what sections require a permit: In-Holding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062 ❑ Long-Term Commercial Forest,Chapter 17.10.060❑ Wetlands,Chapter 17.01.070 ❑ Mineral Resource Lands,Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas,Chapter 17.01.090 ❑ Aquifer Recharge Areas,Chapter 17.01,080 ❑ Landslide Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.IGO ❑ Erosion Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.104 ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.102 ❑ Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,Chapter 17.01,110 X i. Identify current use of property D with existing improvements: S!n!L+t F 1 n^r Ly Icy S 1 F MC F F I/Ar A,,( 1 A1.ID. Identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction methods,principle dimensions and other pertinent information(Attach ad itional sheets ifneeded): Orl4'T r¢ !},,gyp F , �,,e e (!' Or Vr! CON RIAc Of=' !R ' 'lr LL. r O - R O' ',T [F liaLLYL '� RFjt' !ET ¢i FiJ I lin 14 L- , a vt err¢T. rz Il Any water on or adjacent to property:Saltwater Lake ❑River❑Pond ❑ Wetland ❑ Seasonal Runoff'❑ Other y� Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area?Yes ❑No K If septic is located on project site,include records. N/A Connect to septic? ❑ Community Septic? ❑Public Water Supply?0 Well? ❑ Type of Job:- New)d Add❑ Alt❑Repair❑Demolition ❑ Other Ms permit is granted pursuant to the Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17.01 MCC)and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant fmm compliance with any other federal,state,or local statutes,ordbn es,or regulatiom applicable to this project,but rot inconsistent with the Resource Ordinance.The permit may be rescinded pursuant to the event the permittee fails to comply vith the conditions of this ordinance. ARSON aNVIRONMENTAL PERMIT:$510.001005.00(with—thm p—At) AASON CONDMONAL USE ENVIR.PERMIT:$I]25.00 AASONRASOURCBORDINANCB VARIANCE:SI.225.00 REVISED:12-5-2003 IEARINOS EXAMINER:$350.00 I:aPLANNINOVrkOPACIENVIRONMWTAL PERMIT APPLICATION PURPOSE:On water recreation APPLICANT:Carter/Sweeney/Lund PROPOSED:New pier,ramp&float DATUM:MLLW REFERENCE#: IN:Hood Canal NEAR:Belfair ADJACENT PROPERTY LOCATION: 10871&10891 North COUNTY:Mason STATE:WA OWNERS: Shore Rd.Belfair,WA 98528 1. Robert&Donna Tessier S W'/.,Sec 24,T22N,R03 W SHEET 2 of 3 2.Joseph&Barbara Galando [A:N47°22.725';W 123°00.821' DATE:October 6,2006 �LA1r 1NJ11INGi 1 A _; :S.,CKS ARE PAEASU ED NORTHSHORE ROAD 1-1+1 FuRT;I"� PR ING GALANDO 10891 S WEENEY 10871 10851 CARTER CARTER LUND 60' 49' EXISTING RAMP A PROVED PROPOSED PIER, STY DCD PLANNIN RAMP AND FLOAT--!P- EXISTING PIER 115 LONG SITE P AN EQ!J!;%c7 TO BE ON SITE AND FLOAT EXISTING 1 G SUBJECT TO APPROVAL Ate•80' Q FLOAT T 9 REMOVED D-U, Ell MITIGATION EXISTING FLOAT EBB HOOD CANAL FLOW 4i 0/20 Charles McCoy 111-cumulative impacts paper Page 1 From: "Barbara Nightingale,M.M.A.,M.A.S"<barbara@biomes.net> To: "chuck McCoy"<chuckm@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 4/6/2007 3:41 PM Subject: cumulative impacts paper Chuck, t don't want to confuse things or upset the team working on the paper, so I hesitate to send out a draft right now.However,I know you had wanted a draft,due to some upcoming permit issues.I can say that at this point in terms of cumulative effects,our overall review and my review of the 2006 WDFW work reflects that there is no cumulative effects literature out there to draw upon.However,in the paper we are providing you,we provide an example of how the County might proceed with landscape planning that can capture cumulative effects,at least to some degree,and provide the County some guidance to begin to capture cumulative effects. take the following quote from the 2006 Overwater Structure and Non-Structural Piling white paper prepared for WDFW by Jones and Stokes and Anchor environmental for the ongoing WDFW Habitat Conservation Planning for their HPAs: "Only one study(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b)specifically discusses the cumulative impacts of overwater structure construction.Because this study focused on overwater structures in Washington,its findings are particularly relevant.The authors note that"The bathymetry of Washington's inland waters,that of a fjord surrounded by a narrow strip of shallow vegetated habitat,magnifies the need to protect the integrity and continuity of this limited area of nearshore habitat because of the concentrated zone of potential impact"(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001 b).This finding is directly relevant to an ESA analysis, because it identifies that area where cumulative impacts will have a concentrated expression on a limited habitat.The authors then discuss cumulative effects on"rural and natural"as opposed to"urban industrialized"shorelines.For rural shorelines,the authors find that: The habitat value of an environment that directly supports the recruitment of fish and shellfish stocks is magnified by its overall importance in stock recruitment.Its value is intrinsic to its location but its loss to stocks and the larger ecosystem reaches beyond its specific location.In short,protection of habitats critical to important survival and recruitment needs of fish and shellfish magnify the importance of controlling any adverse effects to them.Economically, it is far less expensive and more productive to protect existing critically important habitat that to restore lost or degraded habitats. The factors controlling habitat characteristics and the biologic assemblages that have evolved are endemic to the geologic and biologic history specific to a geographic location and region.Perhaps more significantly,the linkages among these ecosystem components are not fully understood(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b)" In talking to my co-author,he felt that single-family docks area special subset in that there is technical guidance to help the owner avoid impacts.These structures are small and by their smallness,their use of gratings,increased dock height,and non-treated wood can avoid many of the impacts of larger overwater structures that are referred to 4110/2007 Charles McCoy III-cumulative im acts a er Page 2 in our overwater structure paper. Similarly ,the paper we are preparing for Mason County does not have anything new on cumulative effects findings.However,it will have the latest citations concerning general overwater structure effects. Basically,if the dock builders use best available science in selecting their materials and positioning the dock,they can avoid most effects. However,the boat"use"effects are ongoing effects that can happen irregardless of a dock structure. I hope this is helpful and helps you in your timelines.Your work is important and not easy. Have a great weekendl Barbara Nightingale M.M.A.,M.A.S. Staff Scientist Herrera Environmental Consultants Work:360-385-1360 Cell:360-379-3666 barbara@biomes.net